TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob,

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on textual criticism. But, don't the arguments basically boil down to the following:

The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones. When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings. And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.

The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text.

It seems to me that both sides can claim the doctrine of inerrancy for themselves, while questioning the sanity or faithfulness of those on the "other" side.

Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.

Hello Pastor:

As a general overview I think you have it down rather well. There are, however, a few details which need explaining.

As I understand it the TR position is not based upon the majority of the MSS, but upon the teaching of Scripture that God will keep His word pure through all ages:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Pt 1:24,25

This is in conformity with the teaching of Jesus:

Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, Mt. 24:35

It is consistent with sound Orthodox theology: The inspiration of the Scriptures is in the very words (verbal) and, extends to all of the words of the Bible (plenary). Since this is the case, then we can expect God to preserve the words of the Scriptures, and all of the words of the Scriptures.

We can trace an unbroken line of Greek Texts going back to the very 1st Century. These texts testify to what we now call the Byzantine family of manuscripts. I believe it was an act of Providence that landed only Byzantine MSS into the hands of Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza as the TR was being developed. History makes it clear that Erasmus knew about the Vaticanus manuscript in the Vatican, and, though he was painfully aware of the few MSS available to him - refused to use the Vaticanus because of its corrupt nature.

One can see Providence as well in the destruction of the Alexandrian copies. The Islamic horde which rampaged through Africa, and supposedly destroyed the copies of the Alexandrian texts, could just as easily turned north instead and overrun the Byzantine Empire. Thus, the Byzantine MSS would have been destroyed and the "pure" Alexandrian MSS would have been saved.

Corrupt Manuscripts? The Bible clearly tells us that corruptions started creeping into the Scriptures in the very first century:

...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of thoese things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, 2 Pt 3:15b,16.

If heretics are so bold as to "wrest the scriptures" while the Apostles are still alive, then what would stop them after they have passed away? In the following centuries we have the testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian stating to the effect that heretics were tampering with the texts of scripture.

Consequently, we have testimonies stating that the first, second, and third centuries heretics have been changing the text of scripture. This has not stopped even unto today, because the Jehovah Witnesses have tampered with the text as well.

What does this say about the "older" manuscripts? I would suggest that just because a manuscript is "older" does not mean it is better. It may very well be one of those manuscripts tampered with by a heretic.

To me, it is clear that the Reformation was a watershed concerning the Greek Texts. On one side the pure apographia of the autographs were upheld in the Byzantine MSS available. On the other hand the Alexandrian varients were rejected as corrupt. One can also see the testimony of Church History since the Reformation - the great blessings the Church received through the various and widespread revivals that have taken place. However, a revival has not happened since the Alexandrian varients have replaced the Byzantine MSS.

This I read as the hand of Providence in fulfilling Mt 24:35; 1 Pt 1:24, 25. To which I bow my head in humble adoration of the God who fulfills all of His Promises.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[TimV]

As I understand it the TR position is not based upon the majority of the MSS, but upon the teaching of Scripture that God will keep His word pure through all ages:

We can trace an unbroken line of Greek Texts going back to the very 1st Century. These texts testify to what we now call the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

This I read as the hand of Providence in fulfilling Mt 24:35; 1 Pt 1:24, 25. To which I bow my head in humble adoration of the God who fulfills all of His Promises.

In other words the rest of us doubt God fulfills all His promises.

You are working backwards again. You start from a theory you hold by faith, which includes God's direct hand in bringing together certain manuscripts in the first part of the 16th century. And working from that assumption backwards, you pick and chose from all the data. You accept as true data which supports your theory, and reject data that doesn't. And that's probably the main reasons the AVer theory isn't taken seriously by any major Protestant denomination. Because it's irresponsible scholarship. Take the chart in post 44 of this thread. A perfect example of AVer scholarship. The Immaculate Conception of the King James Bible.
We start with the Traditional Text Line, which comes from Antioch. And on this chart we see where this Traditional Text (whatever that is) comes from The Apostles. Wow. And some people reject something that comes directly from the Apostles.

