Modern Scientific Textual Criticism - Bound or Independent

Before the challenge can be answered, terms have to be clarified.

You've correctly observed here that your argument depends on the idea that "MSTC" is distinct from the kind of textual reconstruction practiced in OT times and later (by Erasmus and the like).
Your argument claims that the distinction lies primarily in role of the Spirit in the textual work. The claim has two parts: a definition of that Spirit role and a definition of "MSTC."

Three questions then:
1) What form did this "leading of the Holy Spirit" take? Break it down for me. The possibilities are several:

1. Those doing the textual work heard the Spirit speak (as in the book of Acts)
2. Those doing the textual work were born along by the Spirit like the "holy men of God" in 1Pet.1.21
3. Those doing the textual work had the gift of prophecy and could reveal which readings were correct
4. Those doing the textual work were lead by the Spirit through majority vote as local congregations voted on alternate readings
5. Those doing the textual work sought wisdom as they evaluated the available copies and were granted that wisdom

2) Where is the biblical evidence that the kind of Spirit leading described in the answer to #1 actually occurred?

3) Where is the evidence that none of those practicing textual reconstruction today seek and obtain that aid of the Spirit? Your argument also requires a comprehensive view of "MSTC" (i.e., "all of those who practice textual reconstruction today reject the work of the Spirit"). If you are only claiming that some who practice it reject this work of the Spirit, there is no disagreement. Everybody knows some of these guys are only interested in reconstructing an accurate text for academic reasons and do not even believe there is a Holy Spirit).

This doesn't really answer the question. When faced with manuscripts that do not match, how do "God's people come to accept or reject the readings"? What does this look like? Is there a vote? Is automatic consensus? Does it have to be unanimous?
But even more importantly, how does the information from the Spirit come to the minds of the people? Do they intuitively know the correct reading or is there some process of evaluation according to criteria or any process of reasoning?

This line of questioning is vital to the debate for multiple reasons, but, to name two:

1. If the information comes to the minds of believers directly by the Spirit apart from any cognitive process or evaluation, this puts the entire question outside the realm of debate. Proponents can simply claim that they "just know" this is how the process works. Reasoning (or discussion or debate or even thought) are irrelevant to someone who "just knows" something.
2. If, on the other hand, the position is that the Spirit guides the believing community as they engage in a process of evaluating readings according to criteria, there is also very little left to debate. This is so because once we allow that the Spirit can work through reasoning and not just intuitively, we must then allow that believers who engage in text reconstruction by evaluating the likely age of MSS, the breadth of geographical distribution of readings, the likely error scenarios that would explain one reading or another, etc. can experience the guidance of the Spirit in that process. It becomes evident that there is no difference between the text reconstruction efforts of believers in OT times vs. that of believers today who do so using a disciplined evaluation process.

We could also go into what you mean by "scientific," but I've gone many rounds in the past with those who hold to this position and the prospect of doing it again is wearisome. There is almost always a steadfast determination to avoid using precise definitions and this determination grows stronger the closer we get to arriving at the real substance of the debate. One tends to think that the view relies on vagueness and ambiguity as its chief means of defense.

To return to the original question, if the question is, "is the practice of reconstructing texts by evaluating mss and readings according to criteria an activity that believers carry out under the Lordship of Jesus Christ (what is meant by "bound"?) or outside of that Lordship ("unbound"?), the answer is self evident. To a Christian everything is service to the Master. This includes science (though it's never made much sense to me what science has to do with this... we're really talking about study and evaluation.)

I must say that I find it refreshing that Br Van Kleeck is defending a historic bibliology on this. Those who are familiar with the Westminster Confession are cognisant that the term "authentical text" was their Scriptural presuppositions leading them to the TR and the Masoretic. Indeed, the wording was deliberately selected as a counterpart to the Council of Trent's claim that the authentic text was the Vulgate with its underlying Critical Text. That is why they included the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 5:7 in their confessional documents.

Anyone who is familiar with Church history, especially from a Reformed background should be aware of these facts. That is why I find it bewildering that so many claim in modern Fundamentalism that KJV/TR advocates are some kind of late twentieth century aberration in the church. I am assuming it is not intellectual dishonesty but rather a truncated Americanised view of textual history from the less well informed. Without being patronising, it appears from what I have read that those who propagate this erroneous myth is that they tend to be from the Bible seminaries that emerged in the middle of the twentieth century mainly from an IFB persuasion who deliberately cut themselves off from the Reformed heritage that we all sprung from.

I wrote a paper, which no one has ever answered, documenting from multiples sources throughout the last 600 years that the Reformers have consistently held to the TR/Masoretic only view of the texts.

http://oldfaith.wordpress.com/category/king-james-version-issues/

I would be interested to see one from a Critical Text perspective refuting it.

The part that has to do with the Reformers' views on things begins at p.21.
After some general (and not in dispute) observations about the Reformers' believe in sola scriptura, we find this...

If this is a sample of how the argument unfolds in the rest of that section of the paper, I don't think I'll the time to read it. Calvin is not talking here about Alexandrian manuscripts. He is talking allegorical method of interpretation.

... great advice from Calvin there though!

One more sample, a few pages later...

So I guess it's obvious that Calvin is saying here that...
1. every word would be preserved here below,
2. whenever manuscripts didn't match, true believers would know which reading is correct,
3. that we would have an edition of the text we know is the one that contains every word,
4. that the TR/MT are that text, and
5. any MSS that ever turn up that don't match, they can't possibly be right

Look closely. It's all there somewhere.

That would be me wouldn't it?

But I don't think it will be that interesting. There really is nothing much more to say that hasn't been said dozens of times before.

Really? Then, you must be missing the broadening of the perspective. Yes, I've suggested ideas along the same lines but these gentleman are expanding and bringing new light.

