# Calvin and Hodges on the DL



## InevitablyReformed

It's the top entry on the page:

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## Hippo

Well done C & H, it was a very interesting discussion that did not descend in tone as the discussions progressed.

As I have made my views on the subject clear in past posts I will not comment on the details on the debate, but you came accross well.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

I have listened to the interview and White does not deal with the Confessional Position at all. Even the experts that he uses for his textual arguments blows a hole in his non-TR Confessional position. For instance, leading contemporary textual critic, Dan Wallace on his own blog admits that the Divines based their doctrine of perfect preservation on the Textus Receptus,

"The response by Protestants was swift, though perhaps not particularly well thought out. In 1646, the first doctrinal statement about God preserving his text was formulated as part of the Westminster Confession. The problem is that what the Westminster divines were thinking of when they penned that confession was the TR. By virtually ignoring the variants, they set themselves up for more abuse."

Kurt Aland the principal editor of the Nestle-Aland edition of Novum Testamentum Graece writes, “Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’” Barbara Aland writes, “Every Theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament which was regarded as the ‘revealed text.’ This idea of verbal inspiration (i.e. literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) ….was applied to the Textus Receptus.” Merrill M. Parvis states, “The Textus Receptus is not the ‘true’ text of the New Testament,” but concedes, “It [the TR] was the Scripture of many centuries of the Church's life. ... The Textus Receptus is the text of the Church. It is that form of text which represents the sum total and the end product of all the textual decisions which were made by the Church and her Fathers over a period of more than a thousand years.” Samuel Tregelles notes, "Beza’s text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based."


White claims that the TR has proven mistakes - a claim he can only make if he has access to the originals. Also, he then tries to claim that "pure in all ages" could not mean the TR as it was not directly accessible to all believers in all ages who could not speak Greek. That is not what the Confessional or the TR only position which maintains that God preserved His words in an available manner for the whole Church. 

William Orr in his commentary on the Confession accepts, “Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately inspired by God because it was identical with the first text that God has kept pure in all the ages. The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the Textus Receptus of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the Confession of Faith."

White repeats the whole chesnut that Erasmus used the Vulgate to backtranslate the last few verses of Revelation, despite Hoskier disproving this hypothesis. Erasmus also had access to the Vaticanus readings and rejected multiple readings of them and not just I John 5:7. White cannot prove that the Comma Johannine was imported from the Vulgate yet he boldly makes this assertion. 

White's basic position on the WCF is that God singularly cared for His Words to keep them pure in all ages but we did not have them for 1500 years and are still not sure we have them all. I do not think that he can show any evidence for this view. In fact, the Divines utilised I John 5:7 in their original edition of the WCF as a proof text. 

Also, White shows his inconsistency in the text that he follows. The bottom line is that the CT is closer to the Vulgate Text than the TR. The Divines rejected the Vulgate text as corrupt (I can put on multiple quotes for this). Yet White, in his book, defends the clearly corrupted Vulgate text in Mark 1:2 just because he is wedded to the Critical Text. This is despite the fact that the strongest test ie the internal evidence of the Bible itself shows that the TR is accurate in that the citation is "written" by the prophets and not Isaiah. 

White also spends a lot of time pouring scorn on the view that the Church received the true words as akin to Romanism tradition. Yet, what he does not acknowledge in his claim for "consistency" is that he utilises the same pre-suppositional argument for canonicity.

He rejects any theories that cannot be proven yet posits the argument that Islam prevented the Alexandrian texts taking over the true Church. Sorry, Mr White we cannot argue on this hypothetical either. He pours out sarcasm as to there being no monolithic Byzantine tradition but never acknowledges that teh most divergent tradition is the Alexandrian - just run a comaprison between Vaticanus and Sinaticus!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

P.S., Please fix your signature per,
The PuritanBoard - Signature/Profile Reqts
Thanks.


----------



## TimV

> White cannot prove that the Comma Johannine was imported from the Vulgate yet he boldly makes this assertion.



If there are thousands of Byzantine manuscripts and only one, which is very recent, contains the Comma Johannine, it's fair for any reasonable person to say that a collation of the Byzantine texts doesn't have the Comma Johannine.

This above is a typical technique of the extremist TR position. Demanding that one prove a negative. They use the hopelessly illogical methodology of starting from a theory taken on faith and work backwards picking and choosing from all sorts of data to prove the theory rather than to test it by trying to disprove it. Then to make matters worse, they demand their opponents prove a negative. It goes like this:

"God would have preserved a text, and in the fullness of time revealed that text to the Church. This was in 106 editions of the TR which were made over a period of a couple centuries, and although those editions differed from one another you can't bring that up or you lack faith. 

Most of these editions have the Comma Johannine, so since most of those editions have the Comma Johannine, it must be part of the TR. It's true that we claim the TR came from the Byzantine textual family, and that virtually none of the Byzantine texts have the Comma Johaninne, but *YOU CAN'T PROVE IT NEVER EXISTED* so it must have existed, otherwise God doesn't keep His promises.

It's true that in one case we're basing our argument on the number of texts which support our claim, and it's true that in another case we reject that the number of texts as a basis for our claim. And you have to accept what we say, otherwise God is a liar."


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> White cannot prove that the Comma Johannine was imported from the Vulgate yet he boldly makes this assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there are thousands of Byzantine manuscripts and only one, which is very recent, contains the Comma Johannine, it's fair for any reasonable person to say that a collation of the Byzantine texts doesn't have the Comma Johannine.
> 
> This above is a typical technique of the extremist TR position. Demanding that one prove a negative. They use the hopelessly illogical methodology of starting from a theory taken on faith and work backwards picking and choosing from all sorts of data to prove the theory rather than to test it by trying to disprove it. Then to make matters worse, they demand their opponents prove a negative. It goes like this:
> 
> "God would have preserved a text, and in the fullness of time revealed that text to the Church. This was in 106 editions of the TR which were made over a period of a couple centuries, and although those editions differed from one another you can't bring that up or you lack faith.
> 
> Most of these editions have the Comma Johannine, so since most of those editions have the Comma Johannine, it must be part of the TR. It's true that we claim the TR came from the Byzantine textual family, and that virtually none of the Byzantine texts have the Comma Johaninne, but *YOU CAN'T PROVE IT NEVER EXISTED* so it must have existed, otherwise God doesn't keep His promises.
> 
> It's true that in one case we're basing our argument on the number of texts which support our claim, and it's true that in another case we reject that the number of texts as a basis for our claim. And you have to accept what we say, otherwise God is a liar."
Click to expand...


Tim, 

Try and avoid pejorative terms like "extremist" to describe other Confessional brethren. I note the unedifying and disgraceful _ad hominen_ comments James White made about Kent Brandenburg in contrast to his sycophantic approach to the apostate Ehrman. I do not agree with Br Brandenburg on his ecclesiology or baptism views but he is not a "bigot" or a "liar" because he interprets the Bible differently from me on certain passages.

I John 5:7 - With respect those are not the facts. White et al conveniently ignores these when throwing around the statistics. For instance, John Gill's commentary on I John 5:7 tells us "out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it." Secondly, the Westminster Divines used this as a proof text for the Trinity which all Reformed Elders swear on oath as a Confession of their Faith. Now, you and James White may wish to derogate from this part of the Confessions but you should be consistent.

What you call "hopelessly illogical methodology" is simply letting the Bible promises of perfect preservation as _a priori _guide us in identifying the perfect text. It is the same pre-suppositional approach you use to identify that the Book of James was in the Canon and Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans is not. So, your argument is self-refuting. There is nothing wrong with starting with a pre-suppositional view of Scripture and then interepreting the facts from this - that is why we believe Creationism, Virgin Birth, miracles despite the so-called scientific, rationalistic, or historical evidence that may appear to contradict it.According to your logic it is acceptable and even necessary to have theological pre-suppositions about the resurrection, but it is unacceptable to hold theological pre-suppositions about the historical sources that the belief in the resurrection is based upon. 

Now, before you come on and tell us that no essential/Fundamental doctrine is affected by any variant either above ground or buried still in the sands of Egypt, you should consider the telling blow Ehrman made against White on this point. Ehrman pertinently observed that arguing that no doctrine is affected because we have essential purity in percentages of agreement between manuscripts is fallacious as one could have 99 words out of 100 that were the same but this would be irrelevant if the missing word was 'not.' That is a problem that you cannot resolve.

Now,please explain to me how the Critical Text on Mark 1:2 is consistent with the internal evidence of Scripture.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> They use the hopelessly illogical methodology of starting from a theory taken on faith and work backwards picking and choosing from all sorts of data to prove the theory rather than to test it by trying to disprove it.



Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament Scriptures. All Christians start by faith in this fact, and then appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures which confirm their basic starting position. They certainly do not test their position in true Cartesian style by trying to disprove it.


----------



## Grymir

I heard it to and thought CalvinandHodges did well. I thought Dr. White spent all the time on little issues instead of the big picture. Which is something people against the TR seem to do. I don't understand why they spend all the time on a few verses, instead of discussing the philosophy that the translators use, or the methods that they employed, or the actual history of the texts used. It's like spinning your wheels on the little issues instead of the bigger ideas. I would of enjoyed a broader disscussion on those issues instead of dwelling all the time on a few verses.

I especially enjoyed the the Jerome quotes CalvinandHodges brought up. Which were really good.


----------



## tellville

Obviously people are listening to this show with their "textual" lenses because I thought Dr. White clearly "won". Kudos to both though for having an intelligent conversation without going Jack Bauer on each other!

On a side note: I've been reading through the NKJV, a translation I've never even given the light of day (I guess because so many people on both sides of the debate flame the NKJV) and I've really appreciated the textual notes as well as the English. I feel so much more informed seeing where all the major variants and textual issues are while reading.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Thanks to InevitablyReformed for starting this thread.

I thought that Dr. White was a very gracious host. He was quite patient with me who has no experience at live debating, and who has little experience on the Radio. Afterwards, I found that I was kicking myself saying, "I should have said this..." 

I thought that Dr. White brought up some very important issues.

When I asked him if he thought that the TR was an authentic copy of the autographs he kind of surprised me by replying "no." I did not expect that level of bluntness. His response was very telling:

"How can it be authentic when it has so many errors in it?"

He gave a short list of those errors: Luke 2:22; 1 John 5:7,8; Rev 16; and the last verses of the book of Revelation.

First, and I would appreciate anyone's response to this, it appears to me that Dr. White's answer here is very similar to Dr. Erhman's point that I was elucidating in the previous thread:

Dr. Erhman questioned the inspiration of the Scriptures because there were many variations in the text. How could God have preserved the MSS of the original with so many "errors" in its transmission?

Dr. White pointed out that the Byzantine MSS are not an ivory tower - but has many various readings in it. He also pointed out the above - the TR has many "errors" in it, so, then how could it be authentic much less inspired? I am assuming here that if the TR is not authentic, then it cannot be considered inspired.

It is this line of argumentation by Critical Text scholars that concerns me. The problem is not alleviated by the Critical Text. The CT has far more "errors" and transmissional difficulties than the TR. The list, compiled by Jack Moorman, is about 8,000 which amounts to about 20,000 words. This comes to a 10% difference - about 1 in 10 words in the NT are changed by the Critical Text.

It is very eye-opening in class: I look at my TR as my professor uses the CT, and the differences are very telling. It appears to me, and, I believe, to anyone who will objectively look at the texts, that both cannot be correct.

It would have been nice if Dr. White had given me his agenda for this conversation, but it was not necessary. He wanted to delve into specifics where I was prepared for speaking about text transmission, Providence, and the TR vs CT.

I had never heard that Luke 2:22 was a disputed text. When I opened Metzger's _Text Commentary_ (2nd Edition) today he does not even list it as a disputed text. Is such in the 3rd Edition?

We discussed 1 John 5:7,8; Rev 16 (?); and the final ending of Revelation.

I don't remember the verse citation on Rev 16 - I will have to listen to the debate again - However, if what Dr. White has said is legitimate, and I do not deny that it may very well be, then I believe that the TR should be amended according to the Byzantine Greek witness.

When it comes to 1 John 5:7,8 - this is one of the times when I kick myself and "should have said..." 

I will readily admit that the Greek witness to this text is scant. When Dr. White asked me if there was one ancient Greek text that contained the Comma, *then I should have mentioned* Robert Dabney's citation of Codex Wizenburgensis, "which Lachman dates in the 8th Century."

I did cite Jerome's statement in the canonical epistles, and mentioned that both John Calvin and John Gill mention this in their respective commentaries on 1 John 5:7. What I was not prepared for was Dr. White's reply:

Do you know what kind of changes need to be made in the TR if we include one minority reading from the Vulgate in the text?

I was thrown a bit by this statement. It was a very good question, but not without a good answer - another "I should have said this..."

My initial response was that in the other readings that Dr. White is now proposing - does Jerome make a similar comment? His answer to this was not very satisfying.

However, there are better reasons against Dr. White's question.

First, (and this was implied in my response) are the readings that Dr. White is now requiring me to consider - found in the Byzantine MSS of the Greek Text? I will not consider non-Byzantine texts.

*Though there are scant Greek Text readings for the Comma Johanneum there are Greek Texts in the Byzantine family that contain it.*

Second, does Jerome attest to the texts *in the same fashion* that he does to the Comma Johanneum? This was the point I made in the discussion.

Third, (not mentioned in the discussion) Are there other translations, Syriac, Old Latin, etc, which contain these said variations?

Much weight, in my opinion, can be placed upon the Waldensian Old Latin text which can be found in the translations into French by Robert Olivetian, and into the Italian Diodati. I do not know if we have a copy of the Waldensian text today. I know we have copies of the Old Latin, but I do not think they are Waldensian in nature. The Comma can be found in all of these.

I believe the above three criteria are enough to answer the question that Dr. White asked - a very apropos question - I might add.

In the last verses of Revelation I challenged Dr. White to show where Erasmus, in his annotations, wrote: _ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca_ - that he supplied the Greek from the Latin.

This "story" concerning Erasmus has been debunked here:

Erika Rummel, _Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian _(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986)

I emailed Dr. White this citation after the debate - I did not have it handy.

The reference concerning Hoskier is:

H. C. Hoskier, _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2_ (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644

It is worth looking into further.

All in all I thought it went well. 

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## A.J.

Hi To Everyone,

I find discussions like this one interesting. In the past, I've been influenced by a King James Only position advocated by Jack Chick. Right. I was an avid reader of his tracts, and there are fundamental Baptist groups in my country which have been influenced by his writings. 

But that was before I discovered Reformed Theology. I then found Dr. James White's website which has always been a useful resource to me. I haven't read much about the nature of this debate, and haven't made up my mind on this. And I thank you all for bringing this ever relevant issue. For the record, I grew up memorizing verses from the KJV. So reading this version has not been that difficult for me. 

CalvinandHodges, I thank thee for thine posts here and in the recent thread discussing manuscripts issues also. They were very helpful.


----------



## Hippo

armourbearer said:


> Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament Scriptures. All Christians start by faith in this fact, and then appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures which confirm their basic starting position. They certainly do not test their position in true Cartesian style by trying to disprove it.



In order for Jesus to be Messiah he must satisfy the Old Testament prophecy's, but he is not the Messiah because he ticks the various boxes. The Jews identified countless candidates on the basis of prophecy and then appealed "to the Old Testament Scriptures which confirm their basic starting position" and look where it got them, false Messiah's. The claim as Messiah is made by Jesus, and attested to by miricles, it is not something that was arrived at solely by looking at the Old Testament.

The problem is that when the claim is made that the promise to keep the word pure through all ages is made this refers to the TR and this excludes all other manuscripts it just falls down and in so many ways as has been illustrated.

To prepare the TR you have to look at the various Byzantine manuscripts and using textual critisism recreate what to the best of your skills was the original text. Everyone accepts that the original Erasmian texts contaioned many errors and it was by looking at the manuscript tradition that such errors were largely corrected. In view of this it is illogical to compalin about the concept of textual critisism when a form of CT is being discussed, of course you can argue about the technicalities of such critisism and the weight put to various texts but you cannot disreagard the CT on the basis that it is an artificial text, if you did that you would have to reject the TR as well.

If you are preparing a TR by looking at the Byzantine texts the Comma Johannine illustrates a huge problem for the TR position, the only possible reasonable basis for concluding that after looking at the histoical evidence the Comma Johannine should be included is that it was providentially included by Erasmus. There are countless other possible variants hinted at by previous sources or included in a couple of texts but no one is suggesting that these should outweigh the overwhelming weight of the manuscript tradition.

The only basis given for excluding the Alexandrian manucripts from a textual consideration of the biblical texts are that:

1) There were heretics in Egypt
2) The Alexandrian line was providentially extinguished
3) The Church did not have access to Alexandrian manuscripts for a thousand years

Of these 1) is just plain daft. You have to be on guard against corruption in any tradition and given the problems with the Byzantine tradition (albeit much less pronounced than the Alexandrian variants) it is pure assertion to say that one has been kept pure while the other has not. If there had been additions to the Alexandrian manuscripts that were at odds with orthodoxy then this would be worrying but that is not the case. If the Gnostics did corrupt the Alexandrian texts they did a pretty poor job of it. 

I find the contention that the spread of Islam was providential to the destruction of Alexandrain texts to have very little merit. You can label anything providential if it agrees with you, it is a dead end argument. Why is it not providential that the Alexandrian manuscripts have been preserved?

It is a gross misuse of presupositionalism to legitimise a claim that a TR only position is sound, in doing so your presupposition is that the TR is the preserved pure text so your presupposition and conclusion are the same. You can justify anything by that argument.

The correct presuppositions are that the Canon was inspired by God, it is innerant and that it has been preserved through all ages.

We have the ancient texts and to pick a fifteenth century manuscript and say this one is it is not the result of sound presuppositions, it verges on superstition. To solve textual issues by edict using a "hopelessly illogical methodology" cannot be remedid by the presuposition that you were right in the first place.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Hi Mike

I think you are replying to what you believe are a standard KJVO position. Most who post on here would not argue the way you are assuming. I know I certainly would not.

You cannot compare the textual critical approach of the CT with Erasmus. He was merely identifying the text handed down through the Church whereas the CT proponents are seeking to restore a text that has been lost for over 1500 years through purely naturalistic methods. 

Also, all of the CT textual critics deny that the original text has been or ever can be recovered and I can cite liberals, evangelicals such as Wallace, and even Fundamentalists scholars like William Combs who will state this as an axiom. Not very helpful when you believe God has according to Scripture and the Confessions kept His Word "pure in all ages."If the Church has been without the most authentic text of the New Testament for nearly two millennia then it is far-fetched to argue that God has “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” the New Testament text. God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut. 31:9-13,24-29; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Peter 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11). Logically, if all the Scriptures were “written,” for the purpose of instructing New Testament saints (2 Tim. 3:16), that purpose for the inspired writings must invariably demands their perfect preservation. 

No one here is arguing that there was no variants in the manuscripts handled by Erasmus, Beza, KJV translators et al but that providence guided these men to identify the true text which the Church eventually settled on in 1611 (just like they did with the books). This is not a crazy methodology as it is exactly the same utilised to determine the inerrant canon. Let me illustrate with the views of Reformed author, Keith A. Mathison who argues,



> The fallible “Jewish Church” was entrusted with the Old Testament Books for around fifteen hundred years and through His providential guidance managed to preserve an inerrant canon, so there is no prima facie reason why we cannot believe that God could entrust the New Testament books to a fallible New Testament Church and that they would also be able, under His providential guidance, to preserve an inerrant and authoritative canon. How does this happen apart from an infallible decree from an infallible Church telling the people of God which books are truly the Word of God? Jesus said His sheep hear His voice and do not hear the voice of strangers (John 10:4-5). God’s people in the Old Testament era hear His voice and God’s people in the present era hear His voice. Apart from such supernatural providential preservation, there is no way to explain the extent of unanimity that gradually arose concerning the twenty seven books of the New Testament.



Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem correctly adopts a similar fidelistic pre-supposition to canonicity,



> The severity of the punishments in Revelation 22:18-19 that come to those who add or take from God's words also confirms the importance of God's people having a correct canon.



He also, paradoxically, sees the pressing need for preservation yet still ultimately rejects it when he argued, “We know that God loves his people, and it is supremely important that God's people have his words, for they are our life (Deut. 32:47; Matt. 4:4).” 

You are arguing for canonised books made up of uncanonised words - you adopt a fidelistic approach for the former but reject it for the latter as "illogical." Can you give us an objective reason why. It should be noted that there are at least 50 times more verse for preservation than inspiration and 100% more verses to show preservation than canonicity. So our pre-suppositional approach to preserved Words is not a blind unreasonable faith. 

There are doctrines affected by the CT and it is absurd to argue otherwise. Let me cite the famous Mr Dan Wallace again,



> I do think that there are many textual variants that need to be wrestled with so that we can know how to live and how to act. Should we fast as well as pray when performing exorcisms? Should women be silent in the churches or not? Is eternal security something that Christians have or not? Are we still under the OT law? How should church discipline be conducted—viz., should I address someone who has not sinned against me or am I allowed to confront only those who have sinned directly against me? These are issues that are directly affected by the textual variants and they require some serious thinking and wrestling with the data. So, I would say that to the extent that these variants do not represent the original text, to the same extent they are not what God intended.



You say that it is "superstition" to "to pick a fifteenth century manuscript and say this one is it" yet you pick up 6,000 manuscripts floating around including the 1,000 or so Dan Wallace says are still probably unidentified or dug up yet and say they may have all of the Words. That is not very certain or helpful either.


----------



## TimV

> I am assuming here that if the TR is not authentic, then it cannot be considered inspired.



That is naturally where your presuppositions would take you if you demand that all three quarters of a million words in the Bible have to be exactly the same as in the Books in their directly inspired form for a Bible version to be authentic.

Rob, please answer me two straight questions. Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?



> I find the contention that the spread of Islam was providential to the destruction of Alexandrain texts to have very little merit. You can label anything providential if it agrees with you, it is a dead end argument. Why is it not providential that the Alexandrian manuscripts have been preserved?



Yes, that bothered me a well in the interview. Another common Independent Fundamental Baptist type of thinking that drives me to great frustration. Just two days ago I heard an IFB preaching on the radio while I was driving. He said many statisticians have proven a correlation with events like Hurricane Katrina with the US forcing Israel to compromise with Palestinians. And some people really take sort of "scholarship" seriously.

White pushed Rob into admitting that he thought the God sent the Muslim armies "south" to destroy the Alexandrian tradition. Rob, both Alexandria and Antioch fell to Islam within three years of each other! Have you checked a map for directions? And you do know the modern name of Byzantium? I was hoping you would have admitted that you were under pressure and weren't thinking clearly.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> White pushed Rob into admitting that he thought the God sent the Muslim armies "south" to destroy the Alexandrian tradition. Rob, both Alexandria and Antioch fell to Islam within three years of each other! Have you checked a map for directions? And you do know the modern name of Byzantium? I was hoping you would have admitted that you were under pressure and weren't thinking clearly.



This is not as telling a blow as you or James White thinks. In fact it backfires on you both. 

The truth is when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 the study of the classics in Europe was quickened by the exodus of large numbers of Greek scholars, with their manuscripts of the old Greek and Hebrew authors, from Constantinople to Italy and Germany, France and England. These Byzantine manuscripts were in the main the very ones that Erasmus was able to construct his printed edition from. However, you could not say the same for the Alexandrian manuscripts which remained buried/locked away for another 400 years. 

So providence was working and keeping these Words accessible generally to the true Church in every generation. Remember, God has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His Word in all generations. For instance, when Moses broke the original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not hundreds of years later. In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired word by preparing Baruch to record exactly the words of the former scroll. God perfectly preserved His word to all generations in both instances just as He promised (Isaiah 59:21; Psa. 33:11; Psa. 100:5; Psa. 119:89-90)!


----------



## TimV

Mr. F., could you please answer me two straight questions?

Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?



> The truth is when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 the study of the classics in Europe was quickened by the exodus of large numbers of Greek scholars, with their manuscripts of the old Greek and Hebrew authors, from Constantinople to Italy and Germany, France and England. These Byzantine manuscripts were in the main the very ones that Erasmus was able to construct his printed edition from. However, you could not say the same for the Alexandrian manuscripts which remained buried/locked away for another 400 years.



So, Europe got large quantities of Byzantine texts 14 centuries after Christ, and only got Alexandrian texts 18 centuries after Christ, and that justifies Rob's statement that God sent the Muslim armies "south" (even though it isn't true) and White actually fell into a trap by contesting this?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Tim,

You are the one who brought providence up and sought to interpret it. Now, you do not like its conclusions because it leaves you with one answer.

If God is preserving His words unto all generations, as per Scripture, then the Alexandrian manuscripts fail the test as they were not available to anyone generally for 1400 years. I have demonstrated that the Byzantine manuscripts were made providentially available throughout this period. For instance, Bishop C. J. Ellicott, chairman of the 1881 Revision Committee, issued a pamphlet in that same year in which he significantly conceded that the Received Text was as ancient as the Vaticanus B,



> The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive (Byzantine) manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts (i.e., Codices B, Aleph, A, C, and D), if not older that any one of them.


----------



## dalecosby

I listened to this DL as well and found it to be very interesting.
I want to thank Rob for having the guts to come on the show.

A few weeks ago, some more extreme KJVO advocates (true KJVO advocated, more than just TR people here) Spent a few weeks on their show speaking against White's book, the King James only Controversy, yet they would not come on the Dividing Line and discuss this directly.

So while I do agree with White on this subject, I do appreciate those who are willing to debate the subject with White.