Now take the Corrupted Text Line, which comes from Alexandria. And that came from Papyrus.

And from the text of the Apostles was born the Original New Testament Texts

And from Papyrus was born something corrupted by Clement!

Really, all things like this chart do are to weaken your case. Just going through it at random we see things like the True Text was used by the Bibles of the Waldenses, Gauls and Celts from 120-1400 AD. The first thing that catches one's attention is that the author is so ignorant of the subject matter he doesn't know the Gauls were Celts, but leaving that aside, when I visited Trinity in Ireland I saw a few pages of the Book of Kells.

The Book of Kells is by far the most famous of the Celtic Bibles. It is 10,000 times more famous than any other Celtic Bible from the time period given by this chart. This chart claims that the Vulgate came from the Corrupted Text. Well, guess where the majority of the Book of Kells is translated from. Yes, from the Vulgate. Those places differing from the Vulgate are from various Old Latin translations. In some places those Old Latin translations are closer to the Byzantine, and in some the Alexandrian line.

Rob, this chart barely reaches the level of junk science.

 

[LawrenceU]

However, a revival has not happened since the Alexandrian varients have replaced the Byzantine MSS.

And, your point is? Where in Scripture does one find evidence to support such a view that a 'perfect' text in the hands of Christians is needed for God to pour out his grace upon the church and cause the massive salvation of the unsaved. (Aside from the fact that the statement is false.)

Frankly, I find this type of reaching a severe weakening of your stance. My debate coach would have berated me in a rather severe manner for injecting this.

 

[GD]

I realize that no one here authored or has endorsed the chart, but it makes a common claim that I think needs to be addressed. The chart claims that because Alexandria was a “center of heresy” that the manuscript copies coming from there must be corrupt. That argument has always troubled me. First, it has “genetic fallacy” written all over it. Second, in terms of Christology the Alexandrian school (as represented by Athanasius) was generally more orthodox than the Antiochene (represented by Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia).

 

[MW]

I think the chart tries to appeal to a side in people in which they would like everything to be polarised so that it is simple to choose one position or the other. It would be virtually impossible to examine and harmonise all the data with that kind of model in mind.

We should be clear that both sides of this debate engage in historical reconstruction. One should note that academic works on textual criticism seek, to a greater or lesser degree, to inform the reader of what the author considers to be the most likely scenario with regard to ms. traditions; and it has been customary to use what is called the genealogical principle when presenting that scenario. This principle naturally divides the mss. into families and names them on the basis of the locality in which they are thougth to have emerged. It is basically the case that conservative critics have tended to give pre-eminence to the ms. tradition which is said to have developed from Antioch, while the more empirical critics have seen the Alexandrian tradition as more "neutral."

It is true that there were heretics in Antioch as well as Alexandria, but in terms of taking liberties with the text of Scripture, it is a matter of historical record that the Alexandrians tended to allegorise while the Antiochenes would literalise. What we know about textual corruption, especially when it was deliberately undertaken for doctrinal purposes, points to a general tendency to meddle with those texts which have a bearing on the Arian-Trinitarian controversy. Both sides will explain this in different ways. The conservative, Antiochene supporters will maintain that the Alexandrine tradition has corrupted the text to remove support for the Trinitarian view; and empirical, Alexandrian supporters consider that the Antiochene tradition has buttressed the Trinitarian view by emending the text in its favour.

Each one must decide for himself what methodology he will employ, and he will do so on the basis of his own belief as to the hand of Providence in transmitting the text of Scripture to posterity. Either one is "catholic" or "scientific" in approach. Obviously the catholic view will appeal to those who believe the work of criticism is a matter for the church, while the scientific view will appeal to those who regard the academy as the properly qualified instrument.

 

[Hippo]

I do not understand why it has necessarily to be a matter of choosing one school or the other in isolation, obviously neither school is totally corrupt in view of the huge amount of commonality between them.