No, I wasn't speaking of you because you are carrying the ball on this thread. Without blocking, you haven't gained much yardage. I find it very interesting to watch you looking for daylight and not really finding it.

Roland.... Every time I use a little reasoning you start singing the "modernist paradigm" song. It's not persuasive. I'm just asking people to think and most of them (all?) know that modernists did not invent thinking... nor did they invent the idea that once you assign meaning to terms and put them into statements, the relationships between statements begin to force conclusions.

There is nothing modernistic about saying that those who claim that the believing community has kept a word perfect preserved text through the Holy Spirit and that all other texts are the result of "modern scientific textual criticism" must mean something by these statements. If we grant that they mean something, there is nothing modernistic about asking them to be specific about what they mean by "believing community," by "guided by the Spirit," by "scientific" etc.
And there are only so many possible answers to these questions.

But, Roland, I have some other questions for you:
1) What is science?
2) What is modern science as distinct from science in general?
3) What beliefs constitute a "modernistic paradigm"?

Were I a betting man, I'd put money down that you're not going to define these clearly. Clearly defining them would facilitate a debate on the real points of disagreement rather than the endless cycles of repeated generalities and evasions.

Peter, your argument rests on distinctions that need to be demonstrated. A few of the distinctions...
a) Comparing manuscripts and evaluating readings based on likely age, geographical distribution, likely error scenarios, etc. by believers is distinct from a process involving the believing community. (In other words scholars are not part of the believing community)
b) Evaluating manuscripts as I've described is "empirical," and "scientific" and essentially distinct from what people have always done when they had to compare two MSS and figure out which one is correct.

In addition to these, there's still the problem of how the believing community is defined (I suspect that the answer is "The believing community is the community of those who approve the traditional text" and, in turn, "the proper text is the one approved by the believing community.")

The self attesting quality of the word of God is not in dispute here. I don't think it has been the position of the church that differences between manuscripts are self attesting. But if we grant that they are, what is self attesting has always had to be recognized in some way and the process of recognizing has always involved evaluation according to criteria of some kind. People did not look at the variety of writings available in the second century and "just know" which were authentic. They had to reflect and evaluate, not to determine what the word of God is, but to discern which writings were "self attesting" that they were God's word.
So the appeal to self attestation really solves nothing other than making the important--but not in dispute--distinction that people do not determine what the word of God is. They only discern what it is--discover it, recognize it. But that distinction in no way removes the need to use a thought process to do the discerning and discovering and recognizing.

Science is a systematic, organized collection of observations, inferences, and theories about man and his surroundings (include universe here). It is based on observations and reason.

Modern science is generally tied to a methodology commonly called the scientific method. It is a systematic means of testing a hypothesis and verifying the result through repeated replication of results. Workable and tested hypotheses may be generalized into theories that may become established scientific laws or scientific facts. All scientific laws or facts are tentative and subject to modification and revision. For example, CERN has reported recently the discovery of a particle faster than light. If so, it puts Einstein's work in a different light (Pun intended )

The scientific method is very useful in determining what works and what does not work especially in the physical realm where measurement is possible and the number of contributing factors can be controlled. When the thing under observation cannot be measured and quantified or the number of uncontrolled factors is large, the scientific method loses value exponentially. The scientific method is useful in reducing subjectivity and increasing objectivity but it can never eliminate subjectivity and achieve complete objectivity. It is intellectual bondage to be a slave to methodology. A higher level of cognitive functioning is to know where, when, and how to appropriately use or not to use methodology.

Other science, such as Greek or Babylonian or Egyptian science, was somewhat based on observations (observation of the heavenly bodies) but these observations were not tightly controlled by systematic methods. Greek science was as much philosophy (argument and reason) as science. Democritus proposed the concept of atoms based on the argument of matter being discontinuous but it was not until John Dalton that actual observations were used to support this concept. Modern science is methodological.

The "modernist paradigm" is basically naturalistic rationalism. It is based on reason and observation as the only means of knowing. In other words, reason trumps all other forms of knowing. Also, it is tied to methodology, specifically the scientific method. By churning through the proper methodology, man's reason alone will supply all his answers. Its most extreme form is scientism but most moderns, including Fundamentalists, hold some modified conception of this general paradigm. Nothing is accepted that cannot be proven through accept methodology. Many of my arguments with you, Aaron, are when you try to force me or others into your methodology. I have no problem in using reason but it can be and is often inappropriately used.

My problem is not with reason but it is with the inappropriate application without the proper regard for its limitations. This is what you don't seem to understand. Reason is not a way to truth. Truth, which is absolute, final, eternal, universal, fixed, immutable, etc., can only be revealed, never discovered. The scientific method is incapable of giving us truth; it can only tell us what is workable and what is not. Scientific knowledge is by nature tentative and ever changing. Furthermore, things beyond our powers of observation and the limits of our intellects cannot be discerned by experience and reason alone.

In sum, Aaron, you cannot lay down for me or others the methodology for establishing the validity of our truth claims. To do so, you must first establish the validity of your methodology. If we are agreed in methodology, then you can stipulate the conditions. But, we're often not agreed. And you are resorting to the commonly accepted "modernistic paradigm" for your methodology. You probably call it logic but the idea of logic is inherent in your particular paradigm. Logic is not brute fact because there are no brute facts.

Now, how do you refute our truth claims? Unless you can establish your own methodological paradigm to be superior to mine, and you can't, then you must step out of your paradigm into mine and show the internal inconsistency of my own professed epistemology. Often, you've accused me of inconsistently using reason. That's not true. I stepped into your paradigm of reasoning to show your inconsistency when you advanced arguments but I work within my own paradigm of faith and reason when I offer my own ideas. It was a legitimate use of reason; you just didn't understand. This, of course, is the typical modernistic mindset--it ain't true if we can't understand it.

