# Inspired (non-Greek) scripture



## Poimen (Jul 8, 2005)

First of all I should say that I don't claim to be an expert on this issue so please bear with my ignorance.

Second of all, I was taught to regard the UBS and NA versions of the Greek NT to be the most accurate text to work from, so that is my bias.

My question is: would someone like to evaluate the following comment? 




> Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved in the original language of inspiration -- only that the reading be preserved, such as the Comma was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the Old Latin.



http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

This seems problematic to me because then we would be denying the Renaissance/Reformation cry "ad fontes" and open ourselves up to the (past) corruption of Rome in her received translation the Vulgate. 

Can we base our understanding of a verse on uninspired copies of the original when they aren't even written in the original (Greek) language? I hardly think so.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Poimen (Jul 8, 2005)

Please note that I am not looking for a debate about textual families, translations etc. Rather I would like a discussion of our understanding of inspiration based on the quote.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 8, 2005)

One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.



I agree. However, that's not what I meant (mea culpa: I should have put a question mark behind the title of the post). What I mean is that this gentlemen is basing his understanding or scope of inspiration to include non-Greek copies of the original.


----------



## brymaes (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.



Please explain in light of the following:



> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, *by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages*, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)
> 
> (r) Matt. 5:18.
> (s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
> ...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...




Please clarify where you are coming from . . . are you arguing that all of our extant Greek manuscripts are without any textual error whatsoever?

That would be an impossible stance to defend, because our extant manuscripts are not identical . . . they differ from each other in various (albeit usually innocuous) places.

Please clarify . . . I'm just trying to understand your position.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> ...



Whom are you directing that question at?


----------



## psaulm119 (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Inspiration applies to the autographs only.



That's an interesting statement. Is this understanding of inspiration taught anywhere in the Bible? If so, where?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 8, 2005)

The difference being highlighted by the post is the difference between inspiration proper, and preservation. The Word you are reading (typically a translation) is no less "inspired" than the original autograph, _as far as it says the same thing as the original autograph,_ no more, no less.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The difference being highlighted by the post is the difference between inspiration proper, and preservation. The Word you are reading (typically a translation) is no less "inspired" than the original autograph, _as far as it says the same thing as the original autograph,_ no more, no less.



Right. No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were. Nevertheless, due to the preservation of the Word by God's providence, we can be assured that we possess the Word of God.

The whole issue does raise some interesting questions when one deals with textual variants, though.


----------



## larryjf (Jul 9, 2005)

The same God who inspired the originals preserved the copies.
To suggest that He inspires perfectly, but preserves "almost" perfectly is slighting God.

The scriptures do not tell us "how" God's word is preserved, only that it is. We are also not told in the scriptures that we can perfectly "extract" the preserved word. It may very well be that in the extant manuscripts of all ages the perfectly inspired words exactly as they were in the originals "could" be extracted - but that doesn't mean that they have been.

Some feel that we are moving away from the perfect word of God with new bibles and manuscripts, others feel we are moving closer to the perfect word of God with the new bibles and manuscripts.

The thing is, that question is not answered in scripture. What we know from scripture is that God perfectly inspired His word, and He perfectly preserves it. Anything beyond that is speculation.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> This seems problematic to me because then we would be denying the Renaissance/Reformation cry "ad fontes" and open ourselves up to the (past) corruption of Rome in her received translation the Vulgate.
> ...


----------



## street preacher (Jul 9, 2005)

You would have to have a Bible that came from the the original languages because those are the inspired manuscripts. I you had a Bible that was translated from another uninspired translation I would think that that would be as bad as reading from a paraphrase.


----------



## psaulm119 (Jul 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were.



True, but this of course does not mean that copies/translations aren't inspired. Surely the scriptures that Paul referred to in II Tim (the ones that Timothy was brought up on) weren't the autographs.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by psaulm119_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



This is an extremely interesting aspect of the doctrine of inspiration. Why? Because in fact it is most likely that was Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16, was not only not an autograph, but it was most probably a *translation *- the Septuagint. And yet Paul treats the Septuagint as _Scripture_, not as something less than Scripture.

For my part, I think we give much too short a shrift (thanks in part to Warfield and Bahnsen) to the doctrine of Providential Preservation. An analogy might be how often in Reformed churches the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is truncated thanks to the excesses of the Charismatics and Penetcostals. Likewise, we tend to run from any legimate inferences in Providential preservation because of KJV only types.