That is something Gail Riplinger is not willing to do.


----------



## TimV

> You are the one who brought providence up and sought to interpret it. Now, you do not like its conclusions because it leaves you with one answer.



No, you've swallowed a theory with a "one or the other" mentality built into it, and it's affecting your judgment. Just like any one who disagrees with your theory "must" support the CT, you've assumed I would be as presumptuous at to interpret God's working in history to support a theory not held by any major denomination anywhere in the world.

My whole post was a criticism of that sort of thinking. No where did I presume to interpret God's providence in history. That was Rob, not me. Please concentrate for a bit on that, and if necessary re-read the posts.

Now, please answer two straight questions. Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> No, you've swallowed a theory with a "one or the other" mentality built into it, and it's affecting your judgment. Just like any one who disagrees with your theory "must" support the CT, you've assumed I would be as presumptuous at to interpret God's working in history to support a silly theory not held by any major denomination anywhere in the world.
> 
> My whole post was a criticism of that sort of thinking. No where did I presume to interpret God's providence in history. That was Rob, not me. Please concentrate for a bit on that, and if necessary re-read the posts.
> 
> Now, please answer two straight questions. Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?



Tim,

Like James White, you need to learn to hide your detestation of those who happen to disagree with you from the TR camp. In all of your postings you cannot help sneering at them.

Unfortunately, you keep widening this discussion. I am quite happy to put on mutiple quotations from the Reformers and the Divines that the CT textual readings of the Vulgate were corruptions and were not included in the Confessional fences they erected around the TR. You claim, ludicrously, that the WCF position which includes providential preservation of the authentic text as including I John 5:7 as not held to by any "major denomination." Err... try most of the Reformed churches. Let us start with the Free Presbyterians of Scotland, Ulster and the Bible Presbyterians of Singapore.

You also feel you have the unanswerable question here on KJV/ESV. Let me say that no translation is inspired but is derivately inspired in so far as it reflects the originals as preserved in the preserved text. Could you tell me when the ESV says "it is written in Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2 is it inspired?

Now, you answer my question: Do you believe we have an inerrant canon? If so, on what pre-suppositional objective grounds have you based your conclusion on?


----------



## sotzo

This thread is stellar and making headway for alot of observers out here who are considering this issue. 

Mods, there may be some heat being thrown, but please let them keep going because the passion is helping fuel the arguments for our consideration. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in before a mod steps in.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Moderator note. I disagree about the passion. Everyone dial it back and discuss the issues without feeling the need to castigate and excoriate. Otherwise this will just deteriorate and the thread will get closed. Consider this fair warning.

N.B. Clarification on vows. The Bible PC in this country and Canada did not adopt the original Westminster proof texts, and I believe the OPC has the proofs largely from the PCUSA's 1896 revision along with their own changes. I do believe the 1 John reference was dropped either in 1896 or subsequently by the OPC. In the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) the original proofs are used but are not formally a part of their standards. One can disagree with these changes, but due to revisions it is not true that all reformed elders take an oath to uphold that proof text. It would be fair to say I think that in this country in the conservative Presbyterian churches the majority do not take any vows to the original proofs. 



ThomasCartwright said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've swallowed a theory with a "one or the other" mentality built into it, and it's affecting your judgment. Just like any one who disagrees with your theory "must" support the CT, you've assumed I would be as presumptuous at to interpret God's working in history to support a silly theory not held by any major denomination anywhere in the world.
> 
> My whole post was a criticism of that sort of thinking. No where did I presume to interpret God's providence in history. That was Rob, not me. Please concentrate for a bit on that, and if necessary re-read the posts.
> 
> Now, please answer two straight questions. Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Like James White, you need to learn to hide your detestation of those who happen to disagree with you from the TR camp. In all of your postings you cannot help sneering at them.
> 
> Unfortunately, you keep widening this discussion. I am quite happy to put on mutiple quotations from the Reformers and the Divines that the CT textual readings of the Vulgate were corruptions and were not included in the Confessional fences they erected around the TR. You claim, ludicrously, that the WCF position which includes providential preservation of the authentic text as including I John 5:7 as not held to by any "major denomination." Err... try most of the Reformed churches. Let us start with the Free Presbyterians of Scotland, Ulster and the Bible Presbyterians of Singapore.
> 
> You also feel you have the unanswerable question here on KJV/ESV. Let me say that no translation is inspired but is derivately inspired in so far as it reflects the originals as preserved in the preserved text. Could you tell me when the ESV says "it is written in Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2 is it inspired?
> 
> Now, you answer my question: Do you believe we have an inerrant canon? If so, on what pre-suppositional objective grounds have you based your conclusion on?
Click to expand...


----------



## TimV

> You also feel you have the unanswerable question here on KJV/ESV. Let me say that no translation is inspired but is derivately inspired in so far as it reflects the originals as preserved in the preserved text.



OK, can you point to one specific Greek text or collation and say that it is inspired in every word?



> Now, you answer my question: Do you believe we have an inerrant canon? If so, on what pre-suppositional objective grounds have you based your conclusion on?



I believe that God's Word has been kept pure in all generations, but not necessarily written down in one place. I believe that before the Church agreed on our Canon, before, during the process of compiling the Canon and before several of the Books of the Canon were even written, God's Word was kept pure.

If you want my personal opinion, I would not have included, like Luther and the KJV translators the Apocrypha, even with the caveats provided. I think that through great study and yes, providential preservation the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible are properly included. 

The overwhelming majority of Protestant leaders and thinkers have been in agreement with this for centuries, and would be arrogant and presumptuous of me to think that I've come up with some new doctrine to dispute the choices made by these people over the centuries.

Just as I think it would be presumptuous to think that the overwhelming number of Protestant leaders and thinkers were wrong when they accepted, starting in 1516, that better information would allow refinements in the wording of these 66 Books.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

My position is that God preserved all of His Words for every generation in a manner in which it is generally accessible as He promised in Scripture. Now having got my Scriptural framework I look at the historical and textual evidence to coincide with this. In similar vein, I believe in Creationism ex nihilo and I then sift through the scientific evidence testing it by the scriptural pre-supposition. Now, the only text that fits this scriptural pre-supposition is the Greek/Hebrew texts underlying the King James version. So my belief is that all of the inspired Words are there to answer your direct question.

Many will say this is ludicrous and foolish, but the choice is absolute certainty or pepertual uncertainty.This uncertain “certainty” position of the CT advocates is in marked contrast to what the Lord spoke through Solomon about the inspired words, “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Prov. 22:20-21).God also promises in Proverbs 1:23 “I will pour out My Spirit unto you, I will make known My Words unto you.” 

Theology teaches us that all that God does is in perfect harmony with Who He is. To argue that God has done anything imperfectly really flies in the face of His Self revelation and Self Declarations. By adopting the perpetual uncertainty model of textual critics today, like the Enlightenment rationalists, we have exalted man as the measure of all things. Textual critics place themselves as God’s judge by positing that the only appointed and fore-ordained means of salvation and the surest basis for the knowledge of God is somehow less than He intended. If we cannot trust God by faith to keep His Word to preach in its entirety, who is able to determine the minimum He did give us that is necessary for us to live by and how can we know they are correct? Paradoxically, many professed Calvinists today argue that God is Sovereign over salvation, sanctification, inspiration, preserving Israel and the Church remnant but yet for some reason, textual variants are too much for God to keep His Words.

Tim, Can you give any objective reasons for why you believe in 66 books other than the "overwhelming majority of Protestant leaders and thinkers have been in agreement with this for centuries?" 

What evidence have you that these same leaders believed that "better information would allow refinements in the wording of these 66 Books?" Do you accept that the Reformed Protestants until the days of Warfield would not have contemplated any changes to the Received Text from any non-Byzantine source?


----------



## TimV

> Tim, Can you give any objective reasons for why you believe in 66 books other than the "overwhelming majority of Protestant leaders and thinkers have been in agreement with this for centuries?"



I answered your last statement fully and clearly, now it's your turn to answer.
Can you point to one specific Greek text or collation and say that it is inspired in every word?



> What evidence have you that these same leaders believed that "better information would allow refinements in the wording of these 66 Books?"



How many do you want? Isn't Erasmus enough?



> "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."





> Do you accept that the Reformed Protestants until the days of Warfield would not have contemplated any changes to the Received Text from any non-Byzantine source?



During the last year I've largely limiting the scope of my argument to those texts within the Byzantine tradition. I frankly doesn't concern me much from which tradition changes have been made. There are enough places where the TR differs from the vast majority of Byzantine texts that there's no reason to go to the CT.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> I answered your last statement fully and clearly, now it's your turn to answer.
> Can you point to one specific Greek text or collation and say that it is inspired in every word?



I just did - the texts underlying the KJV.



> How many do you want? Isn't Erasmus enough?



Yes, much more. No one here is arguing that Erasmus' work was the finalised text. Also, demonstrate that those coming after 1611 believed the text was open for amendment from outside the printed editions of the TR.


----------



## Hippo

The best way to get somewhere on this thread would be for us to attempt to agree what the correct preuppositions are, in that way we can hopefully agree the foundations and then see wht the resulting building look like.

Now this is probbaoby a difficult task but it may be more worthwhile than arguing from the conclusions that arise from hidden presuppositions.

It may be that due to the heat this topic develops this could be a mod policed exercise. Or Perhaps Rev Winzer could do this, he may lean towards the TR position but he has a brain the size of a planet and I am sure that no one would question his credentials as a being of pure logic.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

TimV:

I do not like to answer your posts, because I believe that much of the heat on this thread - and the other one - was generated by you. Why you have not received an infraction for your conduct is beyond me.

However, in answer to your questions:

No, I do not believe that the KJV is inspired.

Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CharlieJ

CalvinandHodges said:


> Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.



So... it isn't inspired? Inspired means no errors, right? So if you even had a spelling error (from the texts, not the printer), that would nullify its qualification to be inspired.

If there is room for emendation as long as it does not "affect the doctrine," then any of the GNTs in print would qualify. As to "sense," that's a vague word. I think anything other than spelling or punctuation would alter sense in some way.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Everyone stick to the subject as indicated in my previous post and let the moderators worry about moderating. If you think a post is out of line use (wisely) the report a post feature.


----------



## TimV

> Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.



Rob, in regards to CharlieJ's post, could you please tell me exactly how many emendations to the TR are allowed before a translation is no longer inspired?

If you would like, we can limit the sources of the emendations to the Byzantine tradition. Up to how many changes can be made to the TR and still have the TR inspired by God?


----------



## Skyler

CharlieJ said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... it isn't inspired? Inspired means no errors, right? So if you even had a spelling error (from the texts, not the printer), that would nullify its qualification to be inspired.
> 
> If there is room for emendation as long as it does not "affect the doctrine," then any of the GNTs in print would qualify. As to "sense," that's a vague word. I think anything other than spelling or punctuation would alter sense in some way.
Click to expand...


By those standards, then, do we have an inspired Bible today?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

CharlieJ said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... it isn't inspired? Inspired means no errors, right? So if you even had a spelling error (from the texts, not the printer), that would nullify its qualification to be inspired.
> 
> If there is room for emendation as long as it does not "affect the doctrine," then any of the GNTs in print would qualify. As to "sense," that's a vague word. I think anything other than spelling or punctuation would alter sense in some way.
Click to expand...


Hi:

No. inspired does not mean "no errors." Innerrant means "no errors." I believe that the Holy Spirit can inspire a work that may have grammatical errors in it. Or, seeming errors based on human philosophy.

Berkhof:

_The object or design of inspiration is to secure infallibility in teaching .... The effect of revelation was to render its recipient wiser. The effect of inspiration was to preserve him from error in teachcing._

Inspiration is both Verbal (the words) and Plenary (all the words) of the Bible. We have the words and all of the words which God spoke in the Byzantine MSS extent today. Here are the classic texts which teach the Inspiration of the Scriptures:

Jesus says, "Not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all be fulfilled."

Paul: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Peter, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men, but Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

First, the paltry "errors" which can be found in the _Textus Receptus_ do not change a doctrine of the church nor do they change the sense of the passages in question. They can be easily fixed by referring to the Byzantine MSS which address the particular passages under question.

An excellent example is given by Dr. White in Rev. 16:5. The "O Lord" should be changed to "Holy One" because there is no Greek testimony to the reading of "O Lord." I think that Dr. White has done a great service to the _Textus Receptus_ by pointing this out. "Holy One" is a reading found in the Byzantine MSS.

Second, there is no rule set down in the Bible that God needs to have an innerrant text in order to inspire the Scriptures. I would point out 1 Corinthians 1:14 and the statement by Paul that he baptized no one but Crispus and Gaius. Then, in verse 16 he adds that he baptized the house of Stephanas.

Is 1 Cor 1:14 "inspired" even though it contains an error? Yes. We search the Scriptures to find the whole truth.

Do I believe that the _Textus Receptus_ is inspired even though there may be some paltry and/or seeming errors in it? Yes, I do. We can search through the thousands of Byzantine MSS to determine the truth of the matter.

Blessings,


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Others can state their own view but Rob's view that inspired does not mean inerrant opens a can of worms. 

I most certainly do not agree that I Cor 1:14 and v16 are examples of errancy. There are many ways of explaining this without surrendering inerrancy. For instance, Paul could have been referring to "you" in v14 as part of the group that was being divisive or he could have separated Stephanus' house as they no longer lived/attended the particular local Church at Corinth he was writing to at that point in time.

My view is that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to settle on the Words. Now, if the TBS in their TR edition has printing errors that has no effect. If the Cambridge or Oxford edition in English has errors in it the same. 

The only consistent position is to look at Scrivener's TR and compare it with what the Church received and settled on in 1611 and accept those were the actual Words of the autographs. 

James White seizes on a few supposed errors on the KJV and repeats them triumphantly without dealing with the horrendous errors in the CT. 

For instance, he refuses to accept the internal evidence of Scripture that Mark 1:2 is a corruption of the Vulgate into the Greek manuscripts even though every Hebrew manuscript cites has the verse written in Malachi. Secondly, Mark 8:7 as pointed out by Burgon in Revison Revised (p82) has 5 different sentences in Vaticanus, Sinaticanus and the other 3 old uncials the CT men follow. So which is right and how do we know?

The so called “oldest and best” manuscripts, upon which many modern versions rely, in John 5:4, instead of the traditional reading of BETHESDA, Vaticanus reads Bethsaida, D has Belzetha, while Sinaiticus has Bethzatha. So, perhaps Mr White could identify the inspire words in these three passages from "objective scientific principles" in a way that gives us all certainty. Lets not even begin to examine the fact that Mr White's NASB from 1963 to at least 1972 omitted all these words from their text and consigned them to a marginal note, but has now placed this inspired-expired-now inspired (for now) words in their texts!


----------



## john_Mark

Robert,

I don't mean to get off topic, but I just have to ask. How do you see 1 Cor. 1:14 as containing an error? 

In v. 14 Paul is speaking about two people amongst a certain audience whereas as in v. 16 he's expanding outside that audience.


----------



## Skyler

CalvinandHodges said:


> Second, there is no rule set down in the Bible that God needs to have an innerrant text in order to inspire the Scriptures. I would point out 1 Corinthians 1:14 and the statement by Paul that he baptized no one but Crispus and Gaius. Then, in verse 16 he adds that he baptized the house of Stephanas.
> 
> Is 1 Cor 1:14 "inspired" even though it contains an error? Yes. We search the Scriptures to find the whole truth.



One could take that methodology and find hundreds of "contradictions" in the Bible. Verse 14 and verse 16 are two verses away, part of the same thought. I usually read it "I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, so you can't say you were baptized in my name. Oh, and the household of Stephanus; I don't remember if I baptized any others." I think that's how the NIV puts it too. If you read it in context, taking each passage as a complete thought rather than breaking it up into verses--and I'm pretty sure Paul didn't when he wrote it--the "contradiction" vanishes.

If there's something wrong with my interpretation, let me know.


----------



## TimV

> The only consistent position is to look at Scrivener's TR and compare it with what the Church received and settled on in 1611 and accept those were the actual Words of the autographs.



Yes, that is the position that consistency dictates the TRers need to hold to.

Rob, do you hold to this?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

I love and agree with you all!

I do not believe that there is an error in the text. I wrote:



> Is 1 Cor 1:14 "inspired" even though it contains an error? Yes. We search the Scriptures to find the whole truth.
> 
> Do I believe that the Textus Receptus is inspired even though there may be some paltry and/or seeming errors in it? Yes, I do. We can search through the thousands of Byzantine MSS to determine the truth of the matter.


From a 1st Century Hebrew/Middle Eastern mindset the text will not show up as an error because it is corrected in another part of Scripture.

The rigorus exactitude that is required in 21st Century "scientific" America requires Paul to be precise in verse 14. That he "corrects" his "error" is not excusable.

I do not believe that the NIV translation follows the punctuation very well. There is a semicolon after verse 14, and a period after verse 15. Verse 16 starts up a new sentence that merges with verse 17.

I appreciate the NIV translators attempting to "cover up a seeming error." But, they do not have to do such a thing. Scripture interpreting Scripture is enough to solve the problem.

Blessings,

Rob

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 11:38:55 EST-----



TimV said:


> The only consistent position is to look at Scrivener's TR and compare it with what the Church received and settled on in 1611 and accept those were the actual Words of the autographs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is the position that consistency dictates the TRers need to hold to.
> 
> Rob, do you hold to this?
Click to expand...


No


----------



## Brian Withnell

The preservation of the text of scripture is what God determines is the preservation of the text of scripture.

When you read 2 Chronicles 34 and 35, Josiah is read the found book of the law. While there is no specific reference to how long it was lost, in chapter 35, the passover that was celebrated was the first one in many years (at least since the time of Samuel).

A quick search for history of the TR is here and clearly shows that prior to the printing press, there were no two versions of the Greek NT that agreed 100%. Preservation of the text prior to the printing press had to be more than an just having a well known, existent full copy of the text. The site states that with over 5000 distinct manuscripts, none of them are exactly the same.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the assurance that God preserves his word (not one letter, or the least stroke will pass away) but not as we might think.

What we know is that while we might not preserve the scripture the same way that God would, he has in fact done what he claims. If the scripture matters, and from my world view, it is the starting point of what matters, then it has to be not only without error, but must be more ... it must be infallible. The hard part of that is that I am not the judge of what that means, God is the only judge and he has preserved his word.

Erasmus had sections of the scripture for which he had no Greek manuscript, so those he translated from the Latin (with his style, that of a scholar, replacing the style of the original writer). There is no error in the scripture, but neither is it up to me or any other man to judge what that means. The scripture is not judged by man, but man by the scripture.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Brian Withnell said:


> The preservation of the text of scripture is what God determines is the preservation of the text of scripture.
> 
> When you read 2 Chronicles 34 and 35, Josiah is read the found book of the law. While there is no specific reference to how long it was lost, in chapter 35, the passover that was celebrated was the first one in many years (at least since the time of Samuel).
> 
> A quick search for history of the TR is here and clearly shows that prior to the printing press, there were no two versions of the Greek NT that agreed 100%. Preservation of the text prior to the printing press had to be more than an just having a well known, existent full copy of the text. The site states that with over 5000 distinct manuscripts, none of them are exactly the same.
> 
> Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the assurance that God preserves his word (not one letter, or the least stroke will pass away) but not as we might think.
> 
> What we know is that while we might not preserve the scripture the same way that God would, he has in fact done what he claims. If the scripture matters, and from my world view, it is the starting point of what matters, then it has to be not only without error, but must be more ... it must be infallible. The hard part of that is that I am not the judge of what that means, God is the only judge and he has preserved his word.
> 
> Erasmus had sections of the scripture for which he had no Greek manuscript, so those he translated from the Latin (with his style, that of a scholar, replacing the style of the original writer). There is no error in the scripture, but neither is it up to me or any other man to judge what that means. The scripture is not judged by man, but man by the scripture.



Hi:

Such a theory sounds good, but what you are saying is that the Word of God was judged by Erasmus.

Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Hippo

CalvinandHodges said:


> Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



I think that you have correctly assessed the TR position, the problem with this position is that an arbitrary (and I do not mean that in a perjoritive sense) decision is defended on the basis of fallen mans "feelings".

At the very least this suggests that those who do not "feel led" to this position should not be held to be in rebellion for not accepting such a personal revelation and its consequenses.


----------



## CharlieJ

CalvinandHodges said:


> Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.



I wonder what would have happened if you had said this to James White? 

Seriously, Rob, I don't think that you meant anything bad by this, but it's sort of a slap in the face to your brothers. I guess we need to go figure out where to get some more Holy Spirit. 

If you're tired of the discussion, I certainly don't mind if you jump out. I only came in because I thought your position was that the TR was the inspired, preserved word of God, but then you said it could be emended. Surely, you wouldn't amend the autographs, would you? It seems that the definition of "inspired" on this thread is somewhat elastic. Even that verse you quoted about the "jot and tittle" would seem to militate against any emendation, IF we accept the premise that God must have preserved His word in a single printed document.

Oh, BTW, you have guts for the James White thing.


----------



## TimV

Ditto on the guts thing. One has to admire someone willing to go toe to toe with someone known as a skilled debater. One could wish for more of that sort of courage in the church today.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> I think that you have correctly assessed the TR position, the problem with this position is that an arbitrary (and I do not mean that in a perjoritive sense) decision is defended on the basis of fallen mans "feelings".
> 
> At the very least this suggests that those who do not "feel led" to this position should not be held to be in rebellion for not accepting such a personal revelation and its consequenses.



Hippo,

On what basis do you accept the 66 books as the Canon of Scripture: leadership of the Holy Spirit to the reception of these books by the Church? If I agree that there are only 66 books is that an arbitrary decision also? After all I have no bible verse to guide me that this is the number. If I reject e.g. the Epistle of James am I in rebellion or a heretic?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

CharlieJ said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what would have happened if you had said this to James White?
> 
> Seriously, Rob, I don't think that you meant anything bad by this, but it's sort of a slap in the face to your brothers. I guess we need to go figure out where to get some more Holy Spirit.
> 
> If you're tired of the discussion, I certainly don't mind if you jump out. I only came in because I thought your position was that the TR was the inspired, preserved word of God, but then you said it could be emended. Surely, you wouldn't amend the autographs, would you? It seems that the definition of "inspired" on this thread is somewhat elastic. Even that verse you quoted about the "jot and tittle" would seem to militate against any emendation, IF we accept the premise that God must have preserved His word in a single printed document.
> 
> Oh, BTW, you have guts for the James White thing.
Click to expand...


Greetings:

I meant no offense in my statement, and, if I engendered anger in you concerning it, then, please, forgive me?

I was simply paraphrasing the Confession:

_The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinons of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture._

There is a testimony of the Spirit of God to the Word of God, and, to neglect such a thing when doing textual criticism is not wise. It is not a matter of feelings, nor is it a matter of the intellect only. It is God speaking in your heart through the Word testifying that these things are true.

There are good and necessary reasons for accepting the Comma Johanneum, for example, but these reasons will not convince you unless the Spirit of God testifies to the passage.

There are good, but not insurmountable, reasons why one should reject the Comma, but these reasons should not convince you unless the Spirit of God testifies to the argument.

In the end it is not what James White says or what Rob Wieland (especially me!) says - it is God speaking through His Word that is the final arbiter in textual criticism.

So, if you want to believe that the non-Comma view is correct, that is fine with me. Someday we will meet in Heaven and one of us will have a holy blush on his face because of our misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that if you consider all of the arguments for and against the Comma, and then you sit down and pray and meditate on this passage in Scripture (KJV or TR if you can read the Greek) that God will answer your prayers and confirm the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.

I believe that passages in Scripture like this are placed there by God for that very reason - that we would show our utter dependance upon God for our knowledge of Him, and not man.

Grace and Peace, brother

Rob


----------



## TimV

> On what basis do you accept the 66 books as the Canon of Scripture: leadership of the Holy Spirit to the reception of these books by the Church? If I agree that there are only 66 books is that an arbitrary decision also? After all I have no bible verse to guide me that this is the number. If I reject e.g. the Epistle of James am I in rebellion or a heretic?



Can I assume you are thinking of Luther?



> Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow



I don't see how any can doubt that Luther and many others, including Erasmus had strong doubts about such books as James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. And these doubts were more widespread until the 16th century that would make some people comfortable.

The brutal fact is that the choices for inclusion in the Canon were as difficult as the choices between the various readings of these books, and have to be handled with much prayer, thought and debate.

The feelings of Luther and the rest, and I would argue New Testament authors, was that God would and did preserve His Word. This is the reason I keep coming back to New Testament authors quoting the Septuagint on occasion, preferring certain Greek translations and traditions over Hebrew translations and traditions. 

And this is naturally why the more "conservative" segment of the AVer community denies the existence of the Septuagint, calling it a hoax, or at least claiming against virtually all respected scholarship that NT authors never quoted from the Septuagint.

Because if NT authors quoted from from two differing textual traditions, and traditions that were even further apart than the TR, CT and MT are from each other, then we have inspired evidence that while God did indeed preserve His Word to all generations it wasn't, even during the time of the writing of the NT, contained in one, specific manuscript.

The church is like a mustard seed, which when planted is the smallest seed of the garden plants, but grows into the biggest herb in your garden. It takes time, and hard work. The Church as finally come to a point where all orthodox churches recognize the 66 Books as coming from God (some feel there are other Books with at least useful teachings) and the Canon is now closed. No more books will ever be added, and none taken away from the 66.