Your paradigm demands an explanation and reasoning for everything you propose. My own paradigm of faith and reason accepts revealed things as true and recognizes my own limits in explaining through reason what I believe to be true. It doesn't mean that it's not true just because I can't explain or prove it methodologically. Although my faith is reasonable, it does not fill in all the details. Many things must be left as "I don't know." However, I do believe in the sufficiency of Scripture to say that I have all I need for life and godliness. Some things may be necessary inferences to tie the parts together such as the belief in the preservation of Scripture to believe in the Scriptures.

I'm interested in getting at the real points of disagreement here as clear as possible.
That's the driving force in every post I've made in this thread.

With that still as the goal, I'll point out that I didn't lay down any rules. I made an observation about how you use the "modernist paradigm" card.

Not in dispute (I accept all of these as true):

• modernity hasn't worked out
• how commonly held a methodology is doesn't prove it's right (nor does it prove it's wrong)

• I'm not thinking, just parroting. Like to see you prove that.... well, not really. Waste of time. What matters is whether what I'm saying is true or not true.
• Whether your constant accusation of "modernistic paradigm" is persuasive. I point out that it isn't persuasive only for your sake. In any case, waving that flag does not prove I'm wrong and so it's irrelevant.

• Science = observation and reasoning, theorizing, systematizing.
• Modern science = the above using a method of observation, hypothesis, repeated testing, etc., ending in laws and facts.
• Modernistic paradigm = belief that observation + reason is the only means of knowing and trumps all other means of knowing, with a commitment to the use of the method described above without recognizing its limitations

When I say "stipulate" I mean, accept for the purposes of argument. Have I correctly summarized your definitions?

One more:

• Roland's paradigm = truth is never discovered, only revealed

Only if you accept my description of truth as absolute, immutable, eternal, and universal. There is a difference between something being true and truth, although truth is true. I ate sushi for lunch may be true but it's not truth in the sense of an universal, eternal principle.

Roland, before we talk about "my paradigm," we need to finish figuring out what yours is. I'm not go to rabbit trailing just as we were starting to get close to something like clarity on what your views are. So I'll quote myself...

So have I correctly summarized your definitions?

Well, we just need to be clear on what your view is.
So how's this:

• Roland's paradigm = truth is never discovered, only revealed and it's absolute, immutable, eternal and universal.

If scholars who are believers are part of the body of Christ, what do you make of believing scholars who do not prefer the traditional text?

It doesn't much matter if it's good or not. It just is. But in this last statement you've defeated your own argument. If the believing community is not united, it cannot be possible to look to a particular text as the correct one "because it's the one that has been kept by the believing community."

But the statements before that are problematic as well. The Hebrew kings charged with making and keeping copies of the Scriptures certainly could read Hebrew. Later believers certainly could read Greek. Does your definition of "believing community" begin sometime after these languages died out? Why? Again, we'd save alot of back and forth if you'd define your terms succinctly.

Two things about that. One, the analogy of different dates distorts the reality of the kinds of differences we find in the MSS. In any case, those who prefer an eclectic text did not invent or create the differences that exist among them. They were created by copyists more than a thousand years ago. It doesn't matter how much we like these differences. They are there and we have to deal with them.
Second, that there are bad translations is not in dispute. Nobody here is for a feminist Bible or a gender neutral one either... etc.

Why... that would be because translations that are producing incorrect readings are, well, incorrect. What entitles us to resist? Well nobody needs to be entitled to resist "post enlightenment scholarship." Nobody believes that all the work of scholars since the enlightenment is true. It's an absurd idea because post enlight. scholarship doesn't agree with itself a good bit of the time.... it's impossible to agree with "all" of what is self contradictory. So people have no choice but to reject at least some of it.
But the short and sweet answer is that as people who believe the Scriptures, we cannot accept what is contrary to them.

Where did that happen?

Peter, the grocery store that brought you pickled pigs feet (or whatever yucky thing you'd like insert here) also brought you high quality fresh fruit and really good pot roast. X came from A, therefore everything that comes from A must be tainted with X?
The "why" in this case is that it just doesn't make sense.

If the believing community includes all Christians, this statement is nonsense because the believing community is not agreed on this point. Indeed, even Luther did not believe the Johannine Comma was authentic... wasn't part of the believing community? Many centuries ago when hundreds of MSS were made that do not contain it, these copyists were not part of the believing community?
But, again, even what is self attesting must be recognized as self attesting. "Self attesting" describes what Scripture does, not what we do. What we do is evaluate and conclude. Since the believing community has disagreed and still does, we are clearly not infallible in our ability to recognize correct readings.
... but I don't want to be understood here as accepting the idea that self attestation has been historically understood to apply to differences in MSS. I highly doubt that's the case (the translators of the KJV apparently didn't think so, since they frequently recommended "or this.... or that" options to readers in the margins).

But I'd sure like to get back to clarifying terms...
I think I'm clear on who the "believing community" is... all genuine Christians (nobody else is "blood bought")
But I didn't catch whether you believe the Spirit is able to guide the believing community by aiding them as they evaluate and weigh evidence. In your view, is Spirit guidance limited to direct apprehension? Visions? Gifts of prophecy? Gut feelings? Or can He lead people to conclusions that include some kind of "because" ("I believe A because B")?

Roland, I'm not trying to express the whole body of Everything Roland Believes About Everything. I'm trying to get clear definitions to a few key terms in order to locate the real points of disagreement.
If you are unwilling to be clear, we have nothing to talk about.

Guess I was right...