----------



## psaulm119 (Jul 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> For my part, I think we give much too short a shrift (thanks in part to Warfield and Bahnsen) to the doctrine of Providential Preservation. An analogy might be how often in Reformed churches the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is truncated thanks to the excesses of the Charismatics and Penetcostals. Likewise, we tend to run from any legimate inferences in Providential preservation because of KJV only types.



I agree. I would also say that we minimize the importance of preservation because it tends not to play well with modern critical theories of the NT text, which hold that the purest NT MSS were "preserved" in trash bins and unused in monastery libraries.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by psaulm119_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Sorry, but there is no way I can agree with that, unless you have some different definition of "inspiration" that I am otherwise unaware of.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 10, 2005)

Fred, you just blew my mind. Interesting thoughts.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by psaulm119_
> ...



Kevin,

Since Paul was most certainly *NOT* referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did _Paul mean_ when using the term "inspiration" ?


----------



## turmeric (Jul 10, 2005)

I think the word y'all want is INERRANT, not inspired. The Scripture is inspired, the autographs are inerrant, but we can't find them, so we have copies which are the inspired Word of God, but are not inerrant copies.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I think the word y'all want is INERRANT, not inspired. The Scripture is inspired, the autographs are inerrant, but we can't find them, so we have copies which are the inspired Word of God, but are not inerrant copies.



Inerrancy is a quality of inspired texts. Sorry, but you can't make the problem go away in this fashion, Meg.


----------



## psaulm119 (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Kevin,
> 
> Since Paul was most certainly *NOT* referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did _Paul mean_ when using the term "inspiration" ?



A very good question indeed. I think this will get to the heart of the matter. Kevin, if you do believe that Paul was referring to the autographs, now would be a good time to state this. If not, then I think you are going to have to come around to the idea that the Bible teaches that copies indeed are inspired.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Fred, you just blew my mind. Interesting thoughts.



 Reading all of this is very interesting, and some of it is even new, as inspiration, inerrancy and canonicity is still admittedly one of the central doctrines on which I know very little in terms of making a thorough defense.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



I don't know; I was thinking along the same lines as Meg.
Are you sure, Fred, that the talking past each other that's leading to the debate here isn't over the difference between "inspiration" and "inerrancy"?

Surely we know that the Bible, even the way we have it today, is inspired.
We also know that there could be one or two "mistakes" in it: an extra word, a wrong word, a "typo", etc.

Am I on the wrong line of thinking here?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Since Paul was most certainly *NOT* referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did _Paul mean_ when using the term "inspiration" ?



What makes you so sure? I will admit that I stand unabashedly in the shadow of Warfield (et al) in my views of inspiration. And, what's more, I think the Standards concur.

WCF 1.8 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical." 

It goes on to discuss translations, but does not call them inspired, correctly, I believe. Let me ask you: when you sit in a classroom, translating Greek or Hebrew, are you "inspired?" Nope. You're just translating. So are professional translators. You and they (and I) are all subject to error as we translate. If we are inspired, that says something about the Holy Spirit, doesn't it?

Unless your arguments are some sort of back-door KJV position, how does your position account for variants? Was one group more inspired than another? Is one translation more inspired than another? If so, which? What DO you do with variants? You can't ignore them and hold to your position.

I think the only tenable position you can take is that the idea of inspiration and inerrancy extend to the autographs and that, as the Standards affirm, God has providentially preserved His Word. We can be sure what we hold is the Word of God.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by psaulm119_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Poppycock. Preserved is preserved, regardless of the means. And, as I am fond of reminding Fred (of a thing that he well knows), Vaticanus is NOT a single document, nor is it the only witness to the NT text.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is an extremely interesting aspect of the doctrine of inspiration. Why? Because in fact it is most likely that was Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16, was not only not an autograph, but it was most probably a *translation *- the Septuagint. And yet Paul treats the Septuagint as _Scripture_, not as something less than Scripture.



This is a significant point with respect to the exclusive psalmody debate.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



Funny how there ARE errors in our supposedly inspired text then. You know it and I know it. Unless, as I said before, you think that some texts are more inspired than others.