Errors have arisen in each tradition, be they simple scribal errors or perhaps even minor additions or deletions, attempts must be made to reconstitute the historical text by weighing the value of different variants. people will difffer as to which variants should be given more weight but this is a matter for informed consideration and should be acrried out by the Church.

This stops being a subject that can be discussed when one side claims divine protection for one particular textual tradition which by definition requires the other variant to be necessarily corrupt in all its differences.

It is very hard to argue against a proposition based on what boils down to an argument that "it just is" and which often appears to be created in order to dismiss texts without proper consideration.

 

[MW]

This stops being a subject that can be discussed when one side claims divine protection for one particular textual tradition which by definition requires the other variant to be necessarily corrupt in all its differences.

The term "corrupt" is non pejorative, used by both sides of the issue to describe the alterations made to the original text whether by design or accident.

I tend to agree that the subject cannot really be discussed while there are contradictory views on the nature of that Providence which is exercised about the text. Hence it is probably best to decline all this talk of particulars, which could go on endlessly, and to simply deal with the general presuppositions that emerge from the discussion.

 

[sotzo]

Can somebody point out what doctrinal hills one would have to die on if you have a dog in this hunt? In other words,, where do the doctrinal differences appear in the text between the 2 traditions?

 

[MW]

It is very hard to argue against a proposition based on what boils down to an argument that "it just is" and which often appears to be created in order to dismiss texts without proper consideration.

Here, again, it must be realised that this was the procedure of the radical criticism of the 19th century which served to uproot the TR in favour of the so-called neutral text. A theory was created whereby the overwhelming majority of mss. could be ignored, and the painstaking progress of a conservative comparative criticism could be rejected, in favour of a few mss. which seemed to have antiquity on their side. So it is clear that the process itself is not the deciding factor, but the presuppositions governing the process.

 

[TimV]

A theory was created whereby the overwhelming majority of mss. could be ignored, and the painstaking progress of a conservative comparative criticism could be rejected, in favour of a few mss. which seemed to have antiquity on their side.

That pretty much sums up the AVer position on Tree in Rev 22:19. If it weren't for the slavish, and perhaps even idolatrous view many of those folk have for the TR they'd probably get more people tending towards the TR.

I mean I prefer the TR/MT in general myself, but often feel like pushing back when I'm pushed to accept what I consider illogical, badly researched and even naive views of the TR the extremists demand. Things like that doltish chart cause such a visceral contempt in me that I find myself often over reacting myself.

PS thanks for the historical info a couple posts up.

 

[Grymir]

The Immaculate Conception of the King James Bible.

That's good. I'm so gonna use that! It beats my golden thread from Heaven line by a mile.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think the chart tries to appeal to a side in people in which they would like everything to be polarised so that it is simple to choose one position or the other. It would be virtually impossible to examine and harmonise all the data with that kind of model in mind.

We should be clear that both sides of this debate engage in historical reconstruction. One should note that academic works on textual criticism seek, to a greater or lesser degree, to inform the reader of what the author considers to be the most likely scenario with regard to ms. traditions; and it has been customary to use what is called the genealogical principle when presenting that scenario. This principle naturally divides the mss. into families and names them on the basis of the locality in which they are thougth to have emerged. It is basically the case that conservative critics have tended to give pre-eminence to the ms. tradition which is said to have developed from Antioch, while the more empirical critics have seen the Alexandrian tradition as more "neutral."

It is true that there were heretics in Antioch as well as Alexandria, but in terms of taking liberties with the text of Scripture, it is a matter of historical record that the Alexandrians tended to allegorise while the Antiochenes would literalise. What we know about textual corruption, especially when it was deliberately undertaken for doctrinal purposes, points to a general tendency to meddle with those texts which have a bearing on the Arian-Trinitarian controversy. Both sides will explain this in different ways. The conservative, Antiochene supporters will maintain that the Alexandrine tradition has corrupted the text to remove support for the Trinitarian view; and empirical, Alexandrian supporters consider that the Antiochene tradition has buttressed the Trinitarian view by emending the text in its favour.