It's just so much easier to take a vague position with evil sounding words in it than it is to take a precise position that you then have to support.
So... get out the generalities and beat the other point of view with the ol' "modernist paradigm" club and "scientific methodology" club... but at all costs avoid letting people know exactly what these terms mean.

What you do is highlight the text you want to quote and then hit the quote button. That surrounds the highlighted text with open and close quote tags. Or you can put 'em in manually... a [ quote ] at the beginning and a [ /quote ] at the end (but remove spaces). You can also add an = somebody after the [ quote ] so it has a source named.

You're assuming the conclusion in the argument and strawmanning again. The makers of ESV, NASB, NKJB and NIV do not believe "we are now allowed to question God's word." Presumably, you're characterizing their choice of an eclectic text as doing that, but this is what I mean by assuming the conclusion in the argument. If you're going to prove that the traditional text alone is the true word of God, it doesn't work to say that "the traditional text is the true word of God because any altering of it is altering the word of God." It's circular.

This whole "post-Enlightenment philosophy" thing is a big lump and dump. Roland's been trying to do it for years under the heading of "modernist paradigm." It's fairly effective for getting the choir to cheer but it will not persuade anyone doesn't already agree.
The reason is that it relies on erasing all distinctions that exist among those who do not hold to your view. But the distinctions are there and those who are in that group are well aware of them.
Your argument requires us to believe that anyone who thinks, say, "oldest is best," is one or more of the following:

• a believer in post-Enlightenment philosophy
• a believer not just in science but in the unbiblical particulars of "modern science" (as Roland uses the term, apparently, and I think you as well)
• not guided by the Spirit
• not part of the believing community
• characterized by every other bad thing that characterizes the worst of textual critics

I'm actually not disputing the history at all at this point. There is no need. If the believing community includes people who do not favor the traditional text, then there is no such thing as a single text that is "kept by the believing community."

(Wow... so now the English is supposed to be self-attesting, too? I'm going to just leave that idea alone for now.)
You never have answered my question about how this happens. Does the Spirit reveal this directly or does the believing community evaluate according to criteria?

So you believe we are infallible in our ability to recognize correct readings? If that's the case, how did these readings come to exist in the first place? How can people who always know the right reading produce a wrong one?
But no matter. Variant readings exist and the believing community is not unified on which are correct. These are facts that will not go away no matter how much anyone wishes they would.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, reworded slightly... the creators of the KJV clearly did not believe they were infallible in identifying correct readings. Otherwise, they would not have filled the margins with "or this" and "or that" alternatives for readers.
So tell me again where the "revisionist history in fully color" is happening?

Do you accept my short definitions to your terms then? Never got a straight answer to that.

Worth posting them again. It was thousands of words ago...

• Science = observation and reasoning, theorizing, systematizing.
• Modern science = the above using a method of observation, hypothesis, repeated testing, etc., ending in laws and facts.
• Modernistic paradigm = belief that observation + reason is the only means of knowing and trumps all other means of knowing, with a commitment to the use of the method described above without recognizing its limitations
• Roland's paradigm = truth is never discovered, only revealed and truth is absolute, immutable, eternal and universal.

I'm going to assume the terms above are accurately defined per your view.
Edit: just saw that you've rejected them. Bummer. Reasoning with terms requires pretty succinct definitions, not whole paragraphs.
Edit #2: cancel that "bummer." I don't see anything in your longer definitions that destroys what I've said below or differs materially from my shorter definitions.

The difference between "science" and "modern science" here is important because it means that the argument that eclectic texts should be rejected because those who favor them believe in modern science must be supported by showing that:

• modern science as defined is unbiblical
• all who prefer eclectic texts are lovers of the business of observation, hypothesis, testing and formulating laws and facts.

The definition of "modernistic paradigm" is similarly important. The argument that eclectic texts should be rejected because those who contribute to them or prefer them hold to a "modernistic paradigm" can be defeated by providing an example of someone who favors eclectic texts who's beliefs do not fit the definition.

I just happen to know somebody like that pretty well. I'll take the two arguments in reverse order:

On “modernist paradigm”...

1. A person who believes in angels, demons, the Trinity, miracles, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture, etc. does not hold to a “modernist paradigm.”
2. A person who believes God has providentially and, at times, miraculously preserved His word in the form we have it today does not hold to a “modernist paradigm.”
3. A person who came to believe the gospel by faith rather than by empirical or rational proofs does not hold to a “modernist paradigm.”

On “modern science”....

1. A person who does not believe inductive reasoning can result in certainty is not a believer in “modern science.”
2. A person who believes that a great deal of what is real cannot be observed is not a believer in “modern science.”
3. A person who does not believe in evolution is not a believer in “modern science.”

Anticipated objection: “You have been influenced by modern science and, to a degree hold a modernist paradigm.”
Answer: please locate the influence and and specify the degree.
Anticipated answer: “You are not a believer in the perfectly preserved traditional text”
Defense: That's not how you've defined modern science/modernist paradigm. To support the claim of influence/degree, it would be necessary to describe features that match the definition and do not match anything else. In particular, supporting the claim of "influence of modern science" would require features that are unique to "modern science" and not also features of plain ol' regular science (as defined). Supporting the "degree of modernist paradigm" requires features unique to that term as defined and not also shared by another paradigm... say, "Roland's paradigm."

Read on . . .

Sorry about that, Aaron, but we're talking about the real world not the ivory tower . . . .

Perhaps you are not as careful with words as I . . . words have connotation, denotation, and context all contributing to their semantical content and nudging or limiting it.