I actually rejoice in the irony that God has used godless pagans to help restore the texts of the Bible. But hey.


----------



## psaulm119 (Jul 11, 2005)

I'm still waiting for reason to see that Paul was referring to the autographs when he wrote II Tim 3. 

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 


Paul in verse 15 states that Timothy has known the Scriptures, and in the next verse says that ALL Scripture is inspired. What Paul doesn't say is that only the originals were inspired. Surely Timothy didn't have the autographs at hand as a youth.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Kevin,

_(An aside - this is merely the public version of an interesting and friendly discussion we have all the time in person)_

We can be sure that Paul did not have the autographs because of the way that the Hebrew text was preserved. At best, even if Paul had Hebrew texts and he used them (which is questionable given NT quotations from the LXX), he had the Masoric text, which does contain errors. And yet he calls what he had Scripture.

What the Confession actually says is that the Greek and Hebrew that we have are inspired, not the autographs. That is why Warfield's position was an advancement/backward movement (depending on your point of view) from the Confession, as a result of the inerrency battles of the 19th-20th centuries.

The providential preservation argument does NOT touch translations - because they are translations of extent Hebrew and Greek texts. What Providential preservation actually argues is that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been preserved by God. (and thus is a powerful argument *against* the critical texts.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Kevin,
> 
> _(An aside - this is merely the public version of an interesting and friendly discussion we have all the time in person)_
> ...



The issue is not one of possession, it is one of reference. We cannot prove either way what he meant.



> What the Confession actually says is that the Greek and Hebrew that we have are inspired, not the autographs. That is why Warfield's position was an advancement/backward movement (depending on your point of view) from the Confession, as a result of the inerrency battles of the 19th-20th centuries.



Hmmmm...this may have more to do with your TR position than anything...  I see Warfield as a huge step forward. The issue was not an issue when the Divines wrote, so we can see Warfield as a necessary step forward.



> The providential preservation argument does NOT touch translations - because they are translations of extent Hebrew and Greek texts. What Providential preservation actually argues is that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been preserved by God. (and thus is a powerful argument *against* the critical texts.



Non-sequitir. It could just as easlily be an argument FOR the critical text.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by psaulm119_
> I'm still waiting for reason to see that Paul was referring to the autographs when he wrote II Tim 3.
> 
> 2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
> ...



How about this: I'll pull out my evidence, when you pull out yours.


----------



## psaulm119 (Jul 11, 2005)

Let me know when you're ready to stop playing games.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by psaulm119_
> Let me know when you're ready to stop playing games.



I'm not playing games. But I do see it rather pointless to continue to argue about something for which there is no definitive proof one way or the other. I'm not going to move your opinion no matter what I say and, I suspect, neither will you move me. In the end, we both accept the Bible today as the Word of God; you emphasize inspiration and I emphasize preservation. The end result is the same.

I think the position you hold on inspiration of non-autograph Greek texts presents enormous difficulties: which Greek mss are inspired? How do you handle variants? And so on. I believe the critical text is superior as it seeks to address the issue of variants using sound methodolgies (even if many of the scholars involved are pagans). The majority position is fairly easily debunked (well, if not debunked, at least explained) with even a passing knowledge of western history. The TR? When even Erasmus himself called it "thrown together, rather than edited," and freely admits that he back-translated portions of it from Latin into Greek, well, I think that speaks for itself.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Actually it is not a non sequitor (Latin, baby!).

The critical text cannot argue in the same fashion for preservation, since it has to claim that for about 12 centuries that we _know of_ (and very likely more) two large sections of what were considered Scripture (almost whole chapters, not words, or variant readings) are NOT Scripture. So I guess it was a part of preservation on God's part for more than 30 generations of Christians to not bind consciences with something other than the Word of God.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Or preservation in the sense that the Hoi Poloi had no access to the Scriptures because the Church wouldn't let them for a thousand years?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Or preservation in the sense that the Hoi Poloi had no access to the Scriptures because the Church wouldn't let them for a thousand years?



Different, but you already knew that.





Otherwise they would not even be preserved today, since one of the largest churches in the world (China) has about the same level of access. And the earliest texts would not be either, since there would be only a couple people in the world who would have access to them.