Each one must decide for himself what methodology he will employ, and he will do so on the basis of his own belief as to the hand of Providence in transmitting the text of Scripture to posterity. Either one is "catholic" or "scientific" in approach. Obviously the catholic view will appeal to those who believe the work of criticism is a matter for the church, while the scientific view will appeal to those who regard the academy as the properly qualified instrument.

Thank you for this sober post.

It doesn't rely on fantastic tales to support a position but gives a sense as to why one tradition is preferred over another. I do, however, wish that some TR advocates would be a little more circumspect even within their own textual tradition.

The "sense" of the TR position is a guiding hand of Providence in the preservation of the text. That I can buy even as I see the guiding hand of Providence in the Creeds of Christendom when God used some very strange (and, in some cases, dubious) actors to bring the Church together to define some key aspects of orthodoxy.

Part of that Providence includes not only an Emperor Constantine sort of pressing the Church together for peace but, later, a lone Bishop willing to stand against the seeming "strain of accepted tradition" in his willingness to stand for Nicene orthodoxy.

In like manner, if there is sufficient evidence that a Church man added a verse to Holy Writ that no other previous manuscripts contained, the mere adoption of the text by the Church would be an insufficient grounds to appeal to "Providence" simply because the Church at large received it. To claim that Providence always works like this would be to condemn Athanasisus in his stand against the Church.

I also think that we need to be careful when we, in our feeble human understanding, try to reconstruct a textual history and assume we can sketch out how God's Providential Hand has worked in the specific. We know, from Biblical History, that God used some very wicked and strange instruments to work out His purposes. I'm not saying I'm "sold" on a particular textual platform but simply noting that the Alexandrians were "bad people" (as some are apt to do) is not a demonstration that God is unable to preserve His Word through them. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their perverted, deliberate attempt to deny the divinity of Christ, fail to edit out all the texts that testify to that Truth.

 

[DrOakley1689]

Greetings brother Wieland:

I would like to invite you to call The Dividing Line on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!

 

[DMcFadden]

Careful, Rob. Never meet a bald man with a beard and Greek Testament in a dark alley (or in an internet podcast) unarmed.

 

[sotzo]

Wow! James White is here! Didn't know he was a member on here...

Thanks for your service to the Church Dr White!

 

[dalecosby]

Greetings brother Wieland:

I would like to invite you to call The Dividing Line on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!

Welcome to the puritanboard DrO.

THough you have probably been a member here longer than I.

 

[SolaGratia]

Greetings brother Wieland:

I would like to invite you to call The Dividing Line on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!

Why have a discussion if they are only "assertions"?


-Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:15).

 

[Thomas2007]

Hi Dennis,

There is a lot in this thread, much of which I don't have time to address. However, you provided some concise statements that I would like to comment on, for edification. I too am not an expert on textual criticism, but a layman that found it necessary to study in order to defend the faith. I can share with you my understandings that may shed a little light on the issues that are raised in this thread.

The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones.

This is an argument that arises in the post-critical era within the paradigm of the text critical debate, however, as I understand it, this was not the basis for the Reformation or Post-Reformation dogmaticians, that actually established the Received Text in its Confessional position.

The debate as it existed between Romanists and Protestants was over authority, they didn't disagree that the Bible was the word of God, or that it was inspired - rather the Protestants were asserting a radically different application of the doctrine of inspiration in that it applied to the question of authority. With their affirmation of "Sola Scriptura" authority of the inspired Scripture could be set above the authority of the Church and its uninspired tradition.

As the debate ensued each side responded dogmatically. Tridentine Catholics asserted sacred status to the ecclesiastical editions of the Latin Vulgate, Protestants asserted sacred status to the ecclesiastical editions of the Greek New Testament of the Greek speaking Church and the Hebrew of the synagogues. Each side, then, asserted that their sacred text was "authentical."

The common theme between them was that their respective claims of authentic texts centered upon ecclesiastical editions that were historically sanctioned by ecclesiastical use. This was a narrow scope that presupposes a history of the text upon which criticism was applied.