Well, here you go making assumptions, unwarranted inferences, and laying down conditions that I do not accept . . . . Just in case you haven't heard me plainly, my argument is simply that science and the scientific method cannot speak to what is not verifiable, observable, measurable, and the variables are controllable. Refute this, not some assumption that only exists in your cerebrum. I have stated that science and the scientific method are wonderful in limiting subjectivity and finding workable solutions in the physical world. Don't you read my comments?

I have never said this, implied this, and it does not necessarily follow logically from my statements or beliefs. This is simply your fantasy logic. I am a practitioner of modern science. Why would I pursue an un-Biblical vocation? Modern science is extra-Biblical, not un-Biblical. This simply means that science, although we see allusion to and mention of scientific principles in the Bible, and the scientific method are apart from Scripture. These are inferior to Scripture in that they cannot provide us with truth as defined but provide only workable solutions, not ultimate reality.

Again, I have never said this, implied this, and it does not necessarily follow logically from my statements or beliefs. Just in case you haven't heard me plainly, my argument is simply that science and the scientific method cannot speak to what is not verifiable, observable, measurable, and the variables are controllable. My argument is and always has been that modern textual criticism as represented by the vast majority of the modern eclectic texts purport to be grounded in theory upon the scientific method. I strenuously object to this blatant misuse of the scientific method because it is NOT appropriate due to the lack of replication, measurement, quantification, standard for comparison, uncontrolled factors, etc. It is based on many of the same objections to making evolution a scientific question.

LOL! This is a straw man for real. I have never advanced this "particular argument." You don't need to defeat it because I don't believe it. This is fantasy land!

Well, you and I both have been influenced. We grew up midst modernity and attended schools teaching modernist epistemology.

BJU, for one, also Central and even your high school.
Anticipated answer: “You are not a believer in the perfectly preserved traditional text”And I'm not sure what you mean by a "perfectly preserved traditional text." You, who insist on my definition of terms, are cagey on defining your terms although you call me out on defining terms. BTW, I don't think you've ever seen me use that term. I usually just call the text Scripture.

So, what are you saying? Everyone has his own individual paradigm? Or, are you saying there are definable historical paradigms of epistemology (i.e. Pre-Modern, Modern, Post-modern)? Aaron, you have a very definite way of obfuscating every argument into obscurity. You get folks lost in a morass of irrelevant details. Your argument just doesn't make good rational sense to me. (See, I'm engaging you in your rationalist paradigm.)

Please allow me to clarify. I have no debate with much of what you say once I figure out your meandering.

Let me make a few pertinent observations:

1. I have no argument with modern science and the scientific method properly utilized.
2. Although the scientific method is a useful means of determining what is workable, it is not a means of discovering truth or ultimate reality.
3. Science and the scientific method used properly and within limitations are not un-Biblical.
4. We use terms to give broad general categorizations for sake of communication without detailed specification of minutiae.
5. Methodology and epistemology, for sake of categorization, are classified into three broad groups: Pre-Modern, Modern, and Post-Modern.
6. Great diversity exists among individuals in categorization of whatever trait so that one need not possess all the traits or even some of the traits consistently to fit the category.
7. Experience and reason are valid means of knowing but they are limited and inferior to revelation.

Well, you and I both have been influenced. We grew up midst modernity and attended schools teaching modernist epistemology.

BJU, for one, also Central and even your high school.

And I'm not sure what you mean by a "perfectly preserved traditional text." You, who insist on my definition of terms, are cagey on defining your terms although you call me out on defining terms. BTW, I don't think you've ever seen me use that term. I usually just call the text Scripture.

Now, Aaron, you're trying to make the rules again? It won't work. Your paradigm is not in control. There's no logic here. Call it repartee, playing at philosophy, or even fantasy but it's not really debate or logic. I'm really a little disappointed.

So, what are you saying? Everyone has his own individual paradigm? Or, are you saying there are definable historical paradigms of epistemology (i.e. Pre-Modern, Modern, Post-modern)? Aaron, you have a very definite way of obfuscating every argument into obscurity. You get folks lost in a morass of irrelevant details. Your argument just doesn't make good rational sense to me. (See, I'm engaging you in your rationalist paradigm.)

I have no debate with much of what you say once I figure out your meandering.

Please allow me make a few pertinent observations:

1. I have no argument with modern science and the scientific method properly utilized.
2. The scientific method is a useful means of determining what is workable and what is not.
3. The scientific method is not a means of discovering truth or ultimate reality.
4. Science and the scientific method used properly and within limitations are not un-Biblical.
5. The use of the scientific method in areas where it is not suited leads man astray into a false belief of certainty and knowledge (e.g. the Sokel Affair, evolution, and modern critical textual theory).
6. We use terms to give broad general categorizations for sake of communication without detailed specification of minutiae.
7. Methodology and epistemology, for sake of categorization, are classified into three broad groups: Pre-Modern, Modern, and Post-Modern.
8. Great diversity exists among individuals in categorization of whatever trait so that one need not possess all the traits or even some of the traits consistently to fit the category.
9. Experience and reason are valid means of knowing but they are limited and inferior to revelation.
10. There are other valid means of knowing and knowledge other than experience and reason including revelation, intuition, the Holy Spirit, genetic factors, etc.
11. Man's beliefs and opinions are more often formed from social learning than rational ratiocination.
12. Words do not possess static semantical content.
13. The semantic content of words of a language change with time and place having no fixed normative semantic value.
14. Context rules semantics.
15. Man's knowledge and understanding is limited by experience and intellect (quality, quantity, and kind).
16. Man's knowledge and understanding are analogical to God's knowledge.
17. Due to human limitations of reason and rationality, apparent paradoxes must exist.
18. Man's knowledge of God is through revelation and the influence of the Holy Spirit.
19. Man cannot and does come to God and know God by his rationality.
20. God's revelation is true, although not exhaustive, and it is sufficient for man's knowledge in living and obeying God unto salvation and good works. (Disclaimer: This is NOT salvation by good works.)
21. God's Word, the Bible, is not a rational book in that it is understood and discerned by rationality and reason, although the intellect is employed in reading and understanding the words, but the Scriptures are spiritually discerned under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
22. The Scriptures defies reason and rationality by miracles, spiritual truths, attributes of God, apparent paradoxes, mysteries, etc. that cannot be understood or explained by the natural rational mind or reasoning.
23. Our faith in God for salvation and life is by the Holy Spirit through God's revealed Word preserved through the Believing Church.
    