But the Church hasn't come to the point yet where she unanimously agrees on an ecumenical text. No major orthodox denomination has done so, at least to my knowledge, and certainly we are years away from any consensus on the matter. I think we will get there, but it will take years of the same kind of hard work that resulted in our Canon.


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> In view of this it is illogical to compalin about the concept of textual critisism when a form of CT is being discussed, of course you can argue about the technicalities of such critisism and the weight put to various texts but you cannot disreagard the CT on the basis that it is an artificial text, if you did that you would have to reject the TR as well.



Textual citicism is accepted; it is the kind of textual criticism which is rejected. It is based solely on empirical considerations; and those considerations are themselves proven to be faulty when the majority of texts are taken into consideration. But the idea of being constrained only to what there is ms. evidence to support is itself rejected by all evangelicals who believe they hold the Word of God in their hand. Textual criticism as a science has only been able to settle the state of the NT text as it existed in the fourth century, but evangelicals believe they poseess the word of God as it was given in the first century. Therefore evangelicals are believing something which goes above and beyond the ability of the ms. evidence to support. What TR advocates ask of their brethren is simply that they might consider their fideistic presuppositions a little more self-consciously. Blessings!


----------



## Hippo

ThomasCartwright said:


> I think that you have correctly assessed the TR position, the problem with this position is that an arbitrary (and I do not mean that in a perjoritive sense) decision is defended on the basis of fallen mans "feelings".
> 
> At the very least this suggests that those who do not "feel led" to this position should not be held to be in rebellion for not accepting such a personal revelation and its consequenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo,
> 
> On what basis do you accept the 66 books as the Canon of Scripture: leadership of the Holy Spirit to the reception of these books by the Church? If I agree that there are only 66 books is that an arbitrary decision also? After all I have no bible verse to guide me that this is the number. If I reject e.g. the Epistle of James am I in rebellion or a heretic?
Click to expand...


On the basis of Apostolic Authority and the rule of faith that recognised the canon. The Church as a whole decided and in doing so it accepted Alexandrian manuscripts.

And yes if you rejecty James you are verging on a heretic, we are an Apostolic Church and it is not my place to decide.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 05:33:11 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In view of this it is illogical to compalin about the concept of textual critisism when a form of CT is being discussed, of course you can argue about the technicalities of such critisism and the weight put to various texts but you cannot disreagard the CT on the basis that it is an artificial text, if you did that you would have to reject the TR as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Textual citicism is accepted; it is the kind of textual criticism which is rejected. It is based solely on empirical considerations; and those considerations are themselves proven to be faulty when the majority of texts are taken into consideration. But the idea of being constrained only to what there is ms. evidence to support is itself rejected by all evangelicals who believe they hold the Word of God in their hand. Textual criticism as a science has only been able to settle the state of the NT text as it existed in the fourth century, but evangelicals believe they poseess the word of God as it was given in the first century. Therefore evangelicals are believing something which goes above and beyond the ability of the ms. evidence to support. What TR advocates ask of their brethren is simply that they might consider their fideistic presuppositions a little more self-consciously. Blessings!
Click to expand...


I cannot argue with anything you say here, and Dr White repeatedly points out that modern textual critisism no longer seeks to identify the first century text, the whole aim of confessional textual critisism.


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> I cannot argue with anything you say here, and Dr White repeatedly points out that modern textual critisism no longer seeks to identify the first century text, the whole aim of confessional textual critisism.



So it becomes somewhat important for him to beware of tearing down his own fideistic structure while he is in the process of dismantling the TR, because his arguments can easily be turned back on himself by a liberal critic.


----------



## john_Mark

What do you all make of Muller's quote below? I also don't understand how one would call Dr. White position fideism. It seems that those contra-White fall more in the fideistic camp. Bahsen, who to my knowledge was not a KJV guy, a presuppositionalist was able to argue for inerrancy, for example.



> It needs to be noted that the so-called textus receptus, was merely a part of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century process of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament. The phrase “textus receptus” or “received text” comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633 - and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct text in this particular edition. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of _terminus ad quem_ for the editing of the text of the Bible: the statement that this was the “text now received by all” simply meant that it was the text, produced by Stephanus and Beza, and slightly reedited by the Elzevirs, that was then regarded (by Protestants!) as the best available text of the Bible: namley, the critically examined combination of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the so-called Byzantine text of the New Testament. Both in the era of the Reformation and the era of orthodoxy, there was a close adherence to the Old Testament Hebrew text inherited from the Western rabbinic tradition and to the New Testament Greek text that had served the Greek Orthodox church - and the text-critical work of the era was intended primarily as a method of establishing the genuine “original” of that text tradition of the Hebrew and the Greek (an approach that also accounts for the practice of placing variants gleaned either from an alternative text tradition, such as represented by De Colines’ edition of the New Testament or as might be inferred from the Syriac New Testament or the Targums, into the annotations). Establishment of the authoritative Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, thus, was in the orthodox view to be based on a collation of the best exant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and codices - whereas the ancient versions were to be used not for the emendation of text but as useful guides to interpretation, given that a translation was, of its very nature, a form of interpretation.


Muller, Richard A.. _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: Holy Scripture : The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_. 2nd. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.


----------



## MW

> It needs to be noted that the so-called textus receptus, was merely a part of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century process of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament.



This is accepted. The question at hand is whether or not they succeeded. If so, there is nothing left to discuss; if not, then the door is open to ask whether the reformed scholastics erred by basing their theological and practical conclusions on a text which could not definitely be called sacred Scripture. As one reads the discussion in PRRD 2 about the integrity of the text, it becomes clear that to accept this as an error is really to capitulate to the Romanist position.


----------



## MW

john_Mark said:


> I also don't understand how one would call Dr. White position fideism.



Within the evangelical circle his position would be accepted on the basis of a shared framework which assumes certain beliefs, but when interacting with liberal critics he cannot account for these beliefs by empirical evidence; e.g., that the fundamental message of the Bible is not altered by the variants, that the fourth century text is basically the inspired text of the first century, etc. These become mere platitudes when placed in a "neutral" empirical light.


----------



## john_Mark

Muller also stated, "Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of _terminus ad quem_ for the editing of the text of the Bible.."

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 07:35:15 EST-----

I beg to differ concerning Dr. White position and neutrality. As I understand Dr. White, he was showing that with Ehrman's position on its own basis cannot make sense of itself. Ehrman's position actually reduces not being able to know or trust any written material in which one did not observe the author literally writing. Therefore, the evidence only makes sense within the Christian presupposition which also defeats Ehrman's (internally inconsistent) position.

Of course, presuppositionalism does get labeled as fideism at times, however, fideism is not what Dr. White nor Dr. Bahnsen, in the article linked, argue from.


----------



## MW

john_Mark said:


> Muller also stated, "Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of _terminus ad quem_ for the editing of the text of the Bible.."



Only extremists deny this. If one reads the Presbyterian Dabney or the Anglican Burgon it will be seen that an ongoing emendation WITHIN the reformation textual tradition is perfectly acceptable.



john_Mark said:


> Ehrman's position actually reduces not being able to know or trust any written material in which one did not observe the author literally writing.



No, the empiricist position is that the NT text can only be established to about the fourth century, and it is acknowledged by all parties that the corruptions of the text are to be traced to the second century. Hence the physical evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century; one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.


----------



## Brian Withnell

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Such a theory sounds good, but what you are saying is that the Word of God was judged by Erasmus.
> 
> Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



I would disagree with just part of this. Erasmus did not judge the Word, but made a diligent attempt at recording what he believed the church had received as the word. As best he could, he compiled the text of the scripture. While that text might not have been a perfect copy (I certainly do not believe what Erasmus compiled was perfect from a pure textural criticism standpoint) it was close enough that when better manuscripts were produced there were absolutely no changes to the Westminster Standards because of rediscovered or corrected passages. The certitude of the TR is certainly better than the complete loss (for a time) of the scriptures during the time of Josiah.

One thing I think we ought understand is that when the confession was written, they _knew_ the TR was changed and compiled from what Erasmus had put together, and to this they asserted that God preserves his Word pure. Did they believe that God had not preserved the word between the time of Erasmus and the 1633 version which first bore that title? I think not ... rather they admit that during that period, the preservation of the text may have been less than "perfect" from our cultural world view, but not from their world view. It also might mean that they acknowledge that God preserving the word might have done so with a laps of availability of the pure word (which they might have thought extent from the early 1500's to the mid 1600's ... but if so, there is no reason to not extend that until the discovery of the Alexandrian tradition).

We receive the text. WCF: "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Those who "judge" the scripture rather than receive it may be one day persuaded they judged incorrectly ... unless they at some time receive it, they are on the wrong side of the equation. Those "argued" into the kingdom, may one day be "argued" out of the kingdom ... we are not saved by logic, we are saved by grace.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 08:10:50 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> This is accepted. The question at hand is whether or not they succeeded. If so, there is nothing left to discuss; if not, then the door is open to ask whether the reformed scholastics erred by basing their theological and practical conclusions on a text which could not definitely be called sacred Scripture. As one reads the discussion in PRRD 2 about the integrity of the text, it becomes clear that to accept this as an error is really to capitulate to the Romanist position.



I will respectfully disagree with the dichotomy. It isn't that either they had what we would call perfect in order to come to a right view of scripture. That they erred is without question ... their work was derivative from scripture by sinful men, and therefore must contain error. The real question is weather the scholars had a sufficiently pure copy of the text to come to a proper set of conclusions.

There are many today that say the Alexandrian text is closer to and more accurate to the original autographa. If there is an issue of some difference of faith or practice ... at least as far as reformed faith and practice are concerned ... there would be a push to change the confessions based on the rediscovered texts. There have been no such moves to change the confessions based on the Alexandrian tradition.

Ultimately, what we are talking about is not "is the TR a totally off the wall text" and the Alexandrian text "flawless". If society around me collapsed and the only Bible I could have is one that was based on Erasmus 1516 edition of the Greek, I would gladly accept it rather than go without. I would prefer a version that used the most reliable versions, but I would certainly accept those from a different tradition.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> I will respectfully disagree with the dichotomy. It isn't that either they had what we would call perfect in order to come to a right view of scripture. That they erred is without question ... their work was derivative from scripture by sinful men, and therefore must contain error.



Please read Muller's account, which places the historical debate over the integrity of the text in a contrasting light.

Also, if sinful men must err, either you are sinless or your evaluation errs. Clearly, you are not sinless; hence your evaluation errs. Obviously, then, your basic premise that sinful men must err is erroneous.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> There have been no such moves to change the confessions based on the Alexandrian tradition.



The critical scholarship of the 19th century led to such a movement.


----------



## Hippo

armourbearer said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot argue with anything you say here, and Dr White repeatedly points out that modern textual critisism no longer seeks to identify the first century text, the whole aim of confessional textual critisism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it becomes somewhat important for him to beware of tearing down his own fideistic structure while he is in the process of dismantling the TR, because his arguments can easily be turned back on himself by a liberal critic.
Click to expand...


Christianity is not solely a matter of faith, it is a matter of history. We have nothing to fear from examining history and historical documents because Christianity is factualy and historically based.

It is this history that establishes Christianity. Of course our enquiry has to be a servant of faith not its master but a liberal critic can have a field day day your suggestion that we should accept an arbitrary document and ignore any logic or reason.

You repeatedly insinuate all sorts of problems with the non TR position but do not comment on the probelms with a TR position.

I could change your words to:

"So it becomes somewhat important for him to beware of tearing down his own logical structure while he is in the process of dismantling the CT, because his fear of history and logic can easily be turned back on himself by a liberal critic."

And that is much nearer the mark.


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> Christianity is not solely a matter of faith, it is a matter of history. We have nothing to fear from examining history and historical documents because Christianity is factualy and historically based.



It is factually and historically based in God's redemptive action and special revelation. The "facts of history" cannot be neutrally interpreted to establish the veracity of the Christian faith but require the starting-point of faith from which to interpret them.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Also, if sinful men must err, either you are sinless or your evaluation errs. Clearly, you are not sinless; hence your evaluation errs. Obviously, then, your basic premise that sinful men must err is erroneous.





Of course not everything that sinful men do is totally sinful. Otherwise your evaluation of sinful men must err is erroneous is in error.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been no such moves to change the confessions based on the Alexandrian tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The critical scholarship of the 19th century led to such a movement.
Click to expand...


But the critical scholarship of the 19th century rejected the infallibility of scripture. They did not seek to change the confession based on new understanding of the scripture because of restoration of the correct text, they were attempting to change the confession based on a rejection of the scripture, regardless of what original language texts were used.

It does not follow that God, as in times past, could not have interrupted the visible church from possession of the scriptures (Josiah is a perfect example) while still preserving the scripture pure. It also does not follow that just because an error free copy was not available to the divines that they could not have created the confession out of those sections which were so well known, that the errors contained within where more do to culture than a defect in the text. (I do hold to the "modern" OPC version ... 16th century in essence ... rather than the 15th Century English version).

The question is not if they had a complete and correct version, but if they version they had was sufficient to the task they were attempting.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is not solely a matter of faith, it is a matter of history. We have nothing to fear from examining history and historical documents because Christianity is factualy and historically based.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is factually and historically based in God redemptive action and special revelation. The "facts of history" cannot be neutrally interpreted to establish the veracity of the Christian faith but require the starting-point of faith from which to interpret them.
Click to expand...


The only thing that I see as a possible problem with what you are saying is that it sounds like it is a denial of all truth is God's truth. The world is as it is. It cannot contradict what God has said, but neither can what God has said contradict what has happened. But we can certainly be wrong in what we have thought God said or in what we think happened. Copernicus was right, and the church of that age was savagely dogmatic in what it thought God had said ... and wrong. You and I have just as much of a chance of erring in reading scripture as we do in looking at history. We study both knowing there can be no contradiction, and either one may correct us if we have erred in the other.


----------



## Prufrock

Brian Withnell said:


> You and I have just as much of a chance of erring in reading scripture as we do in looking at history.



I might modify this statement a little: we have the Holy Spirit speaking the words of scripture to us, and guiding us in his teachings; we absolutely don't have that same guidance in interpreting providence and creation. We can, indeed, behold creation and providence in the light of the faith which has its source in the Spirit speaking in scripture, but the two are quite distinct. 

Not to be confrontational, but that does seem to me to be an important distinction. (And I don't think it's all that off topic, either).

By the way, Welcome to the board, brother. Grace and peace,


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> But the critical scholarship of the 19th century rejected the infallibility of scripture.



And their evangelical opponents mostly confined inerrancy to the originals. This, together with treating higher and lower criticism according to different standards, led to the capitulation which gave rise to creedal revision.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Copernicus was right



Was he? According to empirical methods all one might say is that he could probably have been right but later evidence might overthrow his theory, as in fact much later evidence has done.

But one might have read the Bible and concluded right there and then that he was wrong.

Biblical revelation is a closed canon; scientific enquiry is an open question.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> I might modify this statement a little: we have the Holy Spirit speaking the words of scripture to us, and guiding us in his teachings; we absolutely don't have that same guidance in interpreting providence and creation.



Then when reading Jesus statements about the Spirit of truth guiding us into all truth, you take that to mean only those things about himself and only as revealed in scripture, not what is revealed elsewhere. I do not see a need for that restriction from the passage, but perhaps I am missing something?

The reason I say this is because we are so prone to error, it would make a lot of sense that if there were things that could easily teach us from providence and creation that we are wrong about something within scripture, I would think the Spirit would (and certainly could) illumine our hearts to understand our mistakes from the general revelation.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 11:55:42 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Copernicus was right
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical revelation is a closed canon; scientific enquiry is an open question.
Click to expand...


Of course Biblical revelation is a closed canon, but our understanding of that canon is an open question, and will always be in this age.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Of course Biblical revelation is a closed canon, but our understanding of that canon is an open question, and will always be in this age.



If one's understanding of the canon is an open question, whence does one derive the understanding that biblical revelation is a closed canon? Clearly one's understanding of the canon becomes an open question only when it suits a theological agenda where the understanding of the canon is anything but open.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Biblical revelation is a closed canon, but our understanding of that canon is an open question, and will always be in this age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one's understanding of the canon is an open question, whence does one derive the understanding that biblical revelation is a closed canon? Clearly one's understanding of the canon becomes an open question only when it suits a theological agenda where the understanding of the canon is anything but open.
Click to expand...


The axioms of the system are that God exists and has revealed himself in scripture.

That is the start of the logical framework upon which all else is built. Without that logical framework, nothing else is possible. The canon is closed because it says it is ... though I could be wrong in my interpretation of that (I am not infallible) I do not believe that I am wrong on that point.

My understanding that everyone's understanding of the scripture is an open question exists because in this age, every church is made up of those that are in this age not sanctified totally and completely. The remnants of corruption are throughout the whole man (Rom 7:14-25, WCF ch 13.2). Perfect thinking is not something anyone is capable of doing. When his word is writ on our hearts so that no man tells his neighbor "know the Lord", then and only then will our understanding of scripture be closed.

Does that mean scripture is open to question? No. But we are.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> The axioms of the system are that God exists and has revealed himself in scripture.



Which also implies the availability of that scriptural revelation, yet you consider the availability of the text of Scripture in history to be a matter of scientific enquiry. Your axiomatic principles are not serving as axioms of the sytem of thought being built around them.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The axioms of the system are that God exists and has revealed himself in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which also implies the availability of that scriptural revelation, yet you consider the availability of the text of Scripture in history to be a matter of scientific enquiry. Your axiomatic principles are not serving as axioms of the sytem of thought being built around them.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I do not imply the availability of that scriptural revelation to all individuals at all times ... I did not think what I said even came close to implying it. In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.



But think about the statement, "the Bible says ..." How can that have any substantive meaning when by your own admission the text of the Bible is not a settled matter? You speak of the self-revelation of God in Scripture as axiomatic, you then presume to read the text of Scripture in order to draw conclusions from it, but the conclusions you draw from this presumptive process leads you to believe that the text itself is up for debate. You leave yourself without a text from which to draw your conclusion about the state of the text.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

The cumulative efforts of all the textual critics of the last hundred and fifty years have resulted in maximum uncertainty as to the original reading of the New Testament text. As Dr. A. J. Gordon once correctly observed, “To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture is an intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what He says except as we have His Words. ” David Cloud observes, “There is something wrong with a position on Bible preservation that leaves a man with no preserved Bible.” Textual critics agree that it is impossible for us to have in our hand the Words of God today.

There appears to be a view on this thread that modern textual criticism can somehow restore the original text. However, this is a false premise as all of the leading advocates of this approach to the New Testament agree. Let me illustrate.

Rendel Harris in 1908 who declared that the New Testament text was, “More than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.” In 1910 Conybeare states that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable. ” Another critic, Merrill M. Parvis admits, “Each one of the critical texts differ quite markedly from all the others. This fact certainly suggests that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to recover the original text of the New Testament.” In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, argues, “In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall.” Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.” Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage”. Earnest Caldman Colwell admitted in 1947 that “no objective method can take us back through successive reconstructions to the original.” Robert M. Grant, a well-known critical scholar, says,



> The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility.”




K.W. Clark now accepts,"The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through."

Contemporary liberal Textual Critic, Bruce Metzger, bewails, 



> Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he [the textual critic] will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation . . . one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what . . . cannot be known.



Reuben Swanson, one of the most eagerly-read modern critical scholars states, “To believe that we can reconstruct out of fragmentary and late material ‘the original pure text’ is thus a delusion.... There can, therefore, be no agreement among critics as to which reading may have been original .” Dan Wallace argues that, “when we say ‘thus says the word of God,’ we have a relative degree of certainty that this is indeed what the original text said .” Wallace tries to comfort us by assuring,"To be sure, we do not know whether we have recovered the exact wording of the original, and we may never know. At the same time, we are getting closer and closer. And no essential belief is affected by any viable variants."

Even a Fundamentalist, William Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary also has given up hope and states,



> While it is not possible to produce a text that is in all points identical to the autographs, nevertheless, carefully produced texts and versions are able to convey God’s truth to the reader.



-----Added 2/9/2009 at 02:41:24 EST-----



> Hmmm. I do not imply the availability of that scriptural revelation to all individuals at all times ... I did not think what I said even came close to implying it. In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.



Could you show where the Bible was hidden from Israel. Even in Josiah's time the Word was where it always was kept i.e. in the temple and they clearly knew the Word as it led him to begin the Reformation. There are no explicit examples in Scripture where God's people seeking the Words of God have them hidden from them. By contrast, God has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His word. For instance, when Moses broke the original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not hundreds of years later. In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired word by preparing Baruch to record exactly the words of the former scroll. God perfectly preserved His word to all generations in both instances just as He promised (Isaiah 59:21; Psa. 33:11; Psa. 100:5; Psa. 119:89-90)!


----------



## Grymir

Y'all know, as I'm reading this, alot of the modern stuff surounding the CT sounds like the junk the 'modern' philosophers write. ie, Kant, Hume and their following ilk. Especially as I read the stuff about certainty. This is very interesting and informative.

It especially relates as I thought the modern slide in the church was because of liberals and neo-orthodoxy, but, especially in post #64 quote - "And their evangelical opponents mostly confined inerrancy to the originals. This, together with treating higher and lower criticism according to different standards, led to the capitulation which gave rise to creedal revision." is opening up a bigger picture into the modern state of the church, and how the TR/CT debate is a part of it in ways hitherto unkown. hmm.


----------



## TimV

> If one's understanding of the canon is an open question, whence does one derive the understanding that biblical revelation is a closed canon? Clearly one's understanding of the canon becomes an open question only when it suits a theological agenda where the understanding of the canon is anything but open.



And if the Canon itself shows God's Word definitely was not kept pure in one manuscript, but rather (as every widely recognized authority on the subject, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, conservative or liberal, for the last 2000 years has believed) that NT authors quoted from at least two distinct textual traditions? What then? Isn't emendation built into the Canon?



> The cumulative efforts of all the textual critics of the last hundred and fifty years have resulted in maximum uncertainty as to the original reading of the New Testament text.



That is a truly remarkable statement, especially as you yourself brought up James. There is today more certainty about the contents of the Canon than ever before in history. Up until the late 16th century it was perfectly acceptable for both Protestant and Catholic scholars to question the authenticity of whole Books!


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> john_Mark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't understand how one would call Dr. White position fideism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Within the evangelical circle his position would be accepted on the basis of a shared framework which assumes certain beliefs, but when interacting with liberal critics he cannot account for these beliefs by empirical evidence; e.g., that the fundamental message of the Bible is not altered by the variants, that the fourth century text is basically the inspired text of the first century, etc. These become mere platitudes when placed in a "neutral" empirical light.
Click to expand...


Rev Winzer...is the basic summary of this then that the fideism of the TR camp sees the need for a text to be grounded in the 1st century whereas the CT camp sees the need to stop at the 4th century due to a mixture of empiricism and faith? 

Where exactly are the presuppositional differences here because it looks like the TR camp would wind up (to some degree) saying that the CT camp's doctrine of God is the issue (ie, God preserved a reliable text, but not an infallible text).


----------



## john_Mark

armourbearer said:


> No, the empiricist position is that the NT text can only be established to about the fourth century, and it is acknowledged by all parties that the corruptions of the text are to be traced to the second century. Hence the physical evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century; one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.



No? Since you cut out the rest of my quote concerning presuppositionalism let me try again. In the Bahnsen article I linked to above he shows that evidence is not opposed to inerrancy. Just as in Bahnsen's _Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism_ where he is arguing against to empiricists who come to different conclusions about the text. Your statement of the physical evidence only works if one is arguing from neutral grounds. 

Both Rich Pierce, President of AOMin.org, and Mike O'Fallon, Sovereign Cruises (he set-up the Ehrman debate), have agreed with my assessment of White's presuppositional approach. White was attempting to show that Ehrman's own position is internally inconsistent and cannot account for it's own conclusions. 



armourbearer said:


> one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.



Is this not your presupposition? How is this not fideism?


----------



## DMcFadden

Grymir, 

If you want to really tweak your brain, check out Dr. Wallace's writings on textual criticism on Bible.org (Bible.org: Textual Criticism). As to the origins of the Majority Text . . .



> We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.



Dan Wallace concludes: "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship."

The arguments by some of the TR proponents in this thread make me realize how I wish it was possible to "buy a vowel" in the game of life and trade for some more IQ points. The arguments for and against the TR and CT and MT are amazingly complex and convincing.


----------



## timmopussycat

Hi Dennis 

Which paper did you get the quote from? I tried looking through a couple of Wallaces papers listed on the page and couldn't find it.



DMcFadden said:


> Grymir,
> 
> If you want to really tweak your brain, check out Dr. Wallace's writings on textual criticism on Bible.org (Bible.org: Textual Criticism). As to the origins of the Majority Text . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Wallace concludes: "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship."
> 
> The arguments by some of the TR proponents in this thread make me realize how I wish it was possible to "buy a vowel" in the game of life and trade for some more IQ points. The arguments for and against the TR and CT and MT are amazingly complex and convincing.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> And if the Canon itself shows God's Word definitely was not kept pure in one manuscript, but rather (as every widely recognized authority on the subject, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, conservative or liberal, for the last 2000 years has believed) that NT authors quoted from at least two distinct textual traditions? What then? Isn't emendation built into the Canon?



I think we have been down this road before. One must first prove that the Bible itself quotes from two textual traditions. Scholars readily accept that allusion is not quotation and oral patterns do not equate to a stable textual form.


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> Rev Winzer...is the basic summary of this then that the fideism of the TR camp sees the need for a text to be grounded in the 1st century whereas the CT camp sees the need to stop at the 4th century due to a mixture of empiricism and faith?
> 
> Where exactly are the presuppositional differences here because it looks like the TR camp would wind up (to some degree) saying that the CT camp's doctrine of God is the issue (ie, God preserved a reliable text, but not an infallible text).