But you get the idea.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The critical text cannot argue in the same fashion for preservation, since it has to claim that for about 12 centuries that we _know of_ (and very likely more) two large sections of what were considered Scripture (almost whole chapters, not words, or variant readings) are NOT Scripture. So I guess it was a part of preservation on God's part for more than 30 generations of Christians to not bind consciences with something other than the Word of God.



I hear what you are saying, but I am curious: What in our consciences is "bound" by the pericope adulterae, or by the last half of the last chapter of Mark? Or to put it another way, how will our theology be different if we keep them, or if we side with the critical text? I'm not saying that there is no good theology in those two passages. But I am curious what theology you think can *only* be found in them. 

In short: If we side with the critical text, and lose those two passages, then what has really been lost? Anything?

Or are you just arguing based on principle? (which of course would not be a bad thing, either.)


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Joe,

Of course the biggest deal is the principle. For example, what would you do if today they found another set of "Dead Sea Scrolls" that had 10 manuscripts from the early 2nd century (i.e. earlier than anything we have today) ? What if those manuscripts all unanimously (and being the "earliest and best" manuscripts) left out John 14-16? What about Colossians 2? Hebrews 7? Matthew 18? Would you be concerned then?

There is also the matter that we do indeed get doctrinal assistance from the John passage especially - regarding judging, discipline, adultery and the like. Either the Bible is the Bible or it isn't.

But more to the point, you can't argue that preservation is accomplished by having the wrong parts perserved for 95%+ of the Church, and that then God "rescues" His Church (which of course is too dumb to know the real Scriptures) through pagans who actually hate the Scriptures.

If we were in court, and I asked you, did the man hit that woman, and you had 300 witnesses who knew the man and woman intimately, were well respected in the community and each unanimously said, "no" and then we had 2 or three who were known to bear a grudge against the man, who had expressed their hatred for him, and their hope that he would be cast into prison, well before the incident, and then claimed that he did, whom would you believe?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Bad analogy....but you know that!  Hehehe, man I miss seeing you Fred!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Of course the biggest deal is the principle. For example, what would you do if today they found another set of "Dead Sea Scrolls" that had 10 manuscripts from the early 2nd century (i.e. earlier than anything we have today) ? What if those manuscripts all unanimously (and being the "earliest and best" manuscripts) left out John 14-16? What about Colossians 2? Hebrews 7? Matthew 18? Would you be concerned then?



I wouldn't like it. But I would also be wrong to ignore it.

Let's talk about 1 John 5:7 for a moment. I think the doctrinal power of that verse FAR outweighs that of Mark 16 or the pericope adulterae. I would absolutely LOVE to be able to turn to that one single passage as an authoritative refutation of anti-Trinitarian groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

But the "power" of such a prooftext is neither an argument for or against its canonicity. My personal "liking" of that verse is not an argument for it either. In fact, it doesn't even matter that the Trinitarian statement made by the verse is _true_ . . . Lot's of things are true that are nevertheless not part of Scripture.

I certainly have not studied textual transmission and textual criticism to the extent you have. But I have at least done _some_ research on the background of 1 John 5:7. And I honestly cannot see how _anyone_ (except perhaps a KJV onlyist) could justify its inclusion in any modern translation of the Bible. The Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 simply did not exist in the original.

Do you agree with me on 1 John 5:7? If not, then why not?

But if so, then do you see how that Mark 16 and John 7:53-8:11 would have to be discussed under the same terms? Or is it just their lengths that trouble you? And if so, how short does a Bible passage have to be in order to be eligible for textual criticism?

I am really not trying to be argumentive, so I hope I'm not coming across that way. I've just read polemics from both the Zane_Hodges-Textus-Receptus side and the Daniel_Wallace-Textual-Criticism side, and I'm trying to "clear the air" in my head a bit. 

And most of my friends at church just are not able to discuss these things intelligently. So I am very happy to be able to talk with someone like you . . . a Biblical and linguistic scholar.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> But more to the point, you can't argue that preservation is accomplished by having the wrong parts perserved for 95%+ of the Church, and that then God "rescues" His Church (which of course is too dumb to know the real Scriptures) through pagans who actually hate the Scriptures.
> 
> If we were in court, and I asked you, did the man hit that woman, and you had 300 witnesses who knew the man and woman intimately, were well respected in the community and each unanimously said, "no" and then we had 2 or three who were known to bear a grudge against the man, who had expressed their hatred for him, and their hope that he would be cast into prison, well before the incident, and then claimed that he did, whom would you believe?