1. Modern textual criticism has it historical roots in the rise of rationalism during the Enlightenment.
2. Many, if not most, of the basic principles of modern critical text theories were laid down by Westcott and Hort.
3. Westcott and Hort lived and worked during the rise and dominance of religious Modernism/Liberalism.
4. Westcott and Hort were influenced by and accepted the scholarship and thinking of their period dominated by Higher Criticism of Scriptural authorship, date, and place of writing as opposed to its counterpart in the Lower Criticism of the text of Scripture.
5. Modern Biblical textual criticism is a subset of literary textual criticism.
6. Modern critical text theory rests on the presupposition that all copies of texts contain errors.
7. Modern critical text theory does not take into account any Divine preservation of Scripture.
8. Modern critical text theory proposes how these errors occurred, which amount to little more than supposition.
9. Modern critical text theory proposes to restore the text to the original through scientific and scholarly methods.
10. These methods are based on presumptive and theoretical assertions without a sufficient bank of data.
11. Modern critical text theory gives a false certainty and knowledge by inappropriately using the scientific method when quantification, controllable variables, measurable data, replication, a comparable standard, etc. are significantly lacking.
12. Modern critical text theory lacks verification and replication as required by the scientific method.
13. Modern critical text theory lacks experimentation utilizing controlled variables to standardize and validate the methods and techniques.
14. Modern critical text theory has no predictive traits to verify it theories.
15. Modern critical text theory has no religious component other than it is applied to the text of Scripture. In other words, it is purely a rational, scholarly activity performed by individuals who may or may not have any religious faith. It's veracity can never be elevated beyond this level.
16. Modern critical text theory has a direct bearing on the authority of the Scriptures. The question is whether the Scripture text whose authority depends solely on rational scholarship is authoritative without some concept of Divine preservation of the text. Without Divine preservation, it would seem that Scriptural authority could be no authoritative than the rational scholarship producing the text.

    With which of the preceding propositions do you disagree, Aaron?

Peter,

It seems you contradict your entire position with this statement. How can these be great translations when they are different from the KJV? Using the arguments you have made previously, it seems the KJV was the errant interloper, since these earlier translations had already been self attested to/by the church before the KJV came along and muddied the waters with alternative renderings of multitudes of passages.

On my logic... if my reasoning is faulty, by all means show how it is faulty.

Paradigm: well, I've answered this question before in other threads. It didn't do any good because in your view of things, believing in comparing mss and evaluating them carefully acc. to criteria (vs. accepting a tradition) is inherently "modernist paradigm."

So no matter what else I say I believe, your answer is, basically, "You disagree with me, therefore you are coming from a modernist paradigm."

But for the benefit of anyone just tuning in, I'll summarize what I believe. Since I like to be clear (unlike some other folks around here), I'll be as concise as possible.
But since I don't even know what your idea of a "paradigm" is, Roland, I really have no idea how much of what I believe I have to describe to answer the question.
Here's a too-long stab at it...

1. I believe reality is accessible to us by observation and reasoning but that a great deal of what is real is not observable, verifiable, measurable, etc.
2. Observation and inductive reasoning (“scientific method”) can, at best, only establish the probability of hypotheses and theories.
3. Though there is a great deal of evidence, I believe God exists and has revealed Himself in Scripture because I'm conscious that this is true, not because evidence proves it.
4. I believe the gospel—and its relevance to me in particular—not because it can be proven by observation and reasoning, but because the Spirit convicted me of its truth directly.
5. What we know by reasoning and observation is always subordinate to what we know by revelation.
6. Though I am persuaded that the gospel is true by the ministry of the Spirit, I understand what the gospel is by the rational process of reading words God graciously provided.
7. I believe that we discern what the Bible teaches by the rational process of reading it, understanding its terms and statements, placing statements in their immediate and overall context, etc. (God did not give us the Book so we could look at interesting marks while He directly imparts truth to our minds independently of the actual nouns, verbs, modifiers and connectors He inspired.)
8. I believe it is through the work of the Holy Spirit that we see the truthfulness and personal significance of what the Bible teaches. Anybody can figure out what it teaches. Only recipients of the work of the Spirit “take it to heart.”

1. I believe textual reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that is informed by, and yielded to everything Scripture teaches that relates to it. (It is "bound")
2. I believe God inspired every word of Scripture by the entirely supernatural work of the Spirit.
3. I believe God's word is preserved forever in Heaven.
4. I believe God has not seen fit to keep the copies of Scripture from error, but has graciously preserved His word here below in the form we have it.
5. I believe there is no biblical reason to reject the idea that, as more manuscripts are recovered, alternative readings should be compared, evaluated according to sound criteria and selected for most likely accuracy. I maintain that this is what the activity of “textual criticism” actually is, but prefer the term “text reconstruction,” due to the confusion “criticism” breeds among the uninformed.

I hasten to add that I'd be happy to provide short definitions for any key terms, and if you'd like to summarize the definitions in your own words, I'd be happy to evaluate and clarify so you have definitions that are clear to you and that you can then reason with (for or against).