The difference is in the conscious recognition of the presuppositions one is working with. Everyone acknowledges that the ms. evidence is only partial. Therefore the physical evidence will not support any theory that the church today possesses the words originally written by means of the apostles. A doctrine of providential preservation is required in order to believe this.

What happens, however, is, when TR advocates explain providential preservation, they are criticised for being fideistic and igoring evidence. What evidence? We ask our evangelical friends to face up to the fact that there is no evidence which links the mss. we possess with the words of immediate inspiration.

Then it is asked, If God is to be trusted to preserve His word through the ages, what agency has He promised to use? Here we expect that He would use the same agency whereby the books of Scripture have been identified. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to a high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures. It is this testimony that we depend on for confirming (not creating) the canon of Scripture, and therefore we are bound to recognise the same testimony for confirming (not creating) the text of Scripture. In other words, we do not separate higher and lower criticism and go about to discover the text of Scripture on a different basis as we would discover the canon of Scripture.

It is especially the latter point where traditional text adherents meet with so much opposition from modern text critical scholars within evangelical circles. This opposition is based on a failure to properly declare the basis on which it can be maintained that the text contained in the ms. evidence can be proven to be the very words of inspiration, while at the same time insisting on a "neutral" evaluation of the ms. evidence which basically ignores the testimony of the church. The underlying belief is that the church must have erred somewhere, but the ms. evidence cannot err; this, notwithstanding the fact that the ms. record is hopelessly partial and fragmentary.


----------



## MW

john_Mark said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not your presupposition? How is this not fideism?
Click to expand...


As already noted, this is every person's presupposition who would maintain that mss. belonging to later centuries contain the very words which God gave through the apostles. It can only be hoped that this presuppostion might be acknowledged for what it is, namely, one which rises from faith alone, so that one side of the discussion is not unfairly accused of engaging in fideism, when the reality is that both sides are working from the same fundamental conviction.


----------



## DMcFadden

timmopussycat said:


> Hi Dennis
> 
> Which paper did you get the quote from? I tried looking through a couple of Wallaces papers listed on the page and couldn't find it.




Both of the following quotes were taken from: Evangelical Textual Criticism: Interview with Dan Wallace



> "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text . . ."





> We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.



I found the articles on the Bible.org site to be instructive as well. Frankly, comparing Wallace and the articulate defenders of the TR is a fascinating experience. I only wish that my college and seminary studies dealt with the issue in more detail.

Presuppositionally, I like the TR case for the same reason that I dislike so much of the Enlightenment carving up of the Bible. The methodology elevates the observer to a position of power and authority over the observed (in this case the human scholar over the God of the Word!!!). Even the admirable Dr. Wallace admits that the praxis of textual criticism has led to his changing his mind about the cruciality of inerrancy (not a core doctrine) and his commitment to it ("My own views on inerrancy and inspiration have changed over the years. I still embrace those doctrines, but I don’t define them the way I used to. The evidence has shaped my viewpoint; and I must listen to the evidence because of the Incarnation.").

However, with so many evangelicals smarter than I am holding to the CT, it appears the height of hubris for me to dismiss their arguments as so much rubbish. And, has anyone really refuted the trifecta of Hortian critique of the Byzantine text: secondary, late, and inferior? I would love to do some reading on the subject from a scholarly and confessional perspective (i.e., not from a separatist fundamentalist POV).


----------



## Grymir

DMcFadden said:


> Grymir,
> 
> If you want to really tweak your brain, check out Dr. Wallace's writings on textual criticism on Bible.org (Bible.org: Textual Criticism). As to the origins of the Majority Text . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Wallace concludes: "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship."
> 
> The arguments by some of the TR proponents in this thread make me realize how I wish it was possible to "buy a vowel" in the game of life and trade for some more IQ points. The arguments for and against the TR and CT and MT are amazingly complex and convincing.
Click to expand...



That is interesting. I was referring in my post to what Brian Withnell was saying in his posts. They had a different philosophical base than most of the stuff I read about the CT. It really reminded me about the modern philosophical quest for certainty. Which I think is wrong. Truth is what corresponds to reality, and we can know for certainty. Very different from the analytic/apriori truth false dichotomy that seemed to come through in Brian's posts. Which then armourbearer countered with some good ol' fashioned reasoning. As in A=A, What ever is, is! kind of philosophical base. Which stood out. You know that I face Barth's influence in my Church, and Withnell's/armourbearer's dialog brought out some of the approaches that I see every Sunday. I usually am quick to blame Barth, but it made me think that this modern philosophical base could be an even deeper problem.

I did check out Wallace's writings. First I have to question why anybody would use Ehrman in any kind of favorable light. But I didn't let that prejudice my reading him. In fact, I found this interesting quote - "In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition)," You said you had used in college and talked about the Nestle Greek New Testament. Is the statement about the majority MSS true?


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But think about the statement, "the Bible says ..." How can that have any substantive meaning when by your own admission the text of the Bible is not a settled matter? You speak of the self-revelation of God in Scripture as axiomatic, you then presume to read the text of Scripture in order to draw conclusions from it, but the conclusions you draw from this presumptive process leads you to believe that the text itself is up for debate. You leave yourself without a text from which to draw your conclusion about the state of the text.
Click to expand...


I wanted to make sure I took some time with this, so please bear with me.

The first thing I would present is an analogy. I do not know all there is to know of quantum mechanics. The subject is too expansive for me to be able to know it, and investigation into the universe, that God created and rules by order (the full basis of science is God having created, otherwise there is no possibility of investigation as it could change ... but that is ). The subject itself is static, but all of mankind does not know it fully. In a sense, the created universe is analogous to the scripture.

The scripture exists, it is pure, unchanging, and kept by God. Yet I also know I will never exhaust the full meaning in all detail, nor be positive of my understanding of it. I may or may not have discovered all of the text ... the whole of the church had none of it during the reign of Josiah, the church in various quarters had little or none of it during long periods of time (even someone that holds to the TR would have to accept the text was an open question from early 16th century to mid 17th century.)

Suppose we have not yet fully compiled a text true to the original autographa, but we could ten years from now. Do we stop investigating because we have come close enough? Do we declare a single version the correct one when we might clearly find there are errors in it? Suppose we were to find a true original autograph ... and it different in some small way from the TR, would you really toss it as not being the inspired word in order to keep the TR? Were late medieval dissenters without the scriptures, and therefore without basis?

Clearly, there were times in the church age before the TR was compiled. The scriptures testify that the scriptures have not always been available to all. Yet we hold _*firmly*_ to God preserving pure his word. Special revelation cannot contradict history (which is also what God has ordained) nor can history contradict special revelation. They must both be true at the same time. What does not have to be true is my view of either. We are not worshipers of a god that can contradict himself, but of a God who is truth itself and does not have even a shadow of change ... the same yesterday, today and forever.

Before the TR was produced, or even the Byzantine tradition started, the word existed, and was kept pure by God.

An objection for not having a perfect knowledge of what is a perfect word is that those that reject the word use as excuse the lack of the original, and the various texts from which translations are made (if they are knowledgeable) or even the various translations.

While I sympathize with those that want to remove such arguments, I would point out what the scripture says the real issue with such people are: 1) they are spiritually blind, 2) they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 3) they are not sheep of the Great Shepherd. We know that the only way to see the truth of scripture is from the testimony of the Holy Spirit ... there is no logical argument that will convince the reprobate of the truth of scripture, it is spiritually discerned by those that can spiritually see. Those that reject the word of God reject it not because they do not understand or they do not know. They know it is true, but suppress that truth in unrighteousness. And thirdly, they do not hear the voice of the great shepherd. His sheep hear his voice, we follow because we know him. Those that are not his sheep will not hear his voice, and it matters not what argument we give. It also matters not that we cannot answer every question for those who are his sheep ... they _will hear his voice._

It is not just a matter of having a "stake in the ground" that we will defend. We might not yet have a "perfect" version of the original, for we might be like those who in Josiah's time, had lost the scriptures. God is preserving his word, but he is not required to preserve it as we would. His word will not pass, and it will accomplish what he sends it to do. We just might not see what or how that is happening.

What we are required to do is be diligent in studying his word to the best of our ability. We do not say like a fool, "I do not know that I have a perfect copy, so I won't bother."


----------



## DMcFadden

> I did check out Wallace's writings. First I have to question why anybody would use Ehrman in any kind of favorable light. But I didn't let that prejudice my reading him. In fact, I found this interesting quote - "In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition),"



I'm watching Mr. Obama and may be missing your point. However, Wallace (where did you get the quote? which article?) seems to be referencing _The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, 2005_, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Chilton Book Publishing: USA, 2005).

1) It lists all variants between the Byzantine text (as given by the editors) and the Nestle-Aland text. Even for those with a CT preference, this will be valuable since it is the only place (?) I have seen this done.

2) Because it deals with the Byzantine text tradition, the editors have provided some pretty interesting variants.

3) The preface (23 pages!) lays out the rationale for a MT edition. For confessionally Reformed types, the editors follow the Westminster Confession in affirming that divine revelation 'has been kept pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God' (p. xxi). As one reviewer notes, "They particularly relate this providence to preservation of evidence." Robinson and Pierpont aver:


> The task set before God's people is to identify and receive the best-attested form of that Greek biblical text as preserved among the extant evidence. Although no divine instruction exists regarding the establishment of the most precise form of the original autographs, such instruction is not required: autograph textual preservation can be recognized and established by a careful and judicious examination of the existing evidence. Scribal fidelity in manuscript transmission over the centuries remains the primary locus of autograph preservation.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Br Winzer's point is stronger than many think as all textual critics agree (see quotes above in my previous post that we can never recover the original text through a scientific method). If this is true, then we must adopt a fidelistic pre-suppositional approach to the Canon and its text. 

Interestingly, Westcott rejected such an approach as he wrote "I hardly feel with you on this question of discussing anything doctrinally or on doctrine. This seems to me to be wholly out of our province. We have only to determine what is written and how it can be rendered. Theologians may deal with the text and version afterwards." Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary concurs, “A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.” Ironically, Wallace fails to discern that this denial is itself a theological presupposition of his textual criticism, and thus a wholly self-defeating claim. 

Westcott and Hort, as well as modern textual critics, accept that the Alexandrian texts were corruption of the originals (they can hardly do other wise when they all disagree in such a diverse manner from each other). This was amply demonstrated in the Wallace/Parker/Ehrman debate the current position at the Greer-Heard Forum where the collective wisdom of the experts is that "we only know what was the 4th century textual tradition" but before that we can only speculate. That is why these three "scholars" have embraced the view that there is no doctrine of preservation, liberalism, and agnosticism respectively.

It is why Kurt Aland (cited positively by James White) argues in _The Text of the New Testament_ that concerning the Alexandrian text,



> It was assumed that in the early period there were several recensions of the text... or that at the beginning of the fourth century scholars at Alexandria and elsewhere took as many good manuscripts as were available and applied their philosophical methods to compile a new uniform text



and the Alexandrian text he says is,



> ...a text dealing with the original text in a relatively free manner with no suggestion of a program of standardization.



It is axiomatic to even the most ardent critic of the TR that the recovery of the “autograph text” is outside the possibility of recovery simply by a neutral Textual scientific methodology. Even the leading exponents of textual criticism candidly concede this. By eliminating God’s work of preservation, they have left the church disarmed, vulnerable and in total confusion. They are like those of old of whom God says in the last verse of the book of Judges “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Textual criticism has, at best, only been able to posit the state of the New Testament text as believed to have existed in the fourth century, but admit that that most of the corruptions happened in the second century and we have no way of discovering the final form of the originals. Hence the physical scientific evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century.

It is pointless to argue that the Church once possessed an inspired and infallible Bible, but it was not providentially preserved and the best we now have is a corrupted facsimile. We now have Bible texts produced that can only claim to portray what they think the Bible “might be.” This uncertainty is exemplified in the third edition of the UBS Greek New Testament, which states in the introduction, “The letter A [next to a passage] signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while D shows there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text .” Ironically, these scholars are capricious in their understanding as to which “readings” are genuine as seen in the more than five hundred changes between the second and third editions of the UBS “Greek New Testament.”

Theology teaches us that all that God does is in perfect harmony with Who He is. To argue that God has done anything imperfectly really flies in the face of His Self revelation and Self Declarations. By such statements, like the Enlightenment rationalists, we have exalted man as the measure of all things. Textual critics place themselves as God’s judge by positing that the only appointed and fore-ordained means of salvation and the surest basis for the knowledge of God is somehow less than He intended. If we cannot trust God by faith to keep His Word to preach in its entirety, who is able to determine the minimum He did give us that is necessary for us to live by and how can we know they are correct? The fact that God revealed Himself in Scripture must imply the availability of that scriptural revelation, yet anti-preservationists consider the availability of the text of Scripture in history to be a matter of scientific enquiry.

If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible with a few errors in it, who shall judge how many constitute the “few” that is acceptable? If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible that is sufficient in its inspired parts, who shall judge what constitutes the sufficiency? (Or we might say limited inerrancy.). For those who argue that all Bible versions or even the more “conservative” ones are the Word of God they fail to explain their Hegalian dialecticism. For instance, since the Bible said that the very words were inspired and preserved, then how can a translation of those words that say very different things be the same preserved words of God? Anyone can see that all conflicting texts cannot all be the Word of God if they are saying different things. After all, God doesn’t contradict Himself and is certainly not the author of confusion. (1Cor. 14:33)


----------



## sotzo

Brian Withnell said:


> It is not just a matter of having a "stake in the ground" that we will defend. We might not yet have a "perfect" version of the original, for we might be like those who in Josiah's time, had lost the scriptures. God is preserving his word, but he is not required to preserve it as we would. His word will not pass, and it will accomplish what he sends it to do. We just might not see what or how that is happening.
> 
> What we are required to do is be diligent in studying his word to the best of our ability. We do not say like a fool, "I do not know that I have a perfect copy, so I won't bother."



I know you aren't intending to communicate this, but that post sounds quite Gnostic. God is preserving his word, yet not as we would and not in any way that renders a visible difference in the world? Not being critical here, just want to understand you better.


----------



## CharlieJ

This is a blurb for all the viewers of this thread who are interested in more information on text critical methodologies. The book _Bible Preservation and the Providence of God_ was co-written by two Bob Jones University professors who have different opinions on the best text-critical method. It is a survey of the Bible's teaching on preservation and an overview of the seven different approaches to textual criticism.

Bible Preservation and the Providence of God by Sam Schnaiter - 9781401062477 - Compare Discount Book Prices & Save up to 90% - FindBookPrices.com


----------



## DMcFadden

> If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible with a few errors in it, who shall judge how many constitute the “few” that is acceptable? If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible that is sufficient in its inspired parts, who shall judge what constitutes the sufficiency? (Or we might say limited inerrancy.). For those who argue that all Bible versions or even the more “conservative” ones are the Word of God they fail to explain their Hegalian dialecticism. For instance, since the Bible said that the very words were inspired and preserved, then how can a translation of those words that say very different things be the same preserved words of God? Anyone can see that all conflicting texts cannot all be the Word of God if they are saying different things. After all, God doesn’t contradict Himself and is certainly not the author of confusion. (1Cor. 14:33)



Quite interesting! In Robinson/Pierpont (2005), they critique the position of reasoned eclecticism on the grounds that it does not operate with a reasonable approach to the history of transmission. The modern textual critic claims no possibility of finding the autograph, no hope of penetrating the veil of 2nd century corruptions, and no theory that explains how the individual variants gain so much power in the debate. 



> Byzantine-priority funcitons within the framework of a predominantly transmissional approach, and stands as a legitimate alternative to the methods and results currently espoused by modern eclecticism. Rather than creating a preferred text on a variant-by-variant basis, Byzantine-priority seeks first the establishment of a viable history of textual transmission . . . Byzantine-priority presents as canonical the Greek New Testament text as it has been attested, preserved, and maintained by scribes throughout the centuries.



In place of the atomistic eclecticism that creates the Frankenstein monster of a text that is attested in NO existing mss., they aver that "The Christian scholar need not speculate widely regarding the original form of the Greek New Testament text."



> The content of these scriptures is truth without mixture of error in all that they affirm. A corollary to these doctrinal beliefs is the confessional declaration that this revelation has been kept pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God . . . The consensus-based approach does not appeal to favored individual manuscripts, local texts, or minority regional texttypes, nor to subjective internal criteria that adopt an amalgam of individual readins with ever-changing degrees of minority support. The appeal is to the combined evidence that has been preserved among the extant Greek witnesses.



This is, however, a majority text edition, not the TR. But it is an interesting alternative to reasoned eclecticism.


----------



## Brian Withnell

ThomasCartwright said:


> Could you show where the Bible was hidden from Israel. Even in Josiah's time the Word was where it always was kept i.e. in the temple and they clearly knew the Word as it led him to begin the Reformation. There are no explicit examples in Scripture where God's people seeking the Words of God have them hidden from them. By contrast, God has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His word. For instance, when Moses broke the original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not hundreds of years later. In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired word by preparing Baruch to record exactly the words of the former scroll. God perfectly preserved His word to all generations in both instances just as He promised (Isaiah 59:21; Psa. 33:11; Psa. 100:5; Psa. 119:89-90)!



I would think clearly that the discovery of the scriptures in the restoration of the temple is a rediscovery of what had been lost. "In the temple" does not mean that everyone knew where it was, or that it was where "where it was always kept" (other than that is were it lay untouched for generations). In the context, it is clear that it had been lost and that the only reason it was found was because of the restoration of the temple. A plain reading of the text can point to nothing other than it was lost.

If the text of the Bible today is "where it was always kept", but that place is some cave, or in a tomb in Egypt, does that detract from God preserving his word? Not in any way. We have to "be careful not to take a train of logic off the track of scripture" in what we deduce from what the Bible says. If it teaches that it was lost during the time of Josiah, then we cannot have as our theory that it must be available to men as part of its preservation. Even if it were in the temple, it was not available to the remnant in Israel, however small that remnant was, when it was not read by those that could have access to it (however it was hidden).


----------



## ThomasCartwright

CharlieJ said:


> This is a blurb for all the viewers of this thread who are interested in more information on text critical methodologies. The book _Bible Preservation and the Providence of God_ was co-written by two Bob Jones University professors who have different opinions on the best text-critical method. It is a survey of the Bible's teaching on preservation and an overview of the seven different approaches to textual criticism.
> 
> Bible Preservation and the Providence of God by Sam Schnaiter - 9781401062477 - Compare Discount Book Prices & Save up to 90% - FindBookPrices.com



Thanks Charlie,

I have read Dr Sam Schnaiter's work and I believe it is very problematic and dangerous.

Samuel Schnaiter critiques Wilbur Pickering’s Majority Text position (in Biblical Viewpoint, Vol. XVI, No. 1, (April 1982): 72) by making the deeply disturbing critical observation, “Finally, although Pickering has avoided an excessive reliance on theological presuppositions in his presentation, it is nevertheless clear that a theological presupposition essentially undergirds his entire purpose.” Such a statement shows the depth of rationalistic and unbiblical thought that is now prevalent in modern orthodox scholarship.

Samuel Schnaiter (in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 2 (Fall 1997):113) foolishly claims, “that we must be careful to distinguish between textual purity and the purity of the sense of any given message.” However, he does not explain how if we don’t even know what the words are, then how can we be expected to know the meaning? 

Schnaiter in _Bible Preservation and the Providence of God_ had even the audacity to accuse our Lord of deception in citing as the Words of God an imperfect source when he wrote, “It is obvious that Jesus did not consider the lack of the autographs an important matter, and He called the extant copies inspired in spite of any ‘typos’ in them.” 

Such a demonstrably fallacious view casts dangerous insinuations that are impossible to reconcile with the truthfulness and holiness of God. Did Christ say “it is written” when reading from an errant scroll when He knew that the scroll had mistakes? If every quotation from the Old Testament in the New Testament had mistakes, how do we know what actually was the original wording? For instance, if we accept that the Gospels we rely on to reveal the risen Christ has mistakes, who can determine exactly objectively where the few mistakes are? If not, how do textual critics expect us to believe in a true historical evaluation of these sources? Francis Turretin makes the historic Reformed position clear,



> If the sources had been corrupted, it must have been done before Christ or after, neither of which is true. Not before because Christ would not have passed it over in silence (for He does not censure the various departures in doctrine), nor could He bear to use corrupted books. Did He disregard the salvation of His people so far that He would neither Himself, nor through His apostles admonish us with a word that the books of Moses and the prophets had been tampered with; while in the meantime He convicts the Jews from these very books (but to what purpose, if they had been corrupted and falsified?) and invites and urges His disciples to their perusal and search? For if this had been the case, why do we find the passages which Christ and the apostles quoted from Moses and the prophets just the same now as then and in no way corrupted?..The provident wisdom of God (which will suffer not one jot or tittle to pass from the law until all be fulfilled, Mt. 5:18) has much less permitted the body of heavenly doctrine to be weakened by the jews and so great a treasure to be taken away ..



Also, if a mistaken form of Words was fine for Christ to use then why bother inspiring the Words in the first place? With such as view, it is no wonder that many have left orthodoxy like Bart Ehrman and argue that it does not really even matter if the New Testament misquoted Jesus as after all Jesus must have misquoted the Old Testament as according to Schnaiter, He was “very unlikely” to have accurate manuscripts. 

Christ often rebuked His enemies by citing the writings of Moses from the oldest part of the Scriptures. The line of logical reasoning Christ use from the perfect passive verb tense, showing that what God has written stands forever unto every generation would have been meaningless had there been any possibility the written word had become inaccurate. However, Christ made it clear that “He that sent Me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him” (John 8:26). Also, Christ emphatically declared, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and identified the inspired Word of God with the inscripturated canonical Words of God by arguing, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

Every word in Scripture is important and if His Father’s words were that important to our Saviour, yea every jot and tittle, how much more should they be to us in these end times? Christ spoke the very Words of God, and God who will judge all lies and error will surely not Himself have resorted to error in the proclamation of saving truth. The Bible makes clear, “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: has He said, and shall He not do it?” (Numbers 23:19) and “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). Indeed, the Westminster Longer Catechism in Question 3 defines the Word of God as “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments” and adduces as Scriptural proof 2Timothy 3:15-16 explicitly affirming that the Old Testament apographs (copies) that Timothy was reared under were the perfectly preserved copies of the inspired originals. Another verse used by Question 3 of the Westminster Longer Catechism as a proof text is 2 Peter 2:19 that “we have also a more sure Word of prophecy” which would be a misrepresentation as, according to the wisdom of Schnaiter, Peter only had an errant and corrupted copy of the Old Testament. It would also have been a misrepresentation for Peter to have said his personal experience at the Mount of Transfiguration of 2 Peter 2:18 was less sure than the errant apographs.


----------



## Grymir

Hi DMcFadden. I got it from "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today".


----------



## Brian Withnell

sotzo said:


> I know you aren't intending to communicate this, but that post sounds quite Gnostic. God is preserving his word, yet not as we would and not in any way that renders a visible difference in the world? Not being critical here, just want to understand you better.



There are a couple of problems, none easy, in looking at differing texts of scripture.

1) Stake in the ground "this one": 
Who makes the judgment that the stake is in fact the right stake? Those that eschew textural criticism (i.e., attempting to find the original words) as pointless state that doing so sets man up as judge over God's word. Yet if they point to a single version (TR mostly) as the word, they give reasons and make judgments as to why *that* particular version of the text is the actual instead of some other. (He who lives in glass house ....)

2) There is no possibility of finding the original, so there is no preservation:
Who is to judge what preservation of pure means? If God means something other than what we mean, then again, we set ourselves up as judging God. "If I don't understand it, then it can't be true" is a bad place to be in from a theological standpoint (or any other standpoint for that matter!)

3) If I don't have it, nobody does:
Nobody would actually state this, but (not that I believe this for a heartbeat) it could be that all of the western churches are without any extant true copy and the only true copy might be in some church planted by those that went into China thousands of years ago.

What I see as the real issue is that there are plenty of positions, and none of the above is consistent with what God has revealed in both general and special revelation. That God preserves the scripture was written by those that *new* the texts they had were different from the accepted texts of 100 years prior. They saw no problem with the preservation of the text, even if the text was lost for a time, or was preserved in something other than a letter by letter detail. If they knew the variance between Greek texts, and had no problem with it ... what does that say about our understanding of what they wrote if we have a problem with textual variance and preservation?

Do we have a reliable text? Absolutely. Is that text without error? Either I don't know (if you mean is there a letter misplaced, a word added), or I will respond it is without error (the meaning is correct, factual in meaning or even the possibility of failing). I suppose what I'm saying is that the texts we have are sufficient to be infallible. Infallible is a lot stronger a statement than inerrant. I can take a 20 question test and get all 20 correct and be inerrant; to say that I can't possibly get a question wrong no matter what (that is, be infallible) is something altogether different. The scripture that we have is infallible.

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 01:59:41 EST-----



ThomasCartwright said:


> However, he does not explain how if we don’t even know what the words are, then how can we be expected to know the meaning?



By presupposition ... if one presupposes that the exact words are not required to know without error the meaning, and that God would work through that means, then it is possible that the whole holds together quite well.