Was that intended only for the pericope adulterae, or is it a general analogy that you apply to all textual criticism? I hope you do not think that it applies well to 1 John 5:7. There are a lot of "witnesses" who know the passage "intimately", and are "well respected in the community", who agree that 1 John 5:7's Trinitarian statements are not authentic.

For that matter, the same goes for the pericope adulterae. Does Doctor Daniel Wallace fit the mold of one "known to bear a grudge against the man, who had expressed . . . hatred"? I certainly don't think so! You make it sound like ONLY pagans do textual criticism.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> If we were in court, and I asked you, did the man hit that woman, and you had 300 witnesses who knew the man and woman intimately, were well respected in the community and each unanimously said, "no" and then we had 2 or three who were known to bear a grudge against the man, who had expressed their hatred for him, and their hope that he would be cast into prison, well before the incident, and then claimed that he did, whom would you believe?



Using Fred´s analogy for just a moment: suppose under cross-examination it turns out that the three witnesses were closer to the alleged assault than the 300 and, what´s more, they viewed it from different angles. Let us further suppose that of the 300 witnesses (none of whom completely agree with one another in every detail), it turns out that only three of them actually witnessed the alleged assault and the other 297 are simply parroting what they heard the others say. Then who would you believe?


----------



## Augusta (Jul 12, 2005)

*Out here in left field....*

This argument is fun for people geeking out on scripture and sword fighting for their various proof texts from here or there to back up their pet doctrines. 

I am thinking on a completely different tack which may well be annoying. Sorry in advance if that proves true. When they are discussing the scriptures in the scriptures, and how they are effective for teaching and admonishing, is this not aimed at their effectiveness spiritually and not necessarily grammatically? Isn't this by the spirit and not the letter necessarily? I am thinking in terms of the word of God being the sword of the spirit. It will be foolishness to those who are perishing but the power of salvation to the elect. The word of God is spirit and truth. 

Yes we need the letter and we study and we debate doctrines but it all comes down to the illumination of it to us by the Holy Spirit right? Do we fall into the critical scholars trap when we start worrying about texts and where they come from etc etc. Those are their weapons. Our weapons are not carnal but mighty. 

Just wondering about the usefulness of this argument. I am still learning and I know we need theologians and if the divines had not done all this hashing out of doctrine we would not have the WCF. 

I will go back over to left field now. 


The Enduring Word

22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 
23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
24 because 
"All flesh is as grass, 
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. 
The grass withers, 
And its flower falls away, 
25 But the word of the LORD endures forever."


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



But of course don't forget that the trial is held today, and the three witnesses don't come forward until 3040. Oops! I guess we have been wrong for almost a millennia! Well, it's not like we were supposed to have a perfect judgment.... oh, that's right, we were! I guess the Holy Spirit was asleep on the job!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Joe,

My comment was made in general.

I don't think this applies to 1 John 5:7, because there are a whole set of different issues there (I think there is a thread on that).

I don't think my statement applies at all to Daniel Wallace. The nature of the Critical Text is that the genie is out of the bottle. The majority of sound, evangelical belivers espouse the CT line. I just find it humorous that the original Biblical scholars used textual criticism theories that never would have made the mark in Classical literature (i.e. Greek and Latin) circles.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> This argument is fun for people geeking out on scripture and sword fighting for their various proof texts from here or there to back up their pet doctrines.
> 
> I am thinking on a completely different tack which may well be annoying. Sorry in advance if that proves true. When they are discussing the scriptures in the scriptures, and how they are effective for teaching and admonishing, is this not aimed at their effectiveness spiritually and not necessarily grammatically? Isn't this by the spirit and not the letter necessarily? I am thinking in terms of the word of God being the sword of the spirit. It will be foolishness to those who are perishing but the power of salvation to the elect. The word of God is spirit and truth.
> ...



Traci,

I hear you. At its heart, my argument is _very_ simple:



God is the author of His Word
God promised to give His Word to His people that they might know Him and obey Him
God promised to preserve His Word through the work of the Holy Spirit
That work of the Spirit manifests itself in preserving the Word as written
The Word is preserved for _all_ His people
The Critical text posits that it was *not* preserved for 95% of God's people
Therefore, the Critical text must be wrong
[/list=1]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_I guess the Holy Spirit was asleep on the job!