The high orthodox, for example, held that God established Scriptures in two parts. First, by revelation which was accomplished in three ways; a: by direct writing from the hand of God as in the Decalogue, b: by the command to write (Deut 31:19, Rev 1:19), and c: by inspiration. Second, by canonization, which assumes the existence of the inspired text and is accomplished when the Scriptures are carried forward in and sealed to the Church as its rule of faith.

I'm taking the time to point this out because many, I think, have this view that Roman Catholicism doctrines were based solely upon Church tradition developed in a Scriptural void. Thus, they tend to view Protestant doctrinal arguments against Rome as Scripture vs non-Scriptural Tradition. This is not a correct understanding. Contrariwise, Roman Tradition was doctrine derived from the Vulgate, textual issues for the Protestants, then, directly challenged Roman dogma as is clearly demonstrated by Luther's first thesis that the Lord commands us to repent, not do penance. (Received Text vs Vulgate).

The Tridentine counter-attack against Sola Scriptura was that textual variants proved the error of Protestant dogma against Romanist dogma, and hence was not a valid argument of authority against Church tradition. The Protestant response was that the variants were ultimately harmless, this was a defensive response against an attack upon authority of Scripture, that rested in the denial of the truth of doctrine.

The Reformed arguments always proceeded from the theological principle to the empirical proofs, not in reverse as is asserted today.

When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings.

Again, this might be a response in the post-critical era, but during the era of establishment it was debate against Rome and then against antitrinitarians, socianians, arminians and deists - all of which took up textual criticism as empirical proof utilizing the variants against orthodoxy.

Protestants responded to Rome that the Vulgate is ancient and filled with ancient errors. Musculus, in dealing with similar arguments leveled by Rome citing antiquity, responded:

"In the Church of Christ the issue is not antiquity but the truth of doctrine: the authority of Christian doctrine does not arise because of great antiquity but because of its essential truth and because of its source in God." Musculus, Loci Communes, p 363​

Spurious copies, private copies or those of an unknown pedigree, that agreed with the Vulgate were viewed with suspicion and never rose to the level of "authentic" texts. They couldn't rise to the level of authentic texts because they weren't supported by the twin pillars of revelation and canonization, and although used by Christians in history, were not established and thus were not within the realm of "Providential Preservation."

This is in direct contrast to the modern re-interpretation of this concept that asserts Providential Preservation is linguistic in scope and quite mystical through unknown agencies. Contrary, to Protestants the meaning of the original language in relation to autographa and apographa was one of linguistic continuity. This, of course, is self evident because the way in which they defended the Received Greek Text is consistent with their defense of the Hebrew text and the linguistic arguments against its authenticity in regards to the vowel points.

Protestantism was a conscious reassertion of truth, its textual support is consistent with its primary assumptions and its dogma and polemical defenses are as well. Muller here is insightful:

"The orthodox definition of the truth of Scripture - like the orthodox definitions of infallibility and authority - treads a very narrow line. Scriptural truth is never allowed to rest upon empirical proof: truth depends upon divine authoriship and can be defined as a "truth of promise" or as an intentional fidelity or veracity upon the part of God as author." Muller, PRRD, p 323​

This does not contradict WCF 1.4 because it is consistent with WCF 1.5 and the high orthodox systems of the eight duties of the Church in regards to Scripture (Muller, PRRD, p 383):

1. To approve and receive the Scriptures
2. To commend publicly the approved and received Scriptures
3. To draw up a catalogue of the canonical books, rejecting apocryphal writings
4. To preserve the authentic codices of holy Scripture
5. To furnish translations faithful to Scripture
6. To write creeds, catechisms, and summaries of doctrine grounded on Scripture
7. To interpret and explain the obscure and difficult passages of Scripture
8. To adjudicate controversies in faith and morals on the basis of Scripture

Hence, in the orthodox Protestant concept the definitions of the authority of Scripture, and the ecclesial testimony of the authority of Scripture is consistent and based upon the truth of Scripture and its teachings.