What seems to be your position is that without exact copy, there is no possibility of inerrant transmission. But is that what is meant by scripture? Is it possible for God to have ordained it differently from what you decided? Within the realm of data transmission, it is possible (and even normal) for an "error free" transmission to occur in which there are differences between what was transmitted and what was received by application of ECC bits. While I would not put the word of God on such a low level as data transmission codes or God's providential care and preservation as ECC bits, I certainly don't want to say God could not have kept his word by doing what I did not expect.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Suppose we have not yet fully compiled a text true to the original autographa, but we could ten years from now. Do we stop investigating because we have come close enough? Do we declare a single version the correct one when we might clearly find there are errors in it? Suppose we were to find a true original autograph ... and it different in some small way from the TR, would you really toss it as not being the inspired word in order to keep the TR? Were late medieval dissenters without the scriptures, and therefore without basis?



To use philosophical terms, this is idealism. What this suggests is that it is possible to have no word of God in the concrete, but this is OK as long as we possess it ideally. On this basis one has no ability to affirm the content of Scripture, whether it contains the books of the Kings or no, and therefore no way of concluding anything concerning the reign of Josiah.

Let's be clear -- if we found the originals then our appeal would be to the originals, not to its copies. But then there would be no textual criticism needed at all. Given that we do not possess the originals, the state of the question is, where is the original reading to be found, if in fact it can be discovered at all? Let's stick to answering this question in the concrete, and we will have a discussion that has a bearing on life in the real world. Speaking about an ideallic word of God is fanciful and an unprofitable discussion.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Let's be clear -- if we found the originals then our appeal would be to the originals, not to its copies. But then there would be no textual criticism needed at all. Given that we do not possess the originals, the state of the question is, where is the original reading to be found, if in fact it can be discovered at all? Let's stick to answering this question in the concrete, and we will have a discussion that has a bearing on life in the real world. Speaking about an ideallic word of God is fanciful and an unprofitable discussion.



Putting the ideal in front of us leads to exactly that question. And that question is answered in going for the best we can ... we don't have originals, we have to use the fallen brain God gave us and take the best we have, even if that best means we continually examine if our prior decision was correct or not. What I am saying is there is no reason to affirm that a particular version put together using textural criticism of the available manuscripts in 1633 or 1513, or any other particular date was correct. Do we ever stop and say finished? No, not unless we know without possibility of doubt the text is the original reading. I have no presuppositional position that says the any present reading must be the correct rather than any other compiled text, so I go with what knowledge I do have, and the presupposition that God does keep his word pure.


----------



## sotzo

> Putting the ideal in front of us leads to exactly that question. And that question is answered in going for the best we can ... we don't have originals, we have to use the fallen brain God gave us and take the best we have, even if that best means we continually examine if our prior decision was correct or not. What I am saying is there is no reason to affirm that a particular version put together using textural criticism of the available manuscripts in 1633 or 1513, or any other particular date was correct. Do we ever stop and say finished? No, not unless we know without possibility of doubt the text is the original reading. I have no presuppositional position that says the any present reading must be the correct rather than any other compiled text, so I go with what knowledge I do have, and the presupposition that God does keep his word pure.



Thanks Brian. It seems to me the presupposition that God keep his word pure is either bound up with natural theology (that is, a priori to the Bible) OR follows logically from the reliability of the Bible (that is, a posteriori to the Bible). I think the latter has to be the choice because I'm not sure how one could presuppose God keeping His word pure based on natural theology...seems the best that gets us is deism which not only argues against a pure word, but the reality of any word at all.

Perhaps a third choice is it could simply be a bare presupposition, but then how would it be justified at that point than the contrary presupposition that God does not keep His word pure? Sure the necessary outworkings from those presuppositions would be different, but I think such a choice in the absence of presupposing the Scriptures would be quite arbitrary.

Also, I think it is valuable to restate the fact that even if we had the autographa we would not, thereby, be suddenly able to infallibly interpret. The infallible text would still require interpretation by the Spirit-led, yet fallible, Church.
Not saying possession of the autographa would be undesirable, but the reality of the Church would still be vital for our understanding of those autographa. And those understandings could end up, in fact, being wrong. Perhaps a "too small" view of the Church's important role in the Scriptures in Protestant circles is why some of them end up in Rome.


----------



## TimV

> It is pointless to argue that the Church once possessed an inspired and infallible Bible, but it was not providentially preserved and the best we now have is a corrupted facsimile. We now have Bible texts produced that can only claim to portray what they think the Bible “might be.”



OK, let's get specific. In Rev. 22:19 the word Tree instead of Book is used in the overwhelming, if not all, of the Byzantine family of texts, but is Book instead of Tree in the TR.

Most people say that the word Book is found in none of the Byzantine family of texts, but Rob assures us that there are four, so we will take him at his word. This does mean, though, that overwhelming number of those Christians relying on the Byzantine family of texts did not have the word Book in that passage, but rather the word Tree.

Now, would you please tell me if those Christians who had access to the overwhelming majority of Byzantine Greek manuscripts


> once possessed an inspired and infallible Bible


?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> OK, let's get specific. In Rev. 22:19 the word Tree instead of Book is used in the overwhelming, if not all, of the Byzantine family of texts, but is Book instead of Tree in the TR.
> 
> Most people say that the word Book is found in none of the Byzantine family of texts, but Rob assures us that there are four, so we will take him at his word. This does mean, though, that overwhelming number of those Christians relying on the Byzantine family of texts did not have the word Book in that passage, but rather the word Tree.
> 
> Now, would you please tell me if those Christians who had access to the overwhelming majority of Byzantine Greek manuscripts



Hi Tim,

These inspired Words were given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Therefore, for God to realise His stated purpose – it must remain generally accessible to His remnant! God never promised that every nation or language group would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth. “Seek ye out of the Book of the LORD and read...” Isaiah 34:16. Certainly, we are told that for around two millennias in history only one small nation had the true and pure words of God, “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD” (Psalm 147:19,20).

TR only advocates readily admit that we do not have all the answers as to how God preserved His Words in every generation. The truth is we do not have the original manuscripts, the first copies of the original manuscripts, and even many of the actual copies from which the KJV translators worked. We cannot prove everything that we believe historically happened with tangible evidence, but enough to satisfy someone who is willing to believe Scripture. After all none of us have seen creation, a worldwide flood or the ark, but we accept the Genesis account of this. We simply cannot assert that this God has revealed Himself in the pages of a book without at the same time implying that such a revelation is necessary to us. As David Cloud explains,



> Those who reject the doctrine of preservation mock us because we cannot answer all their questions. Let them mock. We have God’s promise on these things. We have an infallible Bible we can hold in our hands. They have one in theory only in the nonexistent original autographs. In my estimation, they have far more problems with that position than I do with mine. What do we care if some think we are foolish or unlearned? Was that not the charge brought against the first Christians by their proud detractors? Dear friends, believe God and do not allow any man to shake your confidence in His perfect, preserved Word…the late Bruce Lackey, a Bible-believing scholar who studied the Greek New Testament every day but who never taught his students to question the Received Text or the King James Bible: “Faith which is based on a clear promise is stronger than objections which are raised by our lack of information. Since God has promised to preserve His Word for all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is represented by the King James Version is the Bible that has been received from ancient tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth preached from this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they differ. ”




God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut. 31:9-13,24-29; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Peter 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11). Logically, if all the Scriptures were “written,” for the purpose of instructing New Testament saints (2 Tim. 3:16), that purpose for the inspired writings must invariably demands their perfect preservation. God also sealed the Canon in history, spiritual gifts ceased, and the apostolic office passed away as man would now live solely by His Words alone. Certainly we must all accept, save for the Liberals, that the Old Testament Text was perfectly preserved through the 400 years of the Intertestament Period and the many apostasies of Israel so why should we doubt that the same would be true of the New Testament? In the book of Deuteronomy, God explicitly promised Israel that they would have access to His Words,



> For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. (Deut. 30:11-14)



Inspired men quoted Old Testament Scriptures, and expected people to study and respect them as accurate, authoritative revelation from God. Indeed, Christ used evidence based on minute details of the Old Testament Scriptures (Matt 22:31-32). There are no other means by which people could receive miraculous, spiritual powers of direct guidance from the Holy Spirit.


----------



## TimV

That was a rather long answer to a pretty simple question, and while I did read through the post, I didn't see the question answered.

Please, I do want to give you a fair hearing, but it always seems to boil down to "Believe what I say or God is a liar".

So, can't you see my frustration? Almost all the Christians who had access to the Byzantine family of texts saw the word Tree rather than Book in those texts for as long as we have records. Did those people have the Word of God available to them or did they not have the Word of God available to them?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

TimV said:


> That was a rather long answer to a pretty simple question, and while I did read through the post, I didn't see the question answered.
> 
> Please, I do want to give you a fair hearing, but it always seems to boil down to "Believe what I say or God is a liar".
> 
> So, can't you see my frustration? Almost all the Christians who had access to the Byzantine family of texts saw the word Tree rather than Book in those texts for as long as we have records. Did those people have the Word of God available to them or did they not have the Word of God available to them?



Tim,

I thought I answered you question. My post was comprehensive as I wanted to deal with as many aspects in relation to this point about general availability. I showed from Scripture that God keeping His Words accessible and pure (as He promised) does not invariably mean that every person on the planet has access to this, but at least some have.

I also sought to demonstrate that you claims as to the availability and transmission of the text pre-1516 is highly speculative, as none of us can prove this one way of the other. If you read Br Winzer's excellent points above today, this is well demonstrated. 

I have never stated that "Believe what I say or God is a liar" - what I will say is that if God promises to preserve His Words pure in every generation and you want to deny this then you can take it up with Him. 

Blessings


----------



## TimV

> I showed from Scripture that God keeping His Words accessible and pure (as He promised) does not invariably mean that every person on the planet has access to this, but at least some have.



I'm sorry if I missed it somewhere in your posts, but could you please tell me where God's Words are today? In what specific Bible Version?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> I'm sorry if I missed it somewhere in your posts, but could you please tell me where God's Words are today? In what specific Bible Version?



Try Post #26 on page 1 of this thread


----------



## TimV

I saw that, but you said



> I just did - the texts underlying the KJV.



And it maybe that I'm just not getting it, but which texts?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

There is only two texts - the TR and Massoretic. Do you know of any other underlying the KJV? 

Just in case you reply "which edition?" of the TR it is the not about a printed edition (though Beza's is almost identical) but the WORDS they used from the TR printed editions and the Church has settled on for the last 400 years. 

BTW, Br Brandenburg has an excellent post today answering some of your points:

WHAT IS TRUTH


----------



## sotzo

ThomasCartwright said:


> There is only two texts - the TR and Massoretic. Do you know of any other underlying the KJV?
> 
> Just in case you reply "which edition?" of the TR it is the not about a printed edition (though Beza's is almost identical) but the WORDS they used from the TR printed editions and the Church has settled on for the last 400 years.
> 
> BTW, Br Brandenburg has an excellent post today answering some of your points:
> 
> WHAT IS TRUTH



Didn't read the article yet, but his profile provided me with a hearty laugh.

"I got lots of learnin when I was in cemetery. I also gots books I try to read. I has preecht throo most of the books of the Bible spositorally. I is marreed and has 4 youngins---3 is gurlz. Me am indipendint Babtist. Pleeez reed my blog."


----------



## Thomas2007

DMcFadden said:


> And, has anyone really refuted the trifecta of Hortian critique of the Byzantine text: secondary, late, and inferior? I would love to do some reading on the subject from a scholarly and confessional perspective (i.e., not from a separatist fundamentalist POV).



Childers in his 2005 book” Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies,” says this:



> "[The] text-critical method functions properly only in conjunction with a view of the history of the transmission of the text….Indeed, in his famous articles on “Hort Redivivus,” Colwell excoriated the discipline for its near-universal failure to deal with or take into account the history of the manuscript tradition. In the years since the situation is only somewhat better: one may point to Metzger’s nice but very brief sketch in the Textual Commentary, (67) to the useful remarks by the Alands in their Introduction (which are hampered, however, by circular reasoning and inattention to early elements surviving in the generally later Byzantine tradition), (68) to the highly idiosyncratic opinions of Amphoux as developed in his revision of Vagany, (69) or to Kilpatrick’s truncated sketch (whose main consequence is to eliminate the need to give attention to the history of the text.
> 
> What Colwell wrote over three and a half decades ago remains essentially true: the discipline has largely neglected to give due attention to the history of the text. But no method works without such a history of the text, so what has filled the void? The lingering influence of Wescott & Hort’s view of the history of the text, it would seem; Epp recently suggested that their text (and by implication the historical view associated with it) has become the unconscious “default setting” of the discipline."



Earnest C Colwell was the Dean of Chicago University School of Divinity and head of the their text critical department. A young man and protege of J. Gresham Machen and Wesminster Graduate would seek his PHD in text critical studies under Colwell, his name was Edward Freer Hills.

In 1942, while a doctoral student under E.C. Colwell, Hills proposed a dissertation topic that would prove "_the K MSS [Byzantine] that had attestation among the oldest witnesses [papyri] would be older than those that had many variants without such attestation_" (Theodore P. Letis, "Edward Freer Hills's Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text," Unpublished M.T.S. Thesis, Emory University, 1987. p. 141) 

However, he was prevented from doing this work by Colwell and went to Harvard under Cadbury to do his doctoral thesis on a different subject. This is an excerpt of Colwell's remarks that are relative to your question:



> "The genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts…Hort utilized this principle solely to depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent… in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis. Earnest Colwell, "Hort Redivivus”


----------



## CDM

Most interesting.


----------



## TimV

> There is only two texts - the TR and Massoretic. Do you know of any other underlying the KJV?



Well, let's see....there are the 14 books translated directly from the Septuagint.....


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I just believe the Bible.


----------



## fredtgreco

I want to comment one important thing in this thread:

I found Rob's interaction with James White to be polite, honorable and charitable (and teh reverse was true as well). Thank you for your attitude and manner, Rob!


----------



## jeffm05

TimV said:


> Well, let's see....there are the 14 books translated directly from the Septuagint.....



Ok, I'll bite... are you referring to the apocryphal books? If not can you provide a source? Thank you.


----------



## TimV

There's no trickiness. The King James Bible as translated has 80 books, and 14 are translated from the Septuagint. This isn't questioned by anyone.


----------



## ChristianTrader

TimV said:


> There's no trickiness. The King James Bible as translated has 80 books, and 14 are translated from the Septuagint. This isn't questioned by anyone.



The question is what is the point? Either you post added nothing to the discussion, or it seems that you are trying to be tricky. The post that you replied to clearly implied that the discussion only concerned the inspired scriptures, not anything else included between the covers of the Original KJV.

CT


----------



## TimV

> The question is what is the point? Either you post added nothing to the discussion, or it seems that you are trying to be tricky.



The claim made by Mr. Ferguson is that the perfectly recorded Word of God without error is found in the texts underlying the King James Version. I asked the question that anyone of moderate intelligence would ask, and that is "what are those texts". The answer was in the form of a question "Do you know of any other texts besides the Masoretic and TR that were used as underlying texts".


----------



## Prufrock

>Quickly Jumping into thread, and then leaving (don't want to get involved in another one...)<

The fact that the apocryphal books are included in a book with the title "Holy Bible" on the cover no more indicates that these same books are held to be holy scripture than the same title indicates the maps or the reference notes in your ESV are sacred scripture.

It is a perfectly coherent position to acknowledge that apocryphal texts, translated from the LXX, are included sandwiched between the testaments in someone's bible, and yet to hold that neither are the apocryphal texts canonical, nor is the LXX authoritative scripture other than inasmuch as it translates the original.

Thus, I'm not sure I see the relevancy. I'm enjoying reading this thread, and don't want to see it get sidetracked.


----------



## TimV

> The fact that the apocryphal books are included in a book with the title "Holy Bible" on the cover no more indicates that these same books are held to be holy scripture than the same title indicates the maps or the reference notes in your ESV are sacred scripture.



The question isn't about "the Bible" but the texts underlying the King James Bible, which has 80 books. There is no sidetracking going on.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Hey Rob W.,

Great job on the DL. I'm learning more and more about this topic everyday. I still don't quite think it necessary to hold to the KJV only, but I do understand your position much better than I used to.


----------



## Prufrock

Tim, I'm sorry, but what you're saying simply isn't true unless the matter is significantly stretched. 

Yes, there were 80 books between the covers of the book with the title "Bible" on it that King James commissioned, even as Tyndale, Geneva, etc, contained these books between their covers. But that doesn't mean they held these to be "The Bible." They certainly and completely rejected them as sacred scripture. So again, I'm left confused as to what bearing that has on the issue.

As I've said before, I'm not a AV only (or even necessarily an AV-emphasizer. I like it. I think it's a fine translation; indeed one of the best. I also think it can be improved in places). Nevertheless, to simplify this thread (I don't want to see it derailed), if we spoke of the KJ Old Testament and the King James New Testament, which together constitute the entirety of the scripture translated under King James, then the source of the apocryphal books is no longer an issue. So the issue of the apocrypha can be completely bypassed, since, after all, the question concerns only scripture (and we all agree the apocrypha is not scripture.) Yes?

[Prufrock withdraws from thread]


----------



## TimV

It's necessary to try to pin things down. Why did all those Reformed scholastics (Luther included them also) have this opinion



> And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
> 
> The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees.



from article 6 of the 39 articles about these books if they were part of a great hoax?

That isn't going to go away, whether we've gone down that path here or not. NT authors quoted both from the Masoretic and Septuagint, so at the time of the NT the Word of God wasn't contained in one, single document. And to deny this paints you into a corner so small that you have to reject basically every respected scholar that has ever lived.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> That isn't going to go away, whether we've gone down that path here or not. NT authors quoted both from the Masoretic and Septuagint, so at the time of the NT the Word of God wasn't contained in one, single document. And to deny this paints you into a corner so small that you have to reject basically every respected scholar that has ever lived.



You keep claiming this without proving it. And, out of curiosity, what will you do when you discover that the NT alludes to Apocryphal history? Will that compel you to accept the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture?


----------



## Prufrock

I don't follow your quote. Obviously we believe the apocryphal books are profitable. It's also in the Belgic confession. Why did they have that opinion? The opinion that "the Church doth read [the apocrypha] for example of life and instruction of manners; *but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine*"? I think we all hold to that opinion.

I simply absolutely fail to see the connection you are trying to make in your last post that:

1. The apocrypha contains profitable matter for understanding sacred scripture, so therefore:
2. The LXX is _in se_ authoritative scripture.

I'm not sure what these two things have to do with each other. Please explain.

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 08:19:52 EST-----

Regarding the LXX being quoted in the NT, I've posted quotes from various old reformed people before. To hold the position that the LXX is not quoted from _does not_ mean you have to disagree with _every_ scholar in history. Many great reformers and reformed divines of old believed the NT authors did not do so.

And whether you agree with them or not, at least grant them consistency in their arguments. They didn't argue that the LXX was a hoax. They held either that:

1.) Since we don't know what the Greek translation looked like before the Christian era, we have no problems making the (fair) assumption that Christian scribes corrected the LXX to match the inspired translations which the NT authors gave (see men such as Owen or Whitaker); or,

2.) Perhaps the NT did at times make use of the LXX's wording, but they only did this when it agreed with the Hebrew text, and they did so in order to not trouble the minds of weak, Greek speaking Christians who might otherwise think their OT translation was no good and begin to doubt the veracity of scripture. For this, see men such as Turretin.

I'm not asking you to agree with them; but we should at least admit that their view points exist, and that there's not only ever been one conclusion held by scholars about the role of the LXX in the New Testament.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

TimV:

Paul quotes from Aratus as well, are we going to accept the whole body of a pagan poet simply because Paul quotes from him? Acts 17:28.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

I don't really feel like repeating myself over and over. This whole "theory" not held by any major Reformed denomination hinges upon the Septuagint being a hoax.

Some people on this thread and others keep pushing the credentials of those who used the TR in early translations and claiming that they thought the TR was the absolutely pure Word of God, even though they come up with precious little proof. Well, if they had that much clear and proper insight about what texts to base their translations on, why not listen to what they said about the Septuagint?

It's just another in a long series of contradictions. And when you try to pin them down they usually revert to insisting we should think like them "because".

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 08:24:49 EST-----



> Greetings:
> 
> TimV:
> 
> Paul quotes from Aratus as well, are we going to accept the whole body of a pagan poet simply because Paul quotes from him? Acts 17:28.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



Rob, rather we should admit that the poets Paul referred to really did exist, and the plays they wrote were not a big hoax. Right?


----------



## Prufrock

TimV said:


> Well, if they had that much clear and proper insight about what texts to base their translations on, why not listen to what they said about the Septuagint?



I have. See a few posts up for a summary of common views by some eminent old divines.


----------



## TimV

> Regarding the LXX being quoted in the NT, I've posted quotes from various old reformed people before. To hold the position that the LXX is not quoted from does not mean you have to disagree with every scholar in history. Many great reformers and reformed divines of old believed the NT authors did not do so.



Then we can make a list. You pick all those respected scholars who say NT authors didn't quote from the Septuagint and I'll make a list up. And the readers can decide if the terms I use like "overwhelming majority" or "basically every" apply or not. The list would be perhaps a dozen from you and 100,000 from me.

I really thing it says something that on other threads when various verses are brought up the AVers, when trying to show that these verses weren't taken from the Septuagint, almost always give as proof for their side comments by scholars who totally disagree with them on the issue.


----------



## Prufrock

> *Posted by TimV*
> Then we can make a list. You pick all those respected scholars who say NT authors didn't quote from the Septuagint and I'll make a list up. And the readers can decide if the terms I use like "overwhelming majority" or "basically every" apply or not. The list would be perhaps a dozen from you and 100,000 from me.



Okay, I'm not going to do that. And I think I'm fine with that. I think that would be a rather fruitless challenge.

Also, I'll say it again: I'm not an AVer.

Anyway, blessings, brother. I think my fruitful involvement in the thread has run its course. I just want to make sure it is acknowledged that there _is_ another position, and that it has been held by very reputable theologians; particularly by those who were formative to our tradition. Agree with them or not: they existed.

Grace and peace.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> This whole "theory" not held by any major Reformed denomination hinges upon the Septuagint being a hoax.



I don't know of any major reformed denomination that has officially stated any specific theory anent the Septuagint.

The issue has nothing to do with a hoax, but with the genuine text of the so-called LXX. What I find remarkable is the fact that you would recognise the corruption of the NT text, whilst disallowing even the possibility that the Greek translation of the OT has undergone changes.


----------



## TimV

> What I find remarkable is the fact that you would recognise the corruption of the NT text, whilst disallowing even the possibility that the Greek translation of the OT has undergone changes.



What I find remarkable is that anyone thinks that God preserved a totally perfect copy of His Word in 2500BC, 500BC, 500AD, 1500AD and 2009AD and that someone could possible come to the conclusion that this was exactly the same as the underlying texts of the KJV even though there's no proof.

I also feel it very remarkable that you would assume the same kind of inconsistancy on my part as I've repeatedly been critical of in extreme AVers. Why on earth would I deny the possibilty of the Greek OT having not undergone changes?

How many times have I said in the last year that the overwhelming majority of people qualified to comment on the issue have said that NT authors quoted from BOTH the Greek and Hebrew Old Testaments?

Please admit that since I said that NT authors quoted from both traditions, and used that as evidence for God's Word NOT having been necessarily written down in one place, that implicit in my statements I have to hold that the Greek Old Testament was speficially not used in cases by NT authors, and therefore corrupted even then.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> What I find remarkable is that anyone thinks that God preserved a totally perfect copy of His Word in 2500BC, 500BC, 500AD, 1500AD and 2009AD and that someone could possible come to the conclusion that this was exactly the same as the underlying texts of the KJV even though there's no proof.



I would also find that claim remarkable. If such a copy existed I am sure it would not be difficult to produce it.



TimV said:


> I also feel it very remarkable that you would assume the same kind of inconsistancy on my part as I've repeatedly been critical of in extreme AVers. Why on earth would I deny the possibilty of the Greek OT having not undergone changes?



It must be assumed that the text of the Septuagint as we have it has not undergone changes since the writing of the NT in order to appeal to it as being quoted in the NT.


----------



## TimV

> I would also find that claim remarkable. If such a copy existed I am sure it would not be difficult to produce it.



Yes, from previous threads I knew this. The idea is for Mr. Ferguson to be aware that others defending the AVer position are open to changes to the TR, at least in limited ways.



> It must be assumed that the text of the Septuagint as we have it has not undergone changes since the writing of the NT in order to appeal to it as being quoted in the NT.



No, you only have to assume the parts that were quoted were not changed. And that even goes for the Hebrew, and even allows for back changes in some cases. God's Word was there, just like it was there in all those Byzantine communites, Latin communities, Syrian communites and everywhere else.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> No, you only have to assume the parts that were quoted were not changed.



And yet you assume it. Remarkable!


----------



## TimV

> And yet you assume it. Remarkable!



Exactly. As Pastor Buchanan said a month or so ago, I do assume God kept His Word pure, I just don't know where it is. I assume that we've got it close enough for all matters of faith and practice, though, so when the Pastor the other day used the ASV it didn't cause a problem in our church. I was frankly, almost certainly, the only one there who gave it a second thought. And I assumed he had his reasons, and the sermon was good, and would have been only worse in the 1611 KJV since I was almost certainly the only one there outside the Session who would have understood it.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> And yet you assume it. Remarkable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you might consider this before you undertake to sidetrack future threads with ideas you acknowledge are mere assumptions.


----------



## TimV

> Perhaps you might consider this before you undertake to sidetrack future threads with ideas you acknowledge are mere assumptions.