An argument that cuts both ways, which you seem unwilling to admit.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_I guess the Holy Spirit was asleep on the job!
> ...



That's because it does not.

The Holy Spirit preserved the Scripture throughout time through the vast majority of manuscripts. 

Exactly how does the appearance of some old bad manuscripts affect that?


----------



## Poimen (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



No offense meant to you Fred but Kevin's post made me


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



None taken. Kevin makes me



all the time.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...





Fred, (and for the rest of you, Fred and I are being chummy!) I am suprised at your arguments.

1. You know perfectly well that the vast majority of all textual variants are "ifs," "ands" and "buts." So your overstated argument is a straw man...theological to be sure, but overstated. There are no verses in the CT that say, "oh, by the way, Jesus isn't God and you have to say 497 Hail Mary's to get to heaven." No doctrines are affected by any of the variants. For those variants that deal with Trinitarian issues (for instance) as you have observed on other threads, how many times does the Bible have to say something before it's true? There are plenty of non-disputed texts that bear the doctrine out.
2. Although some variants are significant (take John 8 for instance), you seem unwilling to accept that the MT could represent *additions* to the original that have been subsequently corrected by the CT.

In the end, I think we will have to agree to disagree here, allowing that both of us have a very high view of Scripture, inspiration, preservation, inerrancy, yyy, and acknowledging that we have differing views on textual transmission.

There is one thing that has not been discussed are the implications of the discussion. MT guys are almost always KJV only types (with varing degrees of rabidity.) The more rabid ones will maintain the KJV ONLY is the Word of God. If such is the case, then we need to immediately discipline all ministers who preach another version. I'm not being cute here. The issue is that important.

Of course, I'm not a KJV only type...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> At its heart, my argument is _very_ simple:
> 
> 
> ...





Fred,

How can you argue that ALL of the Word is preserved for ALL of God's people?

Some people connected with my church are missionaries in India. And just for example, I heard about one blind lady who is the only Christian in her village. She gets a visit from a missionary once a week, and remembers what she can of what he says. She can read any of the Bible, and she will probably only hear a fraction of it from the missionary. Worse yet, what if the missionary reads to her from a modern translation of the Bible based on the critical text? (gasp!)Perhaps this example is extreme, but it only takes ONE contrary example to throw a monkey wrench into your list above.

How many thousands or millions of Christians are there in India, China, and elsewhere who do not have access to the entire Bible, in any form? If a Christian only gets a copy of the book of John or the book of Romans, then has God failed to preserve His Word for that person?

Or, rather, should we not simply realize the saving power of even a *portion* of God's Word . . . like the Gospel of Matthew, or Galatians, etc.? If a Christian gets one book of the Bible and no more, then cannot that person be saved? And if so, then has God failed to preserve His Word for that person? I don't think so!

Thus, I don't really see how Mark 16 and John 8 enter into this argument at such a high level. Suppose they are added, and are non-canonical. In the BIG view of things, so what? There is nothing evil in Mark 16 or in the pericope adulterae. And their addition does not imply that even one iota has been removed from God's Word . . . so we can argue that He HAS preserved it.

Let's go even farther . . . what about a person in the heart of Mexico who gets his one and only Bible from a local Catholic missionary. And that Bible contains the apocrypha. If that person never receives another Bible in his life, or ever hears from a protestant, can he be saved? Has God preserved His Word for His people? I think the answer is clearly "yes" . . . a little chaff mixed in does not destroy the wheat itself.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 2. Although some variants are significant (take John 8 for instance), you seem unwilling to accept that the MT could represent *additions* to the original that have been subsequently corrected by the CT.



But Kevin, that is where Providential preservation comes in. If we acknowledge that part of the Spirit's job is to preserve the text throughout time, then it is not possible that the emendations of the CT are correct (else we would not have a preserved text).



> In the end, I think we will have to agree to disagree here, allowing that both of us have a very high view of Scripture, inspiration, preservation, inerrancy, yyy, and acknowledging that we have differing views on textual transmission.
> 
> There is one thing that has not been discussed are the implications of the discussion. MT guys are almost always KJV only types (with varing degrees of rabidity.) The more rabid ones will maintain the KJV ONLY is the Word of God. If such is the case, then we need to immediately discipline all ministers who preach another version. I'm not being cute here. The issue is that important.
> 
> Of course, I'm not a KJV only type...



