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?
Depends on what "pure" means. If it means a textual tradition where all readings have zero variants, then I don't think that is what "pure" means. If it means God has not left himself without a witness, then that can equally apply to other traditions.If God has kept pure His Word in all ages (WCF 1.8), then 1) What does that mean,
That is the genetic fallacyI'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,
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.
Of course not, but it does suggest that one should consider their views with higher degree of scrutiny and suspicion if their motives were atheistical. In the same manner naturalistic evolutionists are not wrong merely because they are atheistical, or those who seek to "demythologize" the Virgin Birth, etc., but given that no man is impartial, once the partiality of a man is determined his views ought to be scrutinized with that partiality in mind.Let's pretend for a moment that Westcott and Hort are bad people. Does that make their arguments false?
Actually, not quite. The genetic fallacy is well defined by Wikipedia: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.
I'm failing to see how my definition deviates from Wikipedia's other than being more succinct. See the bolded/underlined portion. It also is clear that Andrew did not commit it given that his first two paragraphs make no mention of the CT's origins, and indeed his citation of the origins is described even by himself as "an aside." To his principal question in his second paragraph, Westcott and Hort's background is irrelevant. If Andrew is guilty of the fallacy, it can only be because any consideration of the origins of a stance or idea is regarded as fallacious. That would be, as I term it, a postmodern fallacy.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.
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.That would be, as I term it, a postmodern fallacy.
Consideration yields conclusions, so I'm still not seeing a difference. It is the consideration of the origins that yields a conclusion based on those origins. If something is considered only with respect to its origins, then conclusions will be made only with respect to its origins. The former is the process, the latter is the result of that process. I have no problem with word wrangling, but as long as the only input in the consideration or conclusion is the origin of a thing, then they are functionally equivalent in the case of the 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.
Where is the genetic fallacy here? He only brings in the origins as an aside after this statement. It's clear that the origins statement is secondary, at best, to his implied conclusions.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).
[Upon reading this post by Stephen, Taylor begins all the more frantically searching through his GIF collection deep within the recesses of his hard drive, still to no avail.]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?
Lane, perhaps you are thinking of other posts Andrew has made on the matter, but I do not see your description of his argument in what he actually posted. There is a great deal of inference taken, which inference being, I admit, necessary, as his was a brief response and not a full argument, but which is not actually what he stated. Given that he didn't actually state conclusions (though his own opinion can certainly be inferred), I don't see how he can be charged with the genetic fallacy. Saying (in brief):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.
Yes but they did so in a manner that divorced texts from their historicity and authorship and radically separated the past and the present. History for many postmodernists is illustrative for its phenomena, but not a meaningful field of empirical study. Foucault might be a representative example. The views of WH or Metzger would be irrelevant and even inaccessible to them.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
I'm trying to go over this as I'm reading it. I don't believe I was making a particular conclusion. I was suggesting keeping the history in mind as one decides the merits of a particular position. How Chris, above, summarized what I was saying is exactly how I'd put it. I was not at all suggesting a conclusion, though I have my own conclusion. Yet, it is not based solely or mostly on CT's history.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.
This is a misrepresentation of my position. I do not believe that CT position is nullified because of how it came to be, i.e. its history, who the players were, etc. CT is nullified for various other reasons, but that (i.e. history) is not one of them.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.
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.
Riplinger believed in some of the wackier forms of "God told me." The comparison meant that she is super crazy. I wasn't saying Warfield believed x, y, or z.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.