I reject your accusation, but am anxious to obey you as a moderator. But how do I predict what you will consider an attempt to sidetrack something other than staying out of this thread, and others like it? I can't, so I will stay out until told by the board's authority than I can.


----------



## Brian Withnell

sotzo said:


> Putting the ideal in front of us leads to exactly that question. And that question is answered in going for the best we can ... we don't have originals, we have to use the fallen brain God gave us and take the best we have, even if that best means we continually examine if our prior decision was correct or not. What I am saying is there is no reason to affirm that a particular version put together using textural criticism of the available manuscripts in 1633 or 1513, or any other particular date was correct. Do we ever stop and say finished? No, not unless we know without possibility of doubt the text is the original reading. I have no presuppositional position that says the any present reading must be the correct rather than any other compiled text, so I go with what knowledge I do have, and the presupposition that God does keep his word pure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Brian. It seems to me the presupposition that God keep his word pure is either bound up with natural theology (that is, a priori to the Bible) OR follows logically from the reliability of the Bible (that is, a posteriori to the Bible). I think the latter has to be the choice because I'm not sure how one could presuppose God keeping His word pure based on natural theology...seems the best that gets us is deism which not only argues against a pure word, but the reality of any word at all.
> 
> Perhaps a third choice is it could simply be a bare presupposition, but then how would it be justified at that point than the contrary presupposition that God does not keep His word pure? Sure the necessary outworkings from those presuppositions would be different, but I think such a choice in the absence of presupposing the Scriptures would be quite arbitrary.
> 
> Also, I think it is valuable to restate the fact that even if we had the autographa we would not, thereby, be suddenly able to infallibly interpret. The infallible text would still require interpretation by the Spirit-led, yet fallible, Church.
> Not saying possession of the autographa would be undesirable, but the reality of the Church would still be vital for our understanding of those autographa. And those understandings could end up, in fact, being wrong. Perhaps a "too small" view of the Church's important role in the Scriptures in Protestant circles is why some of them end up in Rome.
Click to expand...


The third position is what I would say is the more consistent position both from the confession (it starts with Of the Holy Scriptures for a reason ... it is upon that as a presuppositional truth). All systems of logic must have a starting point (presuppositions, axioms, postulates, whatever you want to call them) upon which the rest of the system is built. The confession starts with God exists and has revealed himself in the Bible. That is also my starting point ... it is not open to debate because it is the foundation of all discussion. That God is, and that he condescended to reveal himself to man in the scriptures is a sufficient starting point from which all else flows from necessary or sufficient deduction.

Of course there is a presuppositional position the antithesis of what we believe. The point is that it is not taken by arbitrary means (within our framework of Biblical revelation by God). The antithesis is taken because of moral depravity (Romans 1:18 and following is probably the best classical argumentation for that I have seen).

I don't worry about the idea that there are those that reject the scriptures and say their system is just as consistent as what our presuppositional position is within the realm of logic. The realm of logic is not the real world, even if we use the tools of logic within the real world. The real world is the world God created, and that is inescapable (logical or not, presupposition that the Bible is not infallible is false within creation).

I really appreciate your statements on the fallibility of interpretation even with the autographa. We will make mistakes in any case, but I also acknowledge the closer we have to the autographa the better our starting point. Thus my ardor toward striving to obtain the closest text we can to those originals, all the while stating the texts we have (even with those as suspect as the TR) are sufficiently pure that all matters of doctrine are capable of being rightly discovered by proper exegetical study.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> I reject your accusation, but am anxious to obey you as a moderator. But how do I predict what you will consider an attempt to sidetrack something other than staying out of this thread, and others like it? I can't, so I will stay out until told by the board's authority than I can.



It wasn't a moderatorial decision, but a brotherly suggestion. Blessings!


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your accusation, but am anxious to obey you as a moderator. But how do I predict what you will consider an attempt to sidetrack something other than staying out of this thread, and others like it? I can't, so I will stay out until told by the board's authority than I can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a moderatorial decision, but a brotherly suggestion. Blessings!
Click to expand...


Exactly! Thanks, Matthew. It is a rare occasion when a moderator who is participating in a thread actively moderates in that thread. Such a policy gives all parties (including other moderators) more liberty to speak.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> I don't really feel like repeating myself over and over. This whole "theory" not held by any major Reformed denomination hinges upon the Septuagint being a hoax.
> 
> Some people on this thread and others keep pushing the credentials of those who used the TR in early translations and claiming that they thought the TR was the absolutely pure Word of God, even though they come up with precious little proof. Well, if they had that much clear and proper insight about what texts to base their translations on, why not listen to what they said about the Septuagint?
> 
> It's just another in a long series of contradictions. And when you try to pin them down they usually revert to insisting we should think like them "because".
> 
> -----Added 2/10/2009 at 08:24:49 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings:
> 
> TimV:
> 
> Paul quotes from Aratus as well, are we going to accept the whole body of a pagan poet simply because Paul quotes from him? Acts 17:28.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, rather we should admit that the poets Paul referred to really did exist, and the plays they wrote were not a big hoax. Right?
Click to expand...


Whole body of the works of Aratus. Sorry I was not clear enough. He was a real man who wrote real poetry.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> Exactly. As Pastor Buchanan said a month or so ago, I do assume God kept His Word pure, *I just don't know where it is.* I assume that we've got it close enough for all matters of faith and practice.



That sums up your position rather well and I respect your candour. I hope all the readers here take note. However, when I face the next cult member who knocks on my door I want to be defend the Word of God on something stronger than your "assumption" that it is close enough for reliability. A smart liberal or JW will destroy such a premise in a few sentences.

You are arguing for a position based upon a premise ie a Bible that you accept is not reliable (unless of course you have special post-canonical revelation). How can you prove the Bible is inspired? How can you prove it was once infallible in the autographs? How can you use an imperfect source as ‘the supreme and final authority in faith and life”? In reality, your statement is creedally meaningless. Also, as “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17), how can you “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) if you do not have all of that faith? In light of 2 Peter 3:2 which say, “That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” are you excused of this as you do not have all these Words? If you do not have access to all the “Words of God” today, will God hold you accountable on the day of judgment for rejecting and not receiving them (John 12:48) and not keeping His commandments (Luke 16:10; Rev 22:14)? 

Logically, even the simplest mind knows that to categorically say there is something missing or added to the underlying text of the KJV must mean the person(s) making such a claim has an objective standard of truth i.e. a perfect text to make such a bold accusation. Surely, the only reliable scholar who asserts that God did not perfectly preserve His Word in one place is the scholar who knows for certain that he is using an errant edition, can objectively prove where it is errant, and knows that there is an edition that corrects the flaw. Yet you admit you cannot!

Your view of Preservation is like saying God’s words are preserved in the Oxford English Dictionary – “they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of order and we don’t know how to find them, but they are still ‘preserved’ somewhere in there.” 

I note in all our exchanges you do not use a single verse of Scripture to prove this theory that we cannot have certainty as to the Words of God. The obvious reason is because the Bible does not teach this! God promises in Proverbs 1:23 the exact opposite, “I will pour out My Spirit unto you, I will make known My Words unto you.” If the Church has been without the most authentic text of the New Testament for nearly two millennia then it is far-fetched to argue that God has “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” the New Testament text. However, the textual critical experts now tell us the Scripture text is uncertain, but we have a general idea of what they are (though the 1,000 hidden manuscripts of Dan Wallace may supercede this). Should we now muster up a general faith in these Words? There is something wrong with a position on Bible preservation that leaves a man with no preserved Bible.

If you believe we do not have an “absolutely infallible text” then on what authority do you base your beliefs? Are you appealing, as do the other religions and cults, to a man or a system as our “final authority?” However, the Reformation was predicated upon the pre-supposition that we are to appeal to the Bible as our “final authority.” How you know for certain that John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 are not just the error or corruption of some first century scribe? By your preservation belief system this is a possibility that cannot be discounted.

God places supreme importance upon His written word and its exaltation is a theme which runs throughout the Bible. The Lord also gave us three grave warnings (Prov. 30:5-6; Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19) to those who would corrupt the Scriptures and even concluded the final revelation with a fearsome final reminder in the last verses of Revelation. We cannot look to scientific proof to establish the doctrine or preservation any more than we can for inspiration or canonicity. God’s word says that His revelation to man was preserved for all time, to each and every generation, in every single word, and through His people. Those Biblical pre-suppositions should be the entire frame of reference within which the facts are to be understood when we come to this issue. The “facts of textual history” cannot be neutrally interpreted autonomously to establish the veracity of the Christian faith but require the starting-point of faith from which to interpret them. We should note from Genesis 2 that a newly created world may look ancient but still be young before embracing reason over revelation.

The Bible does not say that says that fundamental doctrines are sufficient to live for God but every Word (Matt. 4:4; John 12:48). Indeed, if Matthew 4:4 refers to the Scriptures, what God has written and preserved for us, then we can live in a manner pleasing to the Lord. However, if it refers to everything God has ever said (which would be completely absurd cf. John 20.30 and 21.25), then we are all in trouble! We must approach this issue with pre-suppositionalism rather than evidential which is not to be confused with “circular reasoning”. The latter assumes what is to be proven without positing any proof, whereas the former says that which is presupposed is presupposed upon that which is greater than rationalistic evidences: God’s promises. God said that He preserved His Word, and that should settle it. The Bible must never be interpreted by the facts of general revelation. If our interpretation of the textual evidence conflicts with what Scripture says, then we simply submit to God’s Word and reject our view of evidence and our own reasoning. The Textus Receptus and the foremost English translation from it – the King James Bible – are the result of God’s providential preservation of all the Words. There is no other offer on the table that meets the providential promises coupled with the facts of history.


----------



## TimV

> That sums up your position rather well and I respect your candour. I hope all the readers here take note. However, when I face the next cult member who knocks on my door I want to be defend the Word of God on something stronger than your "assumption" that it is close enough for reliability. *A smart liberal or JW will destroy such a premise in a few sentences*.



Yes, I do hope everyone takes note. That while sharing the Gospel I can't do it without the extreme AVer position as a basis for my faith.



> How can you prove the Bible is inspired? How can you prove it was once infallible in the autographs? How can you use an imperfect source as ‘the supreme and final authority in faith and life”?



And this is why even Rob doen't agree with you. A reasonable person of your almost microscopic school will at least allow that there can be slight changes made to the TR, using texts from the Byzantine family. And that, of course, means that they can't say the same as you, that they are totally certain the TR in any version written down today is God's exact Word. There is an element of faith involved, that doesn't need proping up by forcing a person into an extreme position, which is "The TR is perfect, otherwise God is a liar, and there is no basis for defending the Christian faith".




> In reality, your statement is creedally meaningless. Also, as “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17), how can you “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) if you do not have all of that faith?



Well, Hus and Wycliffe did just fine, didn't they? Please answer clearly.



> If you do not have access to all the “Words of God” today, will God hold you accountable on the day of judgment for rejecting and not receiving them (John 12:48) and not keeping His commandments (Luke 16:10; Rev 22:14)?



I was asked that in Papua New Guinea while holding a service in a tribe that didn't have the Bible. They asked if their ancestors went to hell for lying, murdering and cheating on their wives. How would you have answered their question?



> Logically, even the simplest mind knows that to categorically say there is something missing or added to the underlying text of the KJV must mean the person(s) making such a claim has an objective standard of truth i.e. a perfect text to make such a bold accusation.



Erasmus, Augustine and the others had to wrestle with this, and their conclusion was that you can't get out of the hard and difficult work of comparing texts with each other. You may want to be careful who you are calling dumber than "simple" people.



> Surely, the only reliable scholar who asserts that God did not perfectly preserve His Word in one place is the scholar who knows for certain that he is using an errant edition, can objectively prove where it is errant, and knows that there is an edition that corrects the flaw. Yet you admit you cannot!



Any scholar who disagrees with you is unreliable. That's over the top, really.



> I note in all our exchanges you do not use a single verse of Scripture to prove this theory that we cannot have certainty as to the Words of God. The obvious reason is because the Bible does not teach this!



It depends on the person I'm speaking with. As I'm somewhat theonomistic those who know me here are aware that my view of Scripture's specific value for today is a bit "higher" than most people. There has been another thread about the treatment of slaves active now where I referred to specific verses that I believe still binding today, where many don't. But with you it's different. I see verses that you quote, like the below, and see that using verses with you doesn't help. I can look at Proverbs 1:23 and see God saying He will make His Words know to His people. I helped a Bible translator in PNG some years ago. The tribe I worked in still doesn't have the full Bible, and what they have naturally isn't perfect, because there are translation errors. So they don't have all 66 Books yet. *But I do not claim God would be a liar by saying if the church didn't have 66 Books all together in one volume, without error available to God's people throughout all ages God did not keep His promise*. God gave those people His Word *the first time they heard the Gospel.*



> God promises in Proverbs 1:23 the exact opposite, “I will pour out My Spirit unto you, I will make known My Words unto you.”





> If you believe we do not have an “absolutely infallible text” then on what authority do you base your beliefs?



One the same thing 99.9 percent of orthodox Christians have always based them on. 

When Rob said to Mr. White that some changes could be made to the TR he conceded everything, as White knew. 

The logical end point of the AVer school of thought is yours, and what it means is that the majority of Reformed Christians are not using God's Word.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

TimV wrote:



> And this is why even Rob doen't agree with you. A reasonable person of your almost microscopic school will at least allow that there can be slight changes made to the TR, using texts from the Byzantine family. And that, of course, means that they can't say the same as you, that they are totally certain the TR in any version written down today is God's exact Word. There is an element of faith involved, that doesn't need proping up by forcing a person into an extreme position, which is "The TR is perfect, otherwise God is a liar, and there is no basis for defending the Christian faith".


Be careful Tim.

The differences I would admit are so slight that they do not change the sense of the text at all. I think that Dr. White's example of Rev 16:5 is relevant here.

In the TR it reads, "the Lord"

Dr. White's proposed change is, "Holy One"

Both statements refer to God as it can be understood in the context. Though the TR did not pick up the exact wording. The sense of the verse is not changed by the "error" here so put forth. It can be fixed by using accepted methods of Textual Criticism within the Byzantine family of MSS. (This is assuming that Dr. White is correct in his statement that there are no extant Greek texts which witness to "the Lord" here). If there is Greek textual witness to "the Lord" here, then my opinion may change.

Such changes do not shake the foundation of the TR as an authentic (therefore inspired) copy of the original. Read Hebrews 8:9 in reference to Jeremiah 31:32. Here Paul does not quote the OT exactly word for word, but gives the sense of the passage. Was Paul writing inspired writ? If so, then why did he get it "wrong"?

My suggestion to this discussion is that in the Bible, and Mid-Eastern culture, the rigors of an exact scientific method were not necessary in order to establish the inspiration of Scriptures.

What I strenously object to is the use of the Alexandrian varients as a means of emending the text. After 300 AD the church rejected them. Erasmus was aware of them, from the Vaticanus in the Pope's library, and he rejected them. There is evidence within the texts themselves that they were corrupted. Consequently, there is no cause for using them as authentic to the autographs.

John Owen was correct in writing:



> We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared. In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves.


Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> Be careful Tim.
> 
> The differences I would admit are so slight that they do not change the sense of the text at all. I think that Dr. White's example of Rev 16:5 is relevant here.
> 
> In the TR it reads, "the Lord"
> 
> Dr. White's proposed change is, "Holy One"



Mr. Ferguson, are you comfortable with admitting that changing the TR in Rev 16:5 would be correct, if Dr. White is correct in that "the Lord" is not found in any Byzantine manuscript?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

CalvinandHodges said:


> The differences I would admit are so slight that they do not change the sense of the text at all. I think that Dr. White's example of Rev 16:5 is relevant here.
> 
> In the TR it reads, "the Lord"
> 
> Dr. White's proposed change is, "Holy One"
> 
> Both statements refer to God as it can be understood in the context. Though the TR did not pick up the exact wording. The sense of the verse is not changed by the "error" here so put forth. It can be fixed by using accepted methods of Textual Criticism within the Byzantine family of MSS.



Hello Rob

It is not hard to see the difficulties in your argument. If your argument is applied consistently, one would reject the TR, and apply more consistent principles of textual criticism such as those of Maurice Robinson's Priority of Byzantine Text approach.

I used to be a TR man, but I found I could not be consistent with my argumentation, hence now rejecting this position.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Stephen L Smith said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The differences I would admit are so slight that they do not change the sense of the text at all. I think that Dr. White's example of Rev 16:5 is relevant here.
> 
> In the TR it reads, "the Lord"
> 
> Dr. White's proposed change is, "Holy One"
> 
> Both statements refer to God as it can be understood in the context. Though the TR did not pick up the exact wording. The sense of the verse is not changed by the "error" here so put forth. It can be fixed by using accepted methods of Textual Criticism within the Byzantine family of MSS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Rob
> 
> It is not hard to see the difficulties in your argument. If your argument is applied consistently, one would reject the TR, and apply more consistent principles of textual criticism such as those of Maurice Robinson's Priority of Byzantine Text approach.
> 
> I used to be a TR man, but I found I could not be consistent with my argumentation, hence now rejecting this position.
Click to expand...


I fail to see the "difficulties" involved? Am I not following the very practices of Paul and the apostles?

The problem with the CT position is that it sacrifices the Biblical witness for a "consistent" philosophy developed in the 19th Century.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: Though I am sympathetic to the Majority Text - I do not follow its methodology - because I do not believe that the majority is always correct. Thus, I believe that the Comma Johanneum is genuine to the Scriptures.

RPW


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Found a passage in Turretin that applies to this:



> The question is not Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? This this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regareded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it ...
> 
> V. The following arguments prove that the sources have not been corrupted. (1) The providence of God which could not permit books which it willed to be written by inspiration (theopneustois) for the salvation of men (and to continue unto the end of the world that they might draw from them waters of salvation) to become so corrupted as to render them unfit for this purpose ... (2) The fidelity of the Christian church and unceasing labor in preserving the manuscriptus; for since Christians have always labored with great zeal to keep this sacred deposit uncorrupted, it is no credible that they would either corrupt it thmselves or suffer it to be corrupted by others. (3) The religion of the Jews who have bestowed upon the sacred manuscriptts great care and labor amounting even to supersitition ... (4) The carefulness of the Masoretes not only about verses and words, but also about single letters ... (5) The multitude of copies; for as the mauscripts were scattered far and wide, how could they all be corrupted either by carelessness of librarians or the wickedness of enemies? Augustine says, "No prudent man can believe that the Jews however perverse and wicked could do it, in copies so numerous and so far and widely diffused, _Institutes_, vol 1, 106-107.



Turretin, later on, states what I have been maintaining:



> The various readings which occur do not destroy the authenticity of the Scriptures because they may be easily distinguished and determined, partly by the connection of the passage and partly by a collation with better manuscriptures. Som are of such a kind that although diverse, they may nevertheless belong to the same text,_Institutes_, 114.



So I am not crazy after all!  = what a relief!

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Grymir

CalvinandHodges, what a great post!!


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> Yes, I do hope everyone takes note. That while sharing the Gospel I can't do it without the extreme AVer position as a basis for my faith.



Please cite me in the context. Just because you can get round the problem, in the main, does not mean that you cannot be floored by a thinking opponent by the challenge. I have just proven it



> And this is why even Rob doen't agree with you. A reasonable person of your almost microscopic school will at least allow that there can be slight changes made to the TR, using texts from the Byzantine family. And that, of course, means that they can't say the same as you, that they are totally certain the TR in any version written down today is God's exact Word. There is an element of faith involved, that doesn't need proping up by forcing a person into an extreme position, which is "The TR is perfect, otherwise God is a liar, and there is no basis for defending the Christian faith".



Rob, can speak for himself but I see the Trintarian Bible Society's position as as comparable as they state all the Words are perfectly preserved in the TR's printed editions. 



> Well, Hus and Wycliffe did just fine, didn't they? Please answer clearly.



Please answer the question theologically and Biblically. You keep trying to use subjective criteria such as men of the past rather than dealing with the facts. I cannot answer for these two men as we do not have all of the details of their lives. However, they appear to have been stunted in their theological development by not having a pure text. Calvin got a lot further in defending the faith. Before you jump in, the Words were available to Wycliffe's generation - the fact that he had not learned Greek does not invalidate this.



> I was asked that in Papua New Guinea while holding a service in a tribe that didn't have the Bible. They asked if their ancestors went to hell for lying, murdering and cheating on their wives. How would you have answered their question?



Yes. I would have thought this is an axiom - Romans 1.



> Erasmus, Augustine and the others had to wrestle with this, and their conclusion was that you can't get out of the hard and difficult work of comparing texts with each other. You may want to be careful who you are calling dumber than "simple" people.



You did not answer my point - can you point out errors in a text unless you have a perfect objective text to compare with? Is that logical or not?



> I can look at Proverbs 1:23 and see God saying He will make His Words know to His people. I helped a Bible translator in PNG some years ago. The tribe I worked in still doesn't have the full Bible, and what they have naturally isn't perfect, because there are translation errors. So they don't have all 66 Books yet. But I do not claim God would be a liar by saying if the church didn't have 66 Books all together in one volume, without error available to God's people throughout all ages God did not keep His promise



This statement is self-refuting. You say Prov 1:23 ensures God will make His Words clear but then didn't. I made it clear in another post that God making His Words available to every generation does not mean that every person on the planet has direct access but that these Words will be generally available.



> The logical end point of the AVer school of thought is yours, and what it means is that the majority of Reformed Christians are not using God's Word.



So you believe that when the majority of the Reformed Church uses Mark 1:2 from the Vulgate text that contradicts the internal evidence of Scripture and the minority use the TR that has the correct reading then we both are using God's Word. Is God the author of confusion? Does God say two things at the one time?


----------



## TimV

Mr. Ferguson, are you comfortable with admitting that changing the TR in Rev 16:5 would be correct, if Dr. White is correct in that "the Lord" is not found in any Byzantine manuscript?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> Found a passage in Turretin that applies to this:
> So I am not crazy after all!  = what a relief!



Rob,

You are certainly not crazy. I have done my own research on this subject and I will set out a synopsis of the citations of our forefathers who believed they had an authentic and pure text handed down to them.

Benjamin Brook records of the brilliant Thomas Cartwright that,



> Mr. Cartwright defended the holy Scriptures against the accusation of corruption, and maintained that the Old and New Testaments written in the original languages were preserved uncorrupted. They constituted the word of God, whose works are all perfect, then must his word continue unimpaired; and, since it was written for our instruction, admonition, and consolation, he concluded that, unless God was deceived and disappointed in his purpose, it must perform these friendly offices for the church of God to the end of the world. If the authority of the authentic copies in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek were lost, or given up, or corrupted, or the sense changed, there would be no high court of appeal to put an end to disputes; so that the exhortation to have recourse to the law, the prophets, and the New Testament would be of very little effect. In this case our state would be worse than theirs under the law, and in the time of Christ; yea than those who lived some hundred years after Christ, when the ancient fathers exhorted the people to try all controversies by the Scriptures. Their own Gratian directs us, in deciding differences, not to the old translation, but to the originals of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and of the Greek in the New .



Thomas Cartwright observed this about preservation,



> Woe unto the churches, if the Scriptures, the charters and records of heaven be destroyed, falsified, or corrupted. These divine charters were safely kept in one nation of the Jews; and though they were sometimes unfaithful, yet they kept the keys of the Lord’s library: but now, when many nations have the keys, it is altogether incredible that any such corruptions should enter in, as the adversaries unwisely suppose. If the Lord preserved the book of Leviticus, with the account of the ancient ceremonies, which were afterward abolished, how much more may we conclude that his providence has watched over other books of Scripture which properly belong to our times and to our salvation? Will not the Scriptures bear witness to the perpetuity of their own authority? “Secret things belong to God;” but things revealed belong to us, and to our children forever. Jesus Christ said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” Notwithstanding the sacred writings were disregarded, and even hated by most persons, they had been preserved entire as they were the first day they were given to the church of God. More than fifteen hundred years had elapsed, during which not any one book, nor part of any book, of canonical Scripture had been lost: and it was evident not only that the matter of the Scripture, but also the words; not only the sense and meaning, but also the manner and form of speech in them remained unaltered .



Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, William Whitaker (1548-1595) in a classic riposte to the Romanist translation posited perfect preservation as an absolute necessity,



> Now we, not doubtfully or only with some probable shew, but most certainly, know that this Greek edition of the New Testament is no other than the inspired and archetypal scripture of the new Testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the Christian church….. If God had permitted the scripture to perish in the Hebrew and Greek originals, in which it was first published by men divinely inspired, he would not have provided sufficiently for his church and for our faith. From the prophetic and apostolic scripture the church takes its origin, and the faith derives its source. But whence can it be ascertained that these are in all respects prophetic and apostolic scriptures, if the very writings of the prophets and apostles are not those which we consult?



Whitaker went on to say he accepted the Received Text handed down by faith,



> Now the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the New Testament, was always held the authentic scripture of God in the Christian churches for six hundred years after Christ. This, therefore, ought to be received by us also as authentic scripture. If they doubt the major, we must ask them, whether the church hath changed its authentic scripture, or hath not rather preserved, and commended to all succeeding generations, that which was in truth authentic from the very first? If it lost that which was published by the prophets and apostles, who can defend that negligence, who excuse so enormous a sacrilege?



Whitaker also cleverly rejected the argument that the Masoretes had corrupted the Hebrew Text,


> Besides, if the Jews had wished to corrupt the original scriptures, they would have laid their sacrilegious hands specially upon those places which concern Christ and confirm the faith. But in those places these fountains run so clear that one feels no lack: nay, they sometimes run far clearer than the Latin streams.