Your points are well taken, except that regarding the MT and KJV. Note that I could say that just about every (if not every) garbage translation/paraphrase, etc comes from the CT, not the MT. I could also say that about every MT scholar has a Biblical view of Scripture, inerrancy, and inspiration, whereas the vast majority of CT scholars (because they necessarily include unbelievers) do not. I could say (according to your argumentation) that CT leads to apostasy, unbelief and denigration of the Bible.

But I won't, because it is not that simple. Neither is it with the MT.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...





Joe,

I meant all as in "in every age," not "every single person." Obviously if I meant the latter you are correct. My point is that if the CT is correct, then Christians from at least 800AD until the 19th century had bad Bibles. They thought - _wrongly_ that John 8 was Scripture, when it was just pious musings on a line with the Apocrypha. They thought - _wrongly_ that all of Mark 16 was Scripture, when it was not.

Again, I ask, what would you do if Matthew 29 was discovered in 2nd century manuscripts and secular critical scholars said it was the Bible? Do you know how far of a leap it is from excluding John 8 to excluding 2 Peter? (Not very far, as evidenced by the history of the CT movement)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I meant all as in "in every age," not "every single person." Obviously if I meant the latter you are correct.



Thank you for the clarification. The argument for "every age" does seem quite a bit stronger than the argument for "every person". 



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> My point is that if the CT is correct, then Christians from at least 800AD until the 19th century had bad Bibles. They thought - _wrongly_ that John 8 was Scripture, when it was just pious musings on a line with the Apocrypha. They thought - _wrongly_ that all of Mark 16 was Scripture, when it was not.



I agree with you that I don't like that idea at all. But I also don't like the centuries after Erasmus that the Trinitarian 1 John 5:7 was included in millions of people's Bibles. And I certainly would not say that all of them were walking around with "bad Bibles"!

What are the differences between 1 John 5:7 and John 8? I only see 2 essential differences:

1) length - John 7:53-8:11 is longer than 1 John 5:7

2) time - Assuming that both are non-canonical, 1 John 5:7 duped people for several hundred years, whereas John 8 duped people for over a thousand years.


I don't like it EITHER way. And frankly, I would like to keep BOTH in my Bible. 

But where do we draw the line? Why is it that the addition of stuff in 1 John 5 doesn't make people have "bad Bibles", but the addition of stuff in John 8 does? Why is it that a little additive error for a few hundred years is not problematic, but additive error for over a thousand years is problematic?

How short does a passage have to be to be OK for questioning?

How many centuries is it OK for the church as a whole to be fuzzy on what verses truly belong in certain spots of their Bibles?



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Again, I ask, what would you do if Matthew 29 was discovered in 2nd century manuscripts and secular critical scholars said it was the Bible?



Interesting question. I have long thought about how interesting it would be (and what a stink it would raise) if we ever discovered Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. The sparks would fly!

But your question seems (to me) to be fundamentally different from the discussions about 1 John 5, John 8, and Mark 16. In each of these 3 cases, we are talking about something (arguably innocuous) being *added* to Scripture. This is troubling, but it doesn't argue for any of God's Word being *lost* to the church. (i.e. the 9th chapter of John doesn't change whether you include the pericope adulterae or not.)

But your hypothetical situation regarding "Matthew 29" is a different deal. If we were to accept it as Scripture (or even "true First Corinthians), then we would have to accept that God made a significant portion of His Word *utterly unavailable* to the church for 2000 years. And that would be much more troubling to me than the idea of a few verses being mistakenly added in for the same amount of time.

Do you see the huge difference? Saying that John 7:53-8:11 is not actually Scripture is troubling. But saying that there are 2 chapters of John never discovered until this year would be much more troubling. I don't like either idea, but I would much more readily lose John 8 than I would add John 22 & 23.

In one case, the church is not deprived of God's Word. But in the other case, the church is deprived of it. Big difference.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Do you know how far of a leap it is from excluding John 8 to excluding 2 Peter? (Not very far, as evidenced by the history of the CT movement)



I did not know that. As I said before, I realize you have studied this textual stuff much more than me. I am very much enjoying this conversation.


----------