To assert that the Protestant definitions of truth of Scripture and its teaching, the "truth of promise" as Muller points out, follow a very narrow line, but its recognition of the legitimate tradition of the authentic texts of Scripture is inconsistent therewith, is quite odd to say the least.

And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.

I would say, why would we completely alter the categories of Protestant thought in an attempt to proceed from empirical proof to theological truth, which none of our Reformed fathers were willing to do. Furthermore, how do we entertain that, when the sources of that empircal proof fall outside of the boundaries of the legitimate tradition of Providential Preservation?

OK, so your text is not within the legitimate tradition of Providential Preservation, and that is supposed to prove what?

The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety.

Weigh it according to what? The Hortian theory, which is the default presupposition of modern criticism, is that B was a neutral text and that the Byzantine tradition was a recension based upon no proof whatsoever. He simply asserted that as being the case and that assertion carried the day. He simply imagined that to the be case.

Hence, his weight is "antiquity" and it doesn't tip the balance against truth of Scripture.

Of course, the Protestants assume that Scriptures testimony is that God is going to preserve the text of Scripture for the Church, and they presume it is duty of the Church to fulfill those eight requirements, and they believed that all of these promises were true. Their definition of "truth of Scripture" was that their was an intentional fidelity upon God as author.

In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine.

This is the concept that "conservative" critical text advocates stumble upon. Ehrman, while following in the line of the English antitrinitarian textual critics has, albeit unwittingly, done a great service to the Church because he has demolished the ideology of harmless engagement.

I believe, if I've understood Rob properly, that this is the foundation of his argument in this thread. That is that Dr. White's arguments asserting the "doctrine of inspiration" while subscribing to the same fundamental text critical principles, is in actuality an attempt to prop back up the ideology of harmless engagement which Erhman has thoroughly destroyed. Hence, I think that what Rob is saying is that without that ideological presupposition of harmless engagement, conservative critical text advocates cannot maintain their position.

The Protestant textual polemic against Rome is not "harmless" to Rome, it overthrows Rome in favor of truth of Scripture and its doctrine. Rome responds with variants that the Protestants show are harmless to doctrine, but Rome was never antitrinitarian and never attempting to undermine the deity of Christ, for example, by deferring to variants in 1 Tim 3:16 or the issue of the comma Johanneum.

The antitrinitarians, the socinians, the arminians, the deists and the atheists, all accuse us of suppressing texts in favor of theologically altered ones. And yet, with their "reasoned ecclecticism" they pick and choose texts and readings at random and indiscriminately from MSS with no prior consideration as to whether they were in public use, or merely private use, or relegated to obscurity in dusty halls. And, of course, that rests upon ripping the linguistic foundation out of its context in direct opposition to the historic Protestant doctrine.

The "conservatives" then stand upon Confessional dogma's derived from and defending a certain textual tradition as authentic, but agree with their enemies and excise otherwise orthodox readings based upon reasonings of MSS outside of the scope of that tradition, and then defend themselves with the ideology of harmless engagement. There is a great internal inconsistency in this position.

If conservatives are going to assert Sola Scriptura, yet agree that the textual basis of their Confessional dogma's is aberrant, thus destroying the sacred status of their textual foundation for those dogma's, then how do you know those dogma's are the truth?

Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.

The problem with this is, defenders of the Received Text tradition, haven't changed texts. The burden of proof doesn't fall on our shoulders when Critical Text advocates have changed the text. The burden of proof falls on their shoulders - they must be able to prove, from their text, Confessional dogmas as truth.

To make it simpler, would a Romanist have a conscious problem using your Bible?

 

[CDM]

Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.

See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/

Rev. Winzer had a field day as they say. It seemed not many wanted to play.

 

[john_Mark]

Why have a discussion if they are only "assertions"?

Well...if Dr. White didn't believe they were assertions, but thought they were facts then this whole thread probably wouldn't exist.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings brother Wieland:

I would like to invite you to call The Dividing Line on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!