He also showed how that God protected the Scriptures in the ages,



> God protects the scriptures against Satan, as being their constant enemy. Satan hath frequently endeavoured to destroy the scriptures, knowing that they stand in his way: but he hath never spent any trouble or thought upon these unwritten traditions; for he supposed that his whole object would be gained if he could destroy the scriptures. In pursuance of this plan he hath raised up such impious tyrants as Antiochus, Maximin, Diocletian, and others, who have endeavoured utterly to quench the light of scripture. Now, if religion could remain entire even when these books were lost, it would be in vain for Satan to labour with such furious efforts to remove these books.



Bishop of Salisbury and eminent Divine, John Jewel (1522-1571), who was a strong apologist against the Church of Rome, also makes clear the need of perfect preservation,



> By the space of so many thousand years, the word of God passed by so many dangers of tyrants, of Pharisees, of heretics, of fire, and of sword, and yet continueth and standeth until this day, without altering or changing one letter. This was a wonderful work of God, that having so many, so great enemies, and passing through so many, so great dangers, it yet continueth still without adding or altering of any one sentence, or word, or letter. No creature was able to do this, it was God’s work. He preserved it, that no tyrant should consume it, no tradition choke it, no heretic maliciously should corrupt it. For His name’s sake, and for the elect’s sake, He would not suffer it to perish. For in it God hath ordained a blessing for His people, and by it He maketh covenant with them for life everlasting. Tyrants, and Pharisees, and heretics, and the enemies of the cross of Christ have an end, but the word of God hath no end. No force shall be able to decay it. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it .



Cambridge-educated Puritan preacher, Nicholas Gibbens also retorted in 1602, 



> For by these authorities it may seem apparent, that the Hebrew Text has been corrupted by the Jews: which if it be; where is the truth the Scriptures to be found, but either perished, or only remaining in that translation which the Papists so greatly magnify. For answer whereunto, we affirm and testify by the authority of the Scriptures themselves, (which is the voice of God) of the Fathers, and of the adversaries themselves; that the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue are pure, and unspotted of all corruption.



Johannes Andreas Quenstedt (1617 - 1688) the German Lutheran dogmatician argued,



> We believe, as is our duty, that the providential care of God has always watched over the original and primitive texts of the canonical Scriptures in such a way that we can be certain that the sacred codices which we now have in our hands are those which existed at the time of Jerome and Augustine, nay at the time of Christ Himself and His apostles.



English Puritan and theologian, Edward Leigh (1602–1671) explained why we needed confidence in a pure text for our Bibles,


> If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and of our Saviour Christ asking “How it is written,” and “How readest thou,” is now either of none effect, or not sufficient ”



Swiss Hebraist, Johannes Buxtorf (1599 –1664), who defended the preservation of even the Hebrew Vowel points, also affirms the purity of the Received Text in 1620,



> From the extremity of the East to the extremity of the West the word of God is read with one mouth and in one manner; and in all the books that there are in Asia, Africa, and Europe, there is discernible a full agreement, without any difference whatever.



Narcissus Marsh (1638-1713), provost of the College of Dublin and later Archbishop of Armagh writes against one sceptic who attacked the Hebrew Masoretic Text,



> It may be suspected, that the intention is to bring it into doubt, whether we have any such thing, as a true Bible at all, which we may confide in, as God’s Word…However, I doubt not, but that, by God’s Providence, as the Hebrew Text hath hitherto stood firm, so it will stand on its own bottom to wear out all assaults against it, and be, what it always was, received as the undoubted Word of God, when all the arguments and objections against it are vanish’d into smoke .



A typical pre-suppositional approach based on providential preservation was that of the Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Robert Rollock (1555-1599). He argued for the “the preservation of the divine oracles of God unto our times ” and the retention of may disputed passages such as I John 5:7, Mark 16, John 8 based on the fact that these are, “our Greek books, which we hold for authentical, have this verse and our Church receives it.” He rejected all the textual critical assaults of Rome on the Received Text by summarizing,



> Thus we see then the adversaries cannot prove by these places that the Greek edition of the New Testament is corrupted, and so act authentical. Wherefore it resteth that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament is only authentical.



-----Added 2/11/2009 at 08:07:21 EST-----



TimV said:


> Mr. Ferguson, are you comfortable with admitting that changing the TR in Rev 16:5 would be correct, if Dr. White is correct in that "the Lord" is not found in any Byzantine manuscript?



Tim,

My position is that it is not about any one TR edition. God did not promise to preserve manuscripts or ink. God promised to preserve HIS WORDS. So asking me to "fit" one of the TR editions into the 50 promises of perfect preservation is the wrong approach.

As I said, the truth is we do not have the original manuscripts, the first copies of the original manuscripts, and even many of the actual copies from which the KJV translators worked. Remember the AV translators did not translate Rev 16:5 from a vacuum or from their "feelings" (unlike Hort whose methodology his son says was, "The obvious method of deciding between variant readings, is for the critic to ask which the author is most likely to have written, and so to settle the question by the light of his own inner consciousness").

The Church received the words settles on in Rev 16:5 in 1611 and have settled on them for 400 years bringing forth the wonderful harvest of souls and defence of the faith. From my fidelistic pre-supposition, I look back at the leading of Providence and I receive this testimony.


----------



## TimV

> Tim,
> 
> My position is that it is not about any one TR edition. God did not promise to preserve manuscripts or ink. God promised to preserve HIS WORDS. So asking me to "fit" one of the TR editions into the 50 promises of perfect preservation is the wrong approach.
> 
> As I said, the truth is we do not have the original manuscripts, the first copies of the original manuscripts, and even many of the actual copies from which the KJV translators worked. Remember the AV translators did not translate Rev 16:5 from a vacuum or from their "feelings" (unlike Hort whose methodology his son says was, "The obvious method of deciding between variant readings, is for the critic to ask which the author is most likely to have written, and so to settle the question by the light of his own inner consciousness").
> 
> The Church received the words settles on in Rev 16:5 in 1611 and have settled on them for 400 years bringing forth the wonderful harvest of souls and defence of the faith. From my fidelistic pre-supposition, I look back at the leading of Providence and I receive this testimony.



There are no TR versions with "Holy One". All TR version say the Lord.

Are you comfortable with Rob being willing to change that one word in the TR?

I have a degree and speak 6 languages but I didn't really understand your post. Would changing "the Lord" to "Holy One" be a sin?


----------



## Brian Withnell

ThomasCartwright said:


> Exactly. As Pastor Buchanan said a month or so ago, I do assume God kept His Word pure, *I just don't know where it is.* I assume that we've got it close enough for all matters of faith and practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sums up your position rather well and I respect your candour. I hope all the readers here take note. However, when I face the next cult member who knocks on my door I want to be defend the Word of God on something stronger than your "assumption" that it is close enough for reliability. A smart liberal or JW will destroy such a premise in a few sentences.
Click to expand...


While I respect the idea of being read to give a defense of the hope that is within, that defense needs to be based not on logic of defending a scriptural base, but upon the word itself with a presupposition that the word is true. The person enmeshed in a cult does not reject the gospel because they have a different logical argument that is faulty, they are either in it because they are reprobate and nothing we say will matter, or because they are regenerate and need to have the word proclaimed, seed planted, and allow God to give the increase.

While I might be willing to speak with a JW for a short while, one of the things I would clearly point out is what the gospel states, that the whole of the church condemned Arianism as a heresy. The issue is that the heretic needs to repent, and that command is what needs to be stated in love. It does no good to debate the issue ... the issue was already resolved by the whole church. It is now a matter of church discipline, not a matter of theological debate. When you enter into debate with someone whose theology is already condemned, you need to point that out, state the truth, and point them to repentance.

There are very few things that the great ecumenical councils condemned as heresy, JWs claim Arianism, and as such admit to heresy. To do so means they reject the correction of the whole church. Going over it yet again is adding legitimacy to their rejection of correction.

Even if it were a religious position that is in contradiction to salvation that has not been pronounced heresy, the proclamation of truth is based on the presupposition that the word is powerful. If someone is arguing they do not accept the word and is arguing from knowledge (they have enough knowledge to state their problems with the different Greek texts) I would think they already know the truth. Ours is not the job to convince people of the truth of the word, our job is to proclaim the truth, and for legitimate questions from someone without knowledge, answer those questions. We do not debate the reprobate to try to "win" those whom God has not chosen.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> There are no TR versions with "Holy One". All TR version say the Lord.
> 
> Are you comfortable with Rob being willing to change that one word in the TR?



Tim,

I am not sure why you struggle with what most seem to understand. Let me say one last time. I have never said I claim perfection for any of the printed TR editions. What I believe is that there was perfect preservation of every Word. All the Words were generally available in every generation and then the churches, guided by the Holy Spirit were led to a perfect text, so I don't believe that there was one wrong or missing word, and that is based upon scriptural presuppositions. 
To cite Br Brandenburg, which sums up my position,



> The Words behind the King James Version come primarily from the textus receptus edition of Bezae in 1598 and those of Stephanus in 1550 and 1551. The number of differences between those three editions are very, very small. Christians settled on the Words behind the King James Version. Those are the ones that a large majority of believers, led and guided by the Holy Spirit, agreed upon. The Greek Words behind the KJV NT were printed in a single edition in 1894 posthumously by F. H. A. Scrivener. However, all of the Words in Scrivener were agreed upon by believers and churches. We can read sermons from preachers and pastors of the 16th and 17th century and see that the textus receptus was the text used by the churches. The men of God of the 17th century believed they had every single Word accessible to them. That is the historic Christian position.



Now you say,



> I have a degree and speak 6 languages but I didn't really understand your post. Would changing "the Lord" to "Holy One" be a sin?



This is a typical tactic by anti-perfect preservationists. Is it a sin to be a Amyraldian instead of a Calvinist? Is it a sin to be a Credo-Baptist instead of a Paedobaptist? I will answer your question if you tell me - is it a sin to translate Mark 1:2 as "Isaiah" when the quotatation is from Malachi or is it a sin to translate the passage as the KJV does?


----------



## TimV

> I am not sure why you struggle with what most seem to understand. Let me say one last time. I have never said I claim perfection for any of the printed TR editions. What I believe is that there was perfect preservation of every Word. All the Words were generally available in every generation and then the churches, guided by the Holy Spirit were led to a perfect text, so I don't believe that there was one wrong or missing word, and that is based upon scriptural presuppositions.



Sigh. It always seems to come down to this. 

If Rob were translating a Bible into a language that didn't have one yet, would he be sinning if he used the phrase "Holy One" instead of "the Lord" in Rev 16:5?


----------



## MW

ThomasCartwright said:


> Benjamin Brook records of the brilliant Thomas Cartwright that,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Cartwright defended the holy Scriptures against the accusation of corruption, and maintained that the Old and New Testaments written in the original languages were preserved uncorrupted.
Click to expand...


Also, in his Confutation of the Rhemist Translation Cartwright defends specific TR readings as being the originally inspired words of God against Romanist corruptions, and these are the very readings which are brought under attack by modern text critical empiricists.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

CalvinandHodges said:


> I fail to see the "difficulties" involved?



Rob, I listened carefully to your friendly discussion with James White but noted you came up "second best" against his arguments!! 

Is it not problematic to defend 1 John 5:7, for example on the basis of the vulgate. If you want to use the vulgate, then why not insert all its other unique readings and radically change the TR! You see, this is where White demonstrated you as inconsistent.

As mentioned earlier, I moved away from a TR position when I realsied I could not defend it consistently. This happened also when I embraced Reformed Theology. As well as the difficulties with 1 John 5:7, I found in Luke 17:36 a column reference note in the KJV which says this verse is wanting in the Greek mss. Therefore I had another problem. The KJV itself was rejecting certain TR readings! Should we through the KJV away as corrupt!



CalvinandHodges said:


> PS: Though I am sympathetic to the Majority Text - I do not follow its methodology - because I do not believe that the majority is always correct.



I made reference to the Byzantine Priority text, not the Majority text.

here is a brief article from Dr Pickering that summarises the issues: APPENDIX A


----------



## MW

Stephen L Smith said:


> As mentioned earlier, I moved away from a TR position when I realsied I could not defend it consistently. This happened also when I embraced Reformed Theology. As well as the difficulties with 1 John 5:7, I found in Luke 17:36 a column reference note in the KJV which says this verse is wanting in the Greek mss. Therefore I had another problem. The KJV itself was rejecting certain TR readings! Should we through the KJV away as corrupt!



I can't help but think your problems may have arisen because you were trying to defend the TR by means of the test tube and microscope.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

armourbearer said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned earlier, I moved away from a TR position when I realsied I could not defend it consistently. This happened also when I embraced Reformed Theology. As well as the difficulties with 1 John 5:7, I found in Luke 17:36 a column reference note in the KJV which says this verse is wanting in the Greek mss. Therefore I had another problem. The KJV itself was rejecting certain TR readings! Should we through the KJV away as corrupt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but think your problems may have arisen because you were trying to defend the TR by means of the test tube and microscope.
Click to expand...



No, I came Reformed at the same time. I realised that KJV Arminians like David Cloud, DA Waite etc (I used their web material purchased their books etc) used shallow argumentation in both their anti Calvinism and textual criticism, and that Reformed theology was consistent with a higher standard of textual criticism. 

Personally I think James White is consistent here - a commitment to Reformed theology and not frightened of the evidence in the textual arena.


----------



## MW

Stephen L Smith said:


> and that Reformed theology was consistent with a higher standard of textual criticism.



Yes, a "higher standard" is what reformed theology requires of text critics, and it will be a welcome day when it becomes the norm when engaging in the science. The fact that Arminians support the TR has as little bearing on the subject as premillennialists supporting six day creation.


----------



## TimV

> Yes, a "higher standard" is what reformed theology requires of text critics, and it will be a welcome day when it becomes the norm when engaging in the science. The fact that Arminians support the TR has as little bearing on the subject as premillennialists supporting six day creation.



It's just that AVers confuse us. We listen, think, and ask clear, simple questions, and are then either brushed off, called heretics or ran away from: or so it seems to us. I know I'm not the only one who is trying to understand the AVer position. But how?

Pastor Winzer, if Rob were on a translation board and said that the TR should be changed in Rev 16:5 from "the Lord" to "Holy One" based on the testimony of the Byzantine family of texts, would Rob be sinning? I've tried to get a straight answer from Mr. Ferguson, but he just won't give one. And it really bothers me. As a Moderator of this forum, and someone taking part in these threads, could you please give me a yes or no answer?


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Pastor Winzer, if Rob were on a translation board and said that the TR should be changed in Rev 16:5 from "the Lord" to "Holy One" based on the testimony of the Byzantine family of texts, would Rob be sinning? I've tried to get a straight answer from Mr. Ferguson, but he just won't give one. And it really bothers me. As a Moderator of this forum, and someone taking part in these threads, could you please give me a yes or no answer?



Well, being a moderator has little bearing on my answer, given that liberty of opinion is granted. And that should indicate the uncharitableness of making this a sin/righteousness issue, and the reluctance of brethren to place the matter in such a contrasting moral light. It should be assumed that we are all seeking to please the Lord.

I think what you are failing to recognise is that the TR position does not lay claim to possessing all the Word of God in a single copy of the Scripture; the fact is it doesn't exist; you should accept the answers of your brethren when they tell you that the TR position still allows for a conservative text-critical methodology. The problem is that empiricist critics evaluate the arguments of TR proponents according to their own evidentiary basis, and great confusion results. That is why I insist from the outset that this issue has nothing whatever to do with old pieces of paper. It has to do with the simple conviction that the church possesses the word of God, that God preserves His word through the priesthood of believers. That must be our starting point. If reformed brethren cannot share that conviction, then speaking about individual texts or text-critical theories is a complete waste of time.

But to answer plainly, no, it is not a sin for a brother to speak of changes in the TR. That is his personal evaluation of the evidence. My own view is that it is possible to have numerous readings which all shed light on the original without having to discriminate dogmatically. The problem with this subject is that the modern text critical movement began by dogmatically discriminating against the traditional text, and thereby nullified portions of God's Word with a stroke of the empiricist pen.


----------



## Brian Withnell

ThomasCartwright said:


> I have never said I claim perfection for any of the printed TR editions. What I believe is that there was perfect preservation of every Word. All the Words were generally available in every generation and then the churches, guided by the Holy Spirit were led to a perfect text, so I don't believe that there was one wrong or missing word, and that is based upon scriptural presuppositions.



Please elucidate a little, as what this seems to be saying is (in bullet points)

There isn't necessarily a perfect TR edition
There is a perfect preservation (i.e., every word/letter still in place edition exists)
This perfect edition was always generally available
The churches were guided to this perfect text
There is a scriptural presupposition that this text must exist now and must always have existed

There are some things I would ask for clarification: 

What do you mean by "generally available"
What Greek text (specifically what text ... what edition of what published text) is the perfect text?
If that "perfect text" is an edited compilation, why is it that it was not just a direct copy of the "perfect text" that has always been generally available?

The trouble I'm having understanding is that all of the Greek texts I have any knowledge of are either a compilation of partial texts, or an edit/correction of prior compilations. If the only texts we have are compilations, then it seems that the perfect text being "generally available" appears to be a rather elaborate fairy tail. Both continuous general availability and what we have today being a composite would mean the prior generally available text would have had to cease to exist either at the time of the compiled text coming into existence or soon after. The people that compiled the text would have to have known about the perfect text (it was generally available) but chose to ignore it and compile, with perfect, independent synchronization to the old text, a "new" text.

I've got to be missing something in what you are saying ...


----------



## TimV

> But to answer plainly, no, it is not a sin for a brother to speak of changes in the TR. That is his personal evaluation of the evidence.



Mr. Ferguson, could you please comment on this? My reading of your posts was that the TR was God's exact Words, and we should all submit to it, but I frankly find your posts confusing on this issue.



> I think what you are failing to recognise is that the TR position does not lay claim to possessing all the Word of God in a single copy of the Scripture; the fact is it doesn't exist



Yet Mr. Ferguson says



> What I believe is that there was perfect preservation of every Word


.

And I naturally ask where? And I get for an answer



> The Church received the words settles on in Rev 16:5 in 1611 and have settled on them for 400 years bringing forth the wonderful harvest of souls and defence of the faith. From my fidelistic pre-supposition, I look back at the leading of Providence and I receive this testimony.



Well, you either "receive" this testimony or you don't. Which is it?


----------



## ReformedWretch

I listened, it was interesting but I am tired of this subject on the Dividing Line. I think it's time to move on to something new.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> It's just that AVers confuse us. We listen, think, and ask clear, simple questions, and are then either brushed off, called heretics or ran away from: or so it seems to us. I know I'm not the only one who is trying to understand the AVer position. But how?
> 
> Pastor Winzer, if Rob were on a translation board and said that the TR should be changed in Rev 16:5 from "the Lord" to "Holy One" based on the testimony of the Byzantine family of texts, would Rob be sinning? I've tried to get a straight answer from Mr. Ferguson, but he just won't give one. And it really bothers me. As a Moderator of this forum, and someone taking part in these threads, could you please give me a yes or no answer?



Tim,

With respect, you have adopted a somewhat provocative approach, which invariably will get this thread locked. Everyone else who has posted on this thread has done so with a spirit of firmness of conviction but respect for the views of opposing brethren. No one here has labelled anyone a "heretic" or "sinning" because they hold to the CT, MT or TR. 

I have sought to clearly state my position, I have admitted it is fidelistic, I have given you the Bible pre-suppositions that underpin. It is the very same pre-suppositional approach that everyone here who subscribes to the Confessional view of the Canon utilises to determine that canon. Yet you say "sigh" and imply that it is some crazy quasi heretical notion.

You have not answered my point about Mark 1:2 yet. Even Dan Wallace claims Mark wrote something which seems to be an error, but argues we don't know enough to dogmatically say it is an error. However, he points out that there are a few options for interpreting the phrase in such a way that it is not an error. 

The only thing you have stated is that you believe your Bible has mistakes, you do not know how many, you do not have a method of objectively determining this, and you do not know where all the Words of God are or how to find them. Not really a scientific or rational approach either you must admit. So, according to you position, God Sovereignly and purposefully allowed His Words not to be purely preserved, but inspired Scripture that, on the face of it, seemed to fool most believers that He promised He would guarantee its own preservation. These two scholars “discovered” this view that Moses, David, Paul, and Peter all knew that the Words of God that they wrote had little or no guarantee of survival for the future usage of the saints despite urging future generations to study these soon to be lost Words.

You accuse me and other TR brethren of not answering questions. Now, let me ask a few questions of you so I can understand your position:

(1) Do you believe it is possible that the underlying text of the KJV in Hebrew and Greek is an exact 100% copy of the autographs? If not, do you have a Scriptural framework and any objective textual critical framework for rejecting so that we all can “test” your assertions?

(2) How can you add or take away from something that isn’t settled? In other words, what difference does Revelation 22:18, 19 make?

(3) How is the Bible considered perfect if there are errors in it? If the errors aren't related to the words, then what difference does verbal inspiration make? What is the Scriptural basis for errors in the Bible?

(4) Where does the Bible say there would be sixty-six books? If it doesn't say, then how do we know there are not more or less? What are the reasons that Christianity rejected the Apocrypha and accepted the book of Revelation?

(8) What was Paul telling Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that was profitable for doctrine, correction, etc.? If every Word and all of them was necessary for thoroughly furnishing us to every good work, then how could we do that without all of them?

(9) When Jesus told us that man shall live by every Word in Matthew 4:4, should we assume that He meant that we would not have every Word?

(10) When something passes away like heaven and earth will pass away, does that mean that it will disappear? If God's Words are not going to pass away or jots and tittles are not going to pass away, does that mean that we are still going to possess them?

(11) Was the Critical Text available for believers from c. 1525-1825?

(12) Does Scripture teach anywhere that man was responsible for restoring a lost text?

(13) In light of Isaiah 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever,” what words have departed from the mouth of believers in 2009? When did “for ever” end? Do you agree with John Owen who said on his commentary on this passage that it means the “Words” of God, “shall always continue with the church and her spiritual seed, such as are born in her, and brought up by her, throughout all successive ages, and to the end of time; and it may be observed, that after the conversion of the Jews, to which this prophecy has a special regard, they shall no more apostatize?” Do you agree with The Pulpit Commentary edited by H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell whose exposition on this section says, “The Spirit will be accompanied with certain “words” which will be put into the Church’s mouth; and these words will remain unchanged and pass on from mouth to mouth, age after age, for ever. The “words” intended are probably those of the entire Bible - “all God’s revelations’’ (Cheyne) - which the Church will maintain as inspired truth through all ages.”

(14) How can you be confident that prophecies are being fulfilled literally today, if you do not have all the words of the Bible available to you?

(15) Where does Scripture say that a miracle is a greater and more thorough act of God than providence? Is something that God does providentially less God than it is when God does something miraculously?

(16) Can you prove that all the words of the autographs were not available to the translators of the KJV as they were consolidated into a printed edition?

(17) In light of Matthew 5:18, can you provide any evidence that prior to Erasmus there was no agreement among the true remnant church as to the “preserved text” to the degree of “jots and tittles” having been preserved? Can you prove that all of the period of time before 1611 all of the “words” were not in one place at one time?

(18) What fundamental doctrine of Scripture and what dangers to the Church is there from the consequences of believing that God has perfectly preserved His Words today? Do you believe that doubt in a perfect Bible is the less dangerous position? How would you prove to a cult member or a non-believer that you have an infallible, inerrant Bible?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

armourbearer said:


> Yes, a "higher standard" is what reformed theology requires of text critics, and it will be a welcome day when it becomes the norm when engaging in the science.



Pastor Winzer,

I agree. However this could best said of the Byzantine priority approach used by Maurice Robinson etc.

By the way, did you realise that it is a futile exercise for Australians to try and defeat a kiwi.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Stephen L Smith said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see the "difficulties" involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, I listened carefully to your friendly discussion with James White but noted you came up "second best" against his arguments!!
> 
> Is it not problematic to defend 1 John 5:7, for example on the basis of the vulgate. If you want to use the vulgate, then why not insert all its other unique readings and radically change the TR! You see, this is where White demonstrated you as inconsistent.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, I moved away from a TR position when I realsied I could not defend it consistently. This happened also when I embraced Reformed Theology. As well as the difficulties with 1 John 5:7, I found in Luke 17:36 a column reference note in the KJV which says this verse is wanting in the Greek mss. Therefore I had another problem. The KJV itself was rejecting certain TR readings! Should we through the KJV away as corrupt!
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Though I am sympathetic to the Majority Text - I do not follow its methodology - because I do not believe that the majority is always correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made reference to the Byzantine Priority text, not the Majority text.
> 
> here is a brief article from Dr Pickering that summarises the issues: APPENDIX A
Click to expand...


Hello Stephen:

I went into the discussion knowing that I was at a serious disadvantage: I am not a professional debater, I am not experienced on the Radio, and Dr. White would set the agenda. So, that I did as well as I did I am grateful to God for helping me.

As far as the Vulgate is concerned - I did not reference it. I referenced a comment by Jerome that "irresponsible" scribes left out the 3 heavenly witnesses in the Greek text.

It seemed to me that Dr. White was unwilling to accept this testimony of Jerome even though both John Calvin, in his commentary on 1 John 5, and John Gill reference it. The testimony is devastating to Dr. White's position because he would have to admit that there were legitimate, and ancient, Greek texts which testify to the Comma Johanneum. That Jerome, at least, considered these copies part of the sacred apographia.

