RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean,
I'd encourage everyone to look deep at the history of how the Critical Text has come to be, who were the major players who put it together,
That is the genetic fallacy
No, it's not. The genetic fallacy is basing consideration of a thing entirely in its origins. One could say it's the postmodernist fallacy, on the other hand, to regard the original historical context of a matter as irrelevant.
Let's pretend for a moment that Westcott and Hort are bad people. Does that make their arguments false?
No, it's not. The genetic fallacy is basing consideration of a thing entirely in its origins. One could say it's the postmodernist fallacy, on the other hand, to regard the original historical context of a matter as irrelevant.
Actually, not quite. The genetic fallacy is well defined by Wikipedia:
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
In this case, Andrew has indeed committed the genetic fallacy, because his particular conclusion is based entirely on origins rather than its current meaning or context. On the other hand, Jacob had NOT committed the postmodernist fallacy, because saying WH's conclusions are independent of their particular religious stance is not the same thing at all as saying that the original historical context is a matter of irrelevance.
That would be, as I term it, a postmodern fallacy.
Chris, there is every difference in the world between saying that consideration of something is based on its origins versus a conclusion about something is based on its origins. Therein lies the difference between your definition of the genetic fallacy and Wikipedia's. The correct definition is that a conclusion about something is based on its origins. This is exactly what Andrew did. He argues that because of how the CT came to be, its history, and who the players were, that it affects the integrity of God's Word, and nullifies the CT position. This is a textbook occurrence of the genetic fallacy.
If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean, and 2) Do any of our textual manuscripts fit that (especially considering that one side believes their manuscripts/tradition is corrupted and must be put back together).
Some popcorn brands are better than others. How do we find the best brand? Do we look at the label and assume it is the Received text that gives us the best brand? Or do we look more critically at the text on the label?Now, where did that popcorn GIF go
Some popcorn brands are better than others. How do we find the best brand? Do we look at the label and assume it is the Received text that gives us the best brand? Or do we look more critically at the text on the label?
Chris, as to Andrew's definition of the CT position (that the CT position is that the manuscript tradition is corrupted and must be put back together), I have already answered that part of his statement. Firstly, it is not what Reformed CT folk believe. We believe that God's Word is in the manuscripts. Put all the differences among the manuscripts together, and they don't amount to a hill of beans, even the differences between the TR and the CT. But this paragraph is not his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. It is only his description of the CT position, a description I noted as faulty with regard to Reformed versions of it. The paragraph you quoted is NOT his argument as to why the CT position is wrong. The paragraph that makes the argument is the other paragraph that mentions ONLY questions of origin as to why it is wrong. He says it is only an aside, but that is not really an aside. That is the substance of Andrew's argument as to why the CT position is wrong.
Here is why Andrew committed the genetic fallacy: the only reasons he gives as to why the CT argument is wrong are reasons of historical origin of how the CT arguments came about. In other words, Andrew is not rejecting (so far) the CT arguments based on the merits of the arguments themselves. He (so far) only rejects them on the basis that their historical origin is suspect. That is the genetic fallacy. That the CT arguments might be taken in another sense by those of us who are Reformed, and might therefore lack the unbelieving baggage of Metzger, et al, doesn't ever seem to occur to TR defendants (and, by the way, is the main source of frustration in the controversy: Reformed folk who hold to the CT inevitably get tarred with Metzger's, and WH's brush, quite unfairly I might add). This is why Jacob has not fallen foul of your post-modern fallacy accusation: Jacob and I, and many others, who hold to the CT, do not hold it in the same way as Metzger does, or others like him, who accuse the TR tradition of being corrupted. There are nuances here in the CT positions that are getting left out, and confusion and suspicion are the typical result.
Most postmodernists (Derrida, Lyotard, etc) are very keen on genealogical argumentation and tracing the roots. They are almost always wrong, but they know the root position.
In fact, postmodernists begin with the origin of a position in order to trace the power-moves
In this case, Andrew has indeed committed the genetic fallacy, because his particular conclusion is based entirely on origins rather than its current meaning or context.
He argues that because of how the CT came to be, its history, and who the players were, that it affects the integrity of God's Word, and nullifies the CT position.
That is the genetic fallacy
You might as well put that in your signature.
Jacob,KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?
And if we want to quote the bad guys from the CT camp, I can follow with Gail Riplinger and the Ruckmanites. Riplinger makes charismatics look like BB Warfie.d.
True...
2) Warfield is a respectable theologian and has many great points on many topics. He also tows the line for CT. I’m not sure how you can compare KJVO and Warfield.