Hi Dr:

Unfortunately, I did not have the time to call you - I will do so in the future when I do get the time.

Having once been a student I am sure you understand the constraints - especially in the afternoon - of finding the opportunity to call.

The Lord's richest blessings to you and yours,

Rob

-----Added 1/30/2009 at 01:02:48 EST-----

In other words the rest of us doubt God fulfills all His promises.

You have said so ...

-Rob

 

[sotzo]

Rob:

Briefly, what would have been the points / questions you would have raised had you called in?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob:

Briefly, what would have been the points / questions you would have raised had you called in?

Hi:

I don't know. Dr. White invited me onto his show. An invitation I did not read until this afternoon. I take it that he would set the agenda which would give him an advantage. Since it is his show - it would give him another advantage. And, since he is a very skilled debater, and I am a mere student, then all the advantages would be on his side.

In other words - when I call him on his show - I do not expect to do very well. I say "when" because I do plan on calling him - hopefully - this Thursday. I will try to block the time out for it.

I think it would be a good experience to talk to him directly about the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[tdowns]

Remind us....

so we can listen.

I listen to the show, but, can't always get to it. I'm not looking to find a winner, just fun (like when Rich was on) to hear fellow PB'ers.

 

[john_Mark]

Rob,

I believe that you have already set the agenda. All Dr. White has asked is that you defend your assertions. Does this mean that you will have the advantage then?

You may be a mere student, but that doesn't really seem like that's how you presented yourself from the beginning.

Whoever has whatever advantages, do you atleast admit that Dr. White will be fair to you?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob,

I believe that you have already set the agenda. All Dr. White has asked is that you defend your assertions. Does this mean that you will have the advantage then?

You may be a mere student, but that doesn't really seem like that's how you presented yourself from the beginning.

Whoever has whatever advantages, do you atleast admit that Dr. White will be fair to you?

Hi:

Touche' I will acknowledge your points. However, Dr. White will be in control of the conversation, and, thus, the questions he will ask of me will set the agenda. Since a lot of material was covered on this thread he will be able to pick and choose what he likes.

I assume that Dr. White will ask about this paragraph in the dozens of paragraphs I wrote:

Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs. To do so, it appears to me, would be to admit that the King James Only advocates are right in their assessment of the Greek text. This is my impression in watching him on his videos as well as a few personal conversations with him (one on the Dividing Line). However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and I may be very wrong in assessing his motivations.

This was a personal observation on reading and watching his many videos on the subject. If I offended, then I do apologize. However, I am actually sympathic to Dr. White on the above matter - having to deal with those crazy KJO advocates shows a great deal of patience. I expect to be beaten to death about this in order to deny any of the other things I wrote.

If Dr. White is to be fair, then I would expect him to send me his agenda on this conversation.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

PS: I seemed to have misread his post - I get the impression that he wants me to call him this coming Thursday. -RPW

 

[mossy]

Rob,
Could you please provide evidence of this?
"Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs."

I have listened to his debates and read his book on the subject and have only heard him say the opposite. I could have missed him saying the TR is not a legitimate copy of the autographs, but I would be really surprised.
Thank you.
Terry

 

[Hippo]

Does Mr. White want a discussion or a debate? Which one for his radio program?

And will he be acting as brother in Christ, with love and patience admonishing another brother in Christ or as a secular critical scholar?

It is really insulting when you are stigmitised as a secular critical scholar because you do not accept the TR as pure in every respect compared to earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

I really do not understand all these veiled allegations against a very learned and courageous orthodox Christian.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.

See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/

Rev. Winzer had a field day as they say. It seemed not many wanted to play.

As a person leaning towards the TR, I would rather have Rev. Winzer call the Dividing Line and the two discuss the thread the Av Theology compared Thread.

CT

 

[Marrow Man]

Just so everyone understands exactly where I stand with regard to Dr. White:

There -- undeniable proof that I am not only taller than James White, but I also have more hair.