I include the comma not because it is in the vulgate, but because it is in the Byzantine MSS, and has a powerful testimony throughout Church History - including Jerome's comment above. This was implied in our discussion, though I did not bring it out clearly. As far as "consistency" is concerned I will point you to post #10 on this thread, and not create a tautology by repeating it here.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Many of the "errors" that the more liberal CT scholars suggest are not new or different, and the Reformers were well acquainted with them. Francis Turretin continues in his assessment of the Roman Catholic critique of the Scriptures with this:



> There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: "They have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles" (_Bibliotheca sancta_ [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserrts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ, _Institutes_, vol. 1, 115.


So, why are the majority of ancient Greek MSS missing the Comma now? I would suggest that the Greek Church, in the first few centuries, was struggling with Arianism. The Comma is antithetical to Arianism. Because of this, many of the Arian scribes would leave out the Comma in their copies. THus, a prejudice was built up in the Greek Church against the Comma that is not found in the Latin Church.

The Greek Fathers may not have cited the text during the Arian controversy, because they did not wish to get into a secondary brawl that detracted from the issue at hand. As it is noted: the Trinity can be proved from other passages in Scripture. The Latin Fathers were under no such compulsion: They cited the text as legitimate in the Council of Carthage circa 412 AD - according to Robert Lewis Dabney.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> Tim,
> 
> With respect, you have adopted a somewhat provocative approach, which invariably will get this thread locked.



You've made 30 posts here and you know this?



> Everyone else who has posted on this thread has done so with a spirit of firmness of conviction but respect for the views of opposing brethren. No one here has labelled anyone a "heretic" or "sinning" because they hold to the CT, MT or TR.



Just so we all have this clear for any further discussions. No one who holds to the CT, MT, TR or uses all three for Bible translating, teaching or preaching is sinning by adding or subtracting from the underlying texts of the King James Version, as long as those additions and/or subtractions are made from the CT, MT or the Byzantine family of texts. Is that right?

If you will answer "yes", then my main interest in participating in these threads is over, and while I will still answer any questions that you have, at least from between 5-7:30am PST, rainy days, etc...I will not seem anywhere near so provocative.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ThomasCartwright said:


> Tim,
> 
> Try and avoid pejorative terms like "extremist" to describe other Confessional brethren. I note the unedifying and disgraceful _ad hominen_ comments James White made about Kent Brandenburg *in contrast to his sycophantic approach to the apostate Ehrman*. I do not agree with Br Brandenburg on his ecclesiology or baptism views but he is not a "bigot" or a "liar" because he interprets the Bible differently from me on certain passages.





ThomasCartwright said:


> Tim,
> 
> With respect, you have adopted a somewhat provocative approach, which invariably will get this thread locked. Everyone else who has posted on this thread has done so with a spirit of firmness of conviction but respect for the views of opposing brethren.



Not everyone Paul.

Allow the moderators to moderate on this and be careful about what you warn others about from your glass house.

Everybody, cool it on the excessive rhetoric.


----------



## john_Mark

ThomasCartwright said:


> I have sought to clearly state my position, I have admitted it is fidelistic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the fidelistic position the Cuban Revolutionary approach?
> 
> For the record. The presuppositional approach is not the same as fideism. The position of James White is not that of empiricism. I gave links to two Bahnsen articles where he presuppositionally argues for inerrancy. In one of the articles he's arguing against two empiricists.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Stephen L Smith said:


> By the way, did you realise that it is a futile exercise for Australians to try and defeat a kiwi.



Does that mean we can't win the ODI decider today?


----------



## Brian Withnell

While I think you directed the question set at Tim, perhaps I can put in an item that might help shed some light.



> (1) Do you believe it is possible that the underlying text of the KJV in Hebrew and Greek is an exact 100% copy of the autographs? If not, do you have a Scriptural framework and any objective textual critical framework for rejecting so that we all can “test” your assertions?



While it may be possible, the AV was made (from the sources I've seen) not from a single text, but several different texts. If it was from several different texts, the translators/compilers themselves knew they did not have an intact text.



> (2) How can you add or take away from something that isn’t settled? In other words, what difference does Revelation 22:18, 19 make?



Easy. Add something you know is not in the original, take away something you are near positive is in the original. Suppose I know 90% of the Gettysburg Address. I could knowingly leave out parts of it, or add things to it, all the while not having a settled copy of it.




> (3) How is the Bible considered perfect if there are errors in it? If the errors aren't related to the words, then what difference does verbal inspiration make? What is the Scriptural basis for errors in the Bible?


There are no errors in the Bible. Yet you insist that your view of errors is the same as God's view of errors. Suppose he doesn't view errors the same way that you do?



> (4) Where does the Bible say there would be sixty-six books? If it doesn't say, then how do we know there are not more or less? What are the reasons that Christianity rejected the Apocrypha and accepted the book of Revelation?



This could be a lesson in church history, but suffice it to say that the whole of the church recognized and received those books. There were questions in various ages as to the authenticity of some of the books, and other books were for a time accepted in some places, but rejected in others. The 66 books are not attested to anywhere in the scriptures, and while we believe we have an inerrant set of infallible books, we could be wrong, yet God is still preserving his word pure in a way we do not understand.



> (8) What was Paul telling Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that was profitable for doctrine, correction, etc.? If every Word and all of them was necessary for thoroughly furnishing us to every good work, then how could we do that without all of them?



Suppose you were stranded in a place with no way to get hold of the Bible and you had everything except Genesis and Psalms. Do you really believe that you could not be able to be "furnished for good works"? Suppose the only copy of the Bible you had was a NASB? (Or for that matter, *any* English version of the scripture). Would that mean you were without hope of being thoroughly furnished to good works? Almost all Christians operate without the ability to read Greek and Hebrew. Are they, because they do not have the God Breathed text available unable to grow in grace?



> (9) When Jesus told us that man shall live by every Word in Matthew 4:4, should we assume that He meant that we would not have every Word?



Is that the point of what he said, if so, those that do not know Hebrew are in trouble.



> (10) When something passes away like heaven and earth will pass away, does that mean that it will disappear? If God's Words are not going to pass away or jots and tittles are not going to pass away, does that mean that we are still going to possess them?



We, or that someone will have them somewhere (and I'm not positive that buried in the sands of Egypt doesn't fulfill that requirement in any case).



> (11) Was the Critical Text available for believers from c. 1525-1825?



The TR was not available in the time prior to Erasmus (and he used the Latin and translated to Greek for parts of the text for which he had no Greek version available). What is the point?



> (12) Does Scripture teach anywhere that man was responsible for restoring a lost text?



2 Chron, the story of the lost book of the law (plain reading is it was lost ... you don't get to change the plain reading because it doesn't fit your position on something else).



> (13) In light of Isaiah 59:21, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever,” what words have departed from the mouth of believers in 2009? When did “for ever” end? Do you agree with John Owen who said on his commentary on this passage that it means the “Words” of God, “shall always continue with the church and her spiritual seed, such as are born in her, and brought up by her, throughout all successive ages, and to the end of time; and it may be observed, that after the conversion of the Jews, to which this prophecy has a special regard, they shall no more apostatize?” Do you agree with The Pulpit Commentary edited by H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell whose exposition on this section says, “The Spirit will be accompanied with certain “words” which will be put into the Church’s mouth; and these words will remain unchanged and pass on from mouth to mouth, age after age, for ever. The “words” intended are probably those of the entire Bible - “all God’s revelations’’ (Cheyne) - which the Church will maintain as inspired truth through all ages.”



The "probably" is exactly what you want, but it is not required by the text. Also, at least some of the passage is either figurative, or it speaks of a time different from this age. If one states the "words" means all, then the "children" would also have to be all as well. While we have great hope for the covenant children born within the household of faith, it is not always all the children that appear to fulfill the duties of the covenant.



> (14) How can you be confident that prophecies are being fulfilled literally today, if you do not have all the words of the Bible available to you?



I certainly can be confident in promises that are made because I know the person who made the promise, even if I don't fully know what the promise is. When I was a child and my Dad promised something, I knew he would make it so, even if I didn't understand what he was saying.



> (15) Where does Scripture say that a miracle is a greater and more thorough act of God than providence? Is something that God does providentially less God than it is when God does something miraculously?



Non sequitur ... don't set up a straw man argument.



> (16) Can you prove that all the words of the autographs were not available to the translators of the KJV as they were consolidated into a printed edition?



I don't have to. If you are claiming they were, when the translators used differing texts, then it would be more incumbent upon you to prove they did. After all, the KJV has only been around for a mere 400 years, the texts used were under revision at the time of the KJVs compilation by the same methods used to produce the ones that were used. Of course if you are saying that the text was error free as an axiom, you would no more accept any criteria as proof as it would conflict with an axiomatic position.




> (17) In light of Matthew 5:18, can you provide any evidence that prior to Erasmus there was no agreement among the true remnant church as to the “preserved text” to the degree of “jots and tittles” having been preserved? Can you prove that all of the period of time before 1611 all of the “words” were not in one place at one time?



Again, it is your assertion that they were available at that time and you are asserting without proof. If you state it as a dogma, don't try to argue it as if it were not. If you see evidence that your dogma might be wrong, then you might want to consider looking at the idea that your interpretation of scripture might be wrong. If your underlying interpretation of preservation is off, then the arguments become moot.



> (18) What fundamental doctrine of Scripture and what dangers to the Church is there from the consequences of believing that God has perfectly preserved His Words today? Do you believe that doubt in a perfect Bible is the less dangerous position? How would you prove to a cult member or a non-believer that you have an infallible, inerrant Bible?



The fundamental doctrine of scripture and danger to the church for believing a particular text is perfect is that if that text is not perfect, then the church is in error, blind to the error, unwilling to repent of error. Nobody here does not believe that God has and is preserving his word pure. Nobody here does not believe that the Bible is less than infallible.

I don't try to prove to cult members anything. If I perceive that I would not be casting pearls before swine, then I proclaim the truth in English (not Greek or Hebrew, so exact words are not even an issue) to them and leave the convincing to the inward working of the Holy Spirit (which is the only way they will be truly convinced anyway).

Doctrine is not about winning arguments with people. It is about proclaiming truth. If I use an English translation, I already am at least one step away from the God Breathed words of scripture, even if I had an inerrant copy of the text. Even if I did have such a copy, using it would be totally useless in most instances as I know of no one outside the church that would understand koine Greek.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> Not everyone Paul.
> 
> Allow the moderators to moderate on this and be careful about what you warn others about from your glass house.



For the record, I do not think it is excessive to say Bart Ehrman is an apostate on basis of his liberal agnosticism and that James White was "sychophantic" in praising his "intellect" and "textual scholarship" etc while on the other hand saying a true Brother in Christ, Kent Brandenburg was a "liar" and a "bigot" was not called for. That is not ad hominen but dealing with public statements of these men in the context of what they said on their own blogs. White did say that Brandenburg was those things and Ehrman (by any definition) is an apostate and White made many glowing comments about him - those are facts. However, I respect you position as moderator so I will abide by your ruling.

I have never said nor do I believe that anyone who is CT, MT or TR was sinning. So, I hope that clears that on up.

Blessings


----------



## TimV

> I have never said nor do I believe that anyone who is CT, MT or TR was sinning. So, I hope that clears that on up.



No, not a bit. You said in post 26 that the texts underlying the KJV are God's perfectly preserved Words.

You said in post 139 



> God places supreme importance upon His written word and its exaltation is a theme which runs throughout the Bible. The Lord also gave us three grave warnings (Prov. 30:5-6; Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19) to those who would corrupt the Scriptures



and the warnings about changing what you interpret as the texts underlying the KJV from the verses you quote are (from the KJV) *that God will reprove the man who adds to the KJV texts*, a direct *Command by God not to add or take away anything from the KJV texts* and that the *person who adds or takes away anything from the KJV texts will have his name taken out of the Book of Life.*

I asked



> Just so we all have this clear for any further discussions. No one who holds to the CT, MT, TR or uses all three for Bible translating, teaching or preaching is sinning by adding or subtracting from the underlying texts of the King James Version, as long as those additions and/or subtractions are made from the CT, MT or the Byzantine family of texts. Is that right?



*I'd really like to nail this down.* If Rob was on a translating team and after being convinced that no single manuscript of the Byzantine tradition supported the texts underlying the KJV in Rev. 16:5 he would be willing subract two words and add two others. Would that be a sin?


----------



## Brian Withnell

I'm stopping here ... the thread is not profitable.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

armourbearer said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, did you realise that it is a futile exercise for Australians to try and defeat a kiwi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean we can't win the ODI decider today?
Click to expand...


I have just seen the results. Oh dear, I do repent in sackcloth and ashes


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> *I'd really like to nail this down.* If Rob was on a translating team and after being convinced that no single manuscript of the Byzantine tradition supported the texts underlying the KJV in Rev. 16:5 he would be willing subract two words and add two others. Would that be a sin?



Tim,

I will retire from this line of questioning as my position is clear. I have given three answers to you and you have given none to me. I will only answer a question from this line of when you answer: Is it a sin to be a Amyraldian instead of a Calvinist? Is it a sin to be a Credo-Baptist instead of a Paedobaptist? Is it a sin to translate Mark 1:2 as "Isaiah" when the quotatation is from Malachi or is it a sin to translate the passage as the KJV does?


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Thanks Brian 

I appreciate the time you put into these responses. I will attempt to respond to some of your points now.



> Easy. Add something you know is not in the original, take away something you are near positive is in the original. Suppose I know 90% of the Gettysburg Address. I could knowingly leave out parts of it, or add things to it, all the while not having a settled copy of it.



I do not understand this argument. You admit we do not have the originals, that we do not know what exactly they said (you say “near positive”), and that we probably will never know. So how do you know you are adding or taking away from something you are not even sure really exists? You cannot add or take away from something if there is not anything to add or take away from.



> This could be a lesson in church history, but suffice it to say that the whole of the church recognized and received those books. There were questions in various ages as to the authenticity of some of the books, and other books were for a time accepted in some places, but rejected in others. The 66 books are not attested to anywhere in the scriptures, and while we believe we have an inerrant set of infallible books, we could be wrong, yet God is still preserving his word pure in a way we do not understand.



So you believe that we have an open canon as you say “we could be wrong?” Do you believe the Confessions are wrong is saying we have no future revelation outside of these 66 Books? Do you believe that the Confessions were then wrong to demand that Reformed elders swear oaths on something that they cannot be sure absolutely - that the 66 books alone make up the Canon? 

The Confessional understanding of the doctrine of Holy Scripture was a dyke to keep out the deadly waters of disbelief in God’s word. A crystallization of the opposition to textual and historical criticism is stated in positive terms in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It should be noted that the Confession first deals with the canon of Scripture before it turns to discuss the doctrine of inspiration and authority and preservation. There is then a refutation of the canonicity of the Apocryphal before the Confession deal with the declaration of providential preservation. This understanding of cause and effect in respect of canonization will be an important principle to remember when we consider the preservation of the Scriptures. This seems to have been a reasoned and logical pre-suppositional unfolding as they are implicitly stating that the same methodology for determining canonicity must be extended to the individual words of the canon. Canonicity was recognized by the true Church (not Rome) and the corollary of this must be that the Canonized Words must be recognized by the true Church and not Rome’s texts or apostate textual critics such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger etc.



> Suppose you were stranded in a place with no way to get hold of the Bible and you had everything except Genesis and Psalms. Do you really believe that you could not be able to be "furnished for good works"? Suppose the only copy of the Bible you had was a NASB? (Or for that matter, *any* English version of the scripture). Would that mean you were without hope of being thoroughly furnished to good works? Almost all Christians operate without the ability to read Greek and Hebrew. Are they, because they do not have the God Breathed text available unable to grow in grace?



What this passage teaches that if I do not have all the Words of God that I cannot be fully “perfect” or completed as a believer i.e. I will be unbalanced. What we do contend is that “all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” was recorded so that “the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:17). That is why, other than the Canonical Scriptures, there was no appeal to anything taught by Paul or the disciples which is not found in the Scriptures at the Councils such as Nicaea. Why would God inspire 66 books if, as you say, only 64 (except Genesis and Psalms)were needed for man to live perfectly by?

It is interesting you focus in on 2 Timothy 3:16 (“All scripture is given by inspiration of God...”), but this passage says nothing about the “original autographs,” as it refers to “scripture.” 2 Timothy 3:15 gives us the interpretation of this word “scripture” as it tells us that Timothy “from a child hast known the holy scriptures.” No anti-perfect preservationist critic would argue that Timothy (or Paul, the Bereans, or even Christ) was in possession of the autographs, yet Paul calls the copies they possessed, “scripture” and that it was “all” inspired. It is inconceivable that in the middle of an exhortation to cling to his copies that Paul would suddenly change topic and start talking about the originals. Clearly, Paul was not an anti-perfect preservationist critic who argued that inspiration and preservation were in the “autographs only.” 

This text is, therefore, very important in our understanding of the doctrine of inspiration and preservation. It reveals that the human authors did not originate, nor did they direct, the writings which came forth from their hand. Also, it makes clear how God utilised fallible human writers of the Bible. Although the text does not eliminate the human element of the writing and receiving of these Words, it definitely does enforce the idea that it was God who originated, directed, and preserved the Words. Otherwise you are arguing for a "Deistic" God who gave an inspired text and left it alone for at least 1800 years.

The context of these words is clearly showing that God’s Words are not lost waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. These inspired Words were given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Therefore, for God to realise His stated purpose – it must remain accessible to the His remnant! The giving of these Words to the world is by the Church (Matt 28:19-20), and this surely means that the Church must have the Words to begin with.



> Is that the point of what he said, if so, those that do not know Hebrew are in trouble.



So, if we do not have the actual Words of Christ it does not matter? But why will be judged by these ACTUAL words, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48 ). Even Archibald Alexander admitted, “And could it be shown that the evangelists had fallen into palpable mistakes in facts of minor importance, it would be impossible to demonstrate that they wrote anything by inspiration” and then inconsistently embraced textual criticism of the Received Text.



> We, or that someone will have them somewhere (and I'm not positive that buried in the sands of Egypt doesn't fulfill that requirement in any case).



I also agree that all the words were generally available. However the Bible says they would be available generally in the Church not buried in the sand. I know, that is my Scriptural pre-supposition talking but you use one for the first part of your reply and do not have one for your Egypt explanation. 



> The TR was not available in the time prior to Erasmus (and he used the Latin and translated to Greek for parts of the text for which he had no Greek version available). What is the point?



You miss my argument. You are assuming that I am arguing for the perfection of one TR edition, like Tim. I have argued that God perfectly preserved His words for every generation and they were generally available. What has Erasmus in 1516 got to do with it? He merely recognized some of these words when studying manuscripts that were GENERALLY available in the Greek Churches. 



> 2 Chron, the story of the lost book of the law (plain reading is it was lost ... you don't get to change the plain reading because it doesn't fit your position on something else).



How was the Scroll lost when it was in the temple where God told Moses to put it in (Deut 31:26)? The King was commanded to read this book (Deut 17:18). The fact that Josiah did not bother to follow this command at the beginning of his reign did not mean God had failed to preserve His Words to that generation.



> The "probably" is exactly what you want, but it is not required by the text. Also, at least some of the passage is either figurative, or it speaks of a time different from this age. If one states the "words" means all, then the "children" would also have to be all as well. While we have great hope for the covenant children born within the household of faith, it is not always all the children that appear to fulfill the duties of the covenant.



I am confused by your explanation. There is no “dispensational ages” as it says it is “from henceforth and for ever” so why have you artificially imposed it? The “them” here must be with the true remnant of God of Israel and her spiritual seed as that is who the covenant is made with. Please clarify.


> I certainly can be confident in promises that are made because I know the person who made the promise, even if I don't fully know what the promise is. When I was a child and my Dad promised something, I knew he would make it so, even if I didn't understand what he was saying.



You can only know the Person who made the Promises if you have the Words of Scripture that reveal Him to you. Your position is heading towards Neo-Orthodoxy or Charismatism. You analogy with your father is fallacious as you KNEW the words he said even if you did not understand them. 



> Non sequitur ... don't set up a straw man argument.



It is not, as the Confession makes clear that God oversees the preservation of His Words by “His Singular Care and Providence” so I need to know does God singularly care for something either indifferently or imperfectly? It is an important theological point.



> Again, it is your assertion that they were available at that time and you are asserting without proof. If you state it as a dogma, don't try to argue it as if it were not. If you see evidence that your dogma might be wrong, then you might want to consider looking at the idea that your interpretation of scripture might be wrong. If your underlying interpretation of preservation is off, then the arguments become moot.



Again, you are putting science, reason, textual evidence before Scripture. I am a consistent pre-suppositionalist so I approach the evidence this way - If our view of the evidence and our own reasoning does not fit what Scripture says, then we go ahead and believe God's Word and reject our view of evidence and our own reasoning. If I was to adopt your approach I would definitely deny Creationism, Young Earth, Miracles, Resurrection etc. For example, the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi:

“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)
“Thou art the Christ.” (Mark 8:29)
“The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20)

would be "rationally" an error if I did not hold to the pre-supposition of inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical text. If there is another authority (whether it be our individual framework of trustworthiness or the authority of an ecclesiastical leader) by which we are to determine and believe that the Bible is the Word of God that authority itself would be the ultimate authority. Is it up to the reader to discern which portions of the Scriptures are inspired and which are not? Hence the Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. I.4 states:

“The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”


----------



## Stephen L Smith

ThomasCartwright said:


> Is it a sin to be a Credo-Baptist instead of a Paedobaptist?



Reformed Baptists actually woud reverse this!



> Is it a sin to translate Mark 1:2 as "Isaiah" when the quotatation is from Malachi or is it a sin to translate the passage as the KJV does?



Actually the TR does the same thing in Matt 27:9. The KJV states the quotation is from Jeremiah when actually the quotation is from Zechariah.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> Actually the TR does the same thing in Matt 27:9. The KJV states the quotation is from Jeremiah when actually the quotation is from Zechariah.



Hi Steve,

I normally favour Kiwis over the Australians but in this area I will back Rev Winzer!:

The TR and the CT say "Jeremiah" in Matt 27:9 and the passages are not comparable, as you probably know. In Matt 27:9 it says it was spoken by Jeremiah which clearly was then written down by Zechariah. In Mark 1:2 it states that the verse was "written" in the perfect passive of _graphe_ so it cannot be harmonised with the hermeneutical internal evidence of Scripture. Only someone wedded to the CT pre-suppositions and the Hortian Genealogical Theory would maintain the CT reading. It is clearly one of the corruptions of the Vulgate that the Reformers warned off and one of the reasons why they were led to reject the variant readings of the CT (such as Coliseus' text that Calvin initially utilised before later rejecting and returning to the TR).


----------



## TimV

> Tim,
> 
> I will retire from this line of questioning as my position is clear. I have given three answers to you and you have given none to me. I will only answer a question from this line of when you answer: Is it a sin to be a Amyraldian instead of a Calvinist? Is it a sin to be a Credo-Baptist instead of a Paedobaptist? Is it a sin to translate Mark 1:2 as "Isaiah" when the quotatation is from Malachi or is it a sin to translate the passage as the KJV does?



You have refused to answer the question. It seems always to come down to this with the extreme AVers. When finally pinned down, they claim foul.

On the assumption that you will keep your word, and give a yes or no answer to the question of 



> If Rob was on a translating team and after being convinced that no single manuscript of the Byzantine tradition supported the texts underlying the KJV in Rev. 16:5 he would be willing subtract two words and add two others. Would that be a sin?





> Is it a sin to be a Amyraldian instead of a Calvinist?



No, it will not as a belief cause one's name to be removed from the Book of Life.



> Is it a sin to be a Credo-Baptist instead of a Paedobaptist?



No, it will not as a belief cause one's name to be removed from the Book of Life. 



> Is it a sin to translate Mark 1:2 as "Isaiah" when the quotatation is from Malachi or is it a sin to translate the passage as the KJV does



Neither case is sin. It is a matter of Christian liberty in either case. In the first case Isaiah is used in some Greek manuscripts, the the Vulgate, the Persian and the Syrian version, and seemed to be the best choice by Christian men following their conscience, and in the second, the majority of Greek texts supported the view of another set of men of good character.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

> You have refused to answer the question. It seems always to come down to this with the extreme AVers. When finally pinned down, they claim foul.



As I have already said, I do not believe it is a "sin" to reject the TR, I don't know why you keep repeatedly bringing this up. For the last time, no it is not a sin for Rob to reject the KJV's rendering of Rev 16:5 as a non-TR reading. I will not engage it any more pointless argumentation on this red herring any more. You also need to decide whether a true definition of what a sin is - it certainly is more than the nuclear option of removing you from the Lamb's Book of Life.


----------



## TimV

> As I have already said, I do not believe it is a "sin" to reject the TR, I don't know why you keep repeatedly bringing this up. For the last time, no it is not a sin for Rob to reject the KJV's rendering of Rev 16:5 as a non-TR reading. I will not engage it any more pointless argumentation on this red herring any more.



But you continue to leave yourself a back door, and this is why so many people on this board are frustrated when trying to pin people of the extreme AV persuasion down into coming out and just telling us what they believe about the rest of us.

I did not say anything about Rob rejecting the TR versions underlying the KJV as being non TR. 

I am asking whether or not Rob would be sinning if HE CHANGED ANY EXISTANT COPY OF THE TR. If Rob would say *all existing copies of the TR are wrong in a few places, and not word for word the perfectly preserved Word of God, therefore it is acceptable to change the TR*. Would that result in Rob's judgment according to Rev. 16:5?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This thread no longer serves any edifying purpose.


----------