1. Okay, please define your term "rational process."
   1. I think you are confusing cognitive processes where there are definite distinctions. Reading, understanding, interpretation, etc. are highly diverse processes depending on many cultural and extraneous factors.
   2. Do you have any Scriptural support for this belief or is this just your rational inference?
2. I find no mention of the Holy Spirit or spiritual discernment when there are many references to these ideas through out Scripture. Paul specifically argued that his preaching was not in the power of rational human wisdom. I believe a reasonable Biblical case can be presented that our understanding of Scripture is illumined by the Holy Spirit without which we cannot spiritually discern Scripture. This eliminates, I think, unbelieving and apostate commentators, regardless of how scholarly, from having a serious input into the interpretation of Scripture. This, Aaron, is precisely why I accuse you of operating from a purely modernistic rational paradigm. You have left the understanding and interpretation of Scripture entirely in the domain of the intellect without any role for the Holy Spirit. If I am wrong, then please clarify and correct me. Is this what you believe?
3. Your parenthetical statement is either a straw man, an inanity, or a off-the-mark attempt at sarcasm. It has no serious content because no one has ever argued this point.
4. If the Bible can be rationally comprehended, then why are there so many divergent and opposing teachings?
5. Although culture and language changes with time and place, you seem to assign a static, locked-in semantic content to words. Is this what you're saying? Is the Word of God cemented into those Greek and Hebrew words, whose precise meaning and usage we no longer know, that we no longer speak and use in a living cultural context with all its connotations, hues, nuances, etc.? Is God's Word locked into dead languages?
   

How do you know? Is this a rationally derived conclusion because of the variants?

Also, your preservation statement appears self-contradictory. Do you really mean to imply that God has preserved His Word with errors? It seem more logical to say He has seen fit not to preserve it. Check my logic.

Premise: All present copies of Scripture contain errors.
Premise: God has graciously preserved His Word here below in the present form.
Conclusion: God has graciously preserved His Word here below with errors.

Now, Aaron, this is where the rub comes. What do you mean by errors. You have never defined this even though I asked repeatedly. You brush me off. Are variants necessarily errors? I don't think so. How do you know they are errors? This goes back to your static view of language. I don't have the time and space to lay out this argument here but I do not accept the existence of text variants as conclusive proof of errors in the text. Some texts, of course, do have errors. But, a variant in a text does not necessarily mean that text is erroneous.

Do you know any believers doing text reconstruction. Do you think unbelievers are influenced in their reconstruction by what Scripture teaches?

I'll need some to respond, Roland.
One quick answer to your first question:
Rational thought process = conscious thinking, reasoning.

I have class until noon.

Take all the time you need. I teach both day and evening classes. I understand.

Aaron, you have a bad habit of selectively quoting me out of context. Your snippets makes things appear differently from what they are.

1. In past conversations, you have hedged on discussing the Holy Spirit's role in translation and illumination. You have strictly limited the Spirit's role to inspiration.
2. You have previously denied any role for the Holy Spirit in translation.
3. I have not seen you accord the Holy Spirit any role in text reconstruction.
4. Your mention of the role of the Holy Spirit was limited to salvation, inspiration (as in the original autographs), and personal application, first mentioned in this thread. By your argument for a rational interpretation of Scripture, it appeared that you still were supporting these positions and limits. Now, it appears that you have changed ever so slightly and no longer contest my above statement that you once ridiculed. In d, f, g and h here, you are speaking more or less in terms of personal application as I understand it. You are not portraying the Holy Spirit as the essential element of Biblical understanding, which you reserve for reason. Or, did I misunderstand you.

To both Peter and Roland... you're both having trouble focusing on what's relevant here. If your position is that the traditional text has a unique claim to authenticity because the believing community preserved it with special aid from the Spirit and that all alternative texts must be rejected because they are the product of "modern science," most of the stuff you're posting has nothing to do with proving your position.

That said, I don't mind making my own views as clear as I can.

To #1: Where have I hedged? If we're going to talk about "past conversations," how about quoting or linking? But really, we're not having a past conversation; we're having a present one. This thread is not about translation and illumination. It's about the text translators start out with.
One gets the impression that you guys know you don't have a case so you continually go off on rabbit trails.

To #2: Where did I do that? But why are you bringing it up now? Not relevant. See #1.

To #3: You must have missed it. A key component in my argument is that the role of Spirit cannot be biblically limited to direct revelations to the mind independently of reasoning. So we cannot claim that the believing community that preserved the traditional text had some kind of unique Spirit aid that believers engaged in textual criticism as scholars do not have. The Spirit is able to guide reasoning.

To #4: I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. We understand what the Bible teaches by using our brains. We understand that it is true, relates to us and makes particular demands on us that we must obey by the Spirit. This is pretty much "application." But what's important is not what we label it, but rather what it is.

More later. Got some driving to do.

I quoted your question and answered it.

More irrelevancies.
Surely we are agreed that Solzhenitsyn did not write the Bible. I have no idea which of his is the correct edition.
But, as I've already pointed out, the Spirit only inspired one letter to the Romans, one book of Genesis, one gospel of Matthew, etc. There are no inspired revisions.

Roland, this "view" of inspiration is called "the doctrine of verbal inspiration." You have to hold to it to be a participant in the forums here. It's in the Doctrinal Statement. If you believe God inspired only concepts, you do not believe in verbal inspiration. "Verbal" means "words." "Plenary" means all of them are inspired equally.

Roland, you're not thinking clearly here. Please note that these are two different questions:
How did the writers of Scripture receive the words they wrote?
What words did the writers of Scripture write?
The first question has to do with theories of the mechanics of inspiration. Dictation is one of those theories. I do not hold to dictation.
The second question concerns what the writers actually penned. What they penned, in the historic doctrine of verbal inspiration, are the very words God inspired and no others.
Therefore, any MSS that differs from the original words is in error. It may have the right concepts, but God did not give us "concepts" alone. He have us concepts in the form of particular words.

