Inspired (non-Greek) scripture

[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.

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]

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;
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.

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

 

[psaulm119]

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

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]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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.)

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]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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.)

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?

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

 

[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?

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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?

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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."

Traci,

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

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgrecoI guess the Holy Spirit was asleep on the job!

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgrecoI guess the Holy Spirit was asleep on the job!

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

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]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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?

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by poimen

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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?

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

None taken. Kevin makes me

all the time.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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.

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."

Traci,

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

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

1. 
   
   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]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
At its heart, my argument is very simple:

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

1. 
   
   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]

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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco
At its heart, my argument is very simple:

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

1. 
   
   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.

1. 
   
   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]

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.