What problem?

Peter,

1. How do you know that the KJB is the 'final product' or 'conclusion' of these works?
2. By what means do we know that this absolutely the work of God and not the work of Satan, trying to spread lies and deceit about the revelation of one final and authoritative text family?
3. By what means will we ever know of a new divine act that gives us an updated language for the KJB? Can such a thing ever happen?
4. How can we know God's revelation in another 500 years?

Finally, and more importantly,
4. Do you hold to a double-inspiration view? Can you affirm Doctrinal Statement 1.1, which says:

5. Are you using KJB to be distinct from every other version, when (I think) you would claim that they are errant or insufficient for true believers?

I ask those questions, because you make proclamations that sound like a double-inspiration view, and then come back and say that you don't believe that. This was your pattern on SI 2.0.

OK... it's all gotten too messy for me. Starting over.

Roland or Peter, please tell me if I'm correct or incorrect on any of this.

Your claim:
The traditional text is the right text.

Your argument:
Seems to me that between the OP and Roland's views, we have basically four lines of argument here.

1. The "modern science" argument
2. The "modernist paradigm" argument
3. The "believing community" argument
4. The Holy Spirit argument

Maybe one or two of these could be combined or split into separate ones, but I think this is the essence. Now the tricky part. Summarizing the arguments. My goal here is to summarize them in a way you agree is accurate.
Then I plan to shoot them down... but I'm not interested in arguing against what you are not saying, so I want to try again to get that clear and concise.

1. The "modern science" argument: the nontradidtional texts are bad because they are being made by people who believe in and are governed by "modern science"
2. The "modernist paradigm" argument: same as above only replace "modern science" with "modernist paradigm"
3. The "believing community" argument: God uses the believing community preserve His word and the scholars who make nontraditional texts are not the believing community.
4. The Holy Spirit argument: the Spirit enables the "believing community" to know what the correct readings are, and the makers of nontraditional texts do not have this ministry of the Spirit.

So, do I have it right? I know there are several other arguments scattered through the thread but they seem to be subordinate/dependent on these four.

PVK,

Thanks for the answers; I appreciate your willingness to deal with them directly. I skimmed your post last night but wanted to reply to one thing that lays the groundwork for your argumentation first. You said:

And how do you know that with any degree of certainty?

While I will grant you that the current motives for formulating new bible versions are primarily revenue driven, I am not prepared to accept that legitimate textual criticism / Biblical translation / Biblical scholarship stopped cold in the 1600-1700s (depending on which KJB you're endorsing, of course) because humans accepted 'enlightenment scholarship'. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'enlightenment scholarship'.

I feel as though your position leaves you with at least one major hole - the development and canonization of Scripture prior to the KJB, especially in the early church age (let's say anywhere from the formulation of the canon to the early 1600's). You argue that every version after the KJB has been...(I guess I should say) perverted because of that, but all you do is state a blanket assertion and then proceed from that basis. You do not explain the development of the texts or translations preceding the KJB at all, and that leaves a gap of nearly 1200-1400 years in your argument that needs to be addressed. After all, how do we know that Bible translations were not corrupted by, say, Grecian and Roman philosophy, from roughly 100 to 400 AD?

If I came out and asserted that the Alexandria text had to be the best because many manuscripts were corrupted by Roman philosophy, it would be a similar argument. So I hope you can see where I disagree with your opening premise.

No. Non-traditional texts based on modern critical text theory are rejected because their accuracy, validity, etc. are based on scientific methodology (i.e. scholarship) . . . .

1. The scientific method is misapplied to textual criticism because of . . . . .
   1. too many uncontrolled factors
   2. lack of first-hand observable evidence (similar to replication below)
   3. lack of quantification and measurement
   4. faulty presuppositions
   5. lack of replication
   6. lack of comparable standard
2. The use of the scientific method gives a false sense of validity, accuracy, etc. This unquestioning acceptance of anything claiming scientific validity is dynamically demonstrated by the Sokel Affair.
3. The limitations of the scientific method must be confined in the physical realm to measurable and replicable things.

No.
The "modernist paradigm" is best summed by rationalistic naturalism. It is the belief that if the proper methodology is followed, then reason will provide the answer. Reason is the final court of appeal. Christians, who function within this paradigm, interject various philosophical presuppositions to salvage their faith and proceed building with rationalist methodology. Modern critical text theory was created in this context and most Biblical critical text reconstruction, which is a subset of secular textual reconstruction, is done by Modernists/Liberals using this methodology.

No, you missing the important points and you misconstrued the argument.

1. As in canonization, the Believing Church, not the councils, testified to the inspired Scriptures by acceptance. This does not necessarily mean that every church or every single believer agreed.
2. The inspired Scriptures are accepted by faith by the Believing Church in testimony to their nature.
3. By acceptance, the Believing Church helps preserve the inspired Scriptures against all imposters. Again, this does not necessitate agreement of all believers or churches.
4. The Believing Church accepts the Scriptures by faith as authoritative without the aid, approval, or validation of scholarship.
5. Belief in the inspired Scriptures by the Believing Church is based on a continuous history of transmission within the church from centuries past.
6. Modern eclectic texts are the products of secular scholarship based on a pseudo-scientific methodology. This methodology has been questioned by believers since its inception.
7. Modern eclectic texts are essentially secular in nature.

1. God working through many causes and agents preserves His Word by the Holy Spirit.
2. The Holy Spirit leads the Believing Church to accept the inspired Scriptures by faith although this does not require the acceptance of every believer or every church.
3. The Holy Spirit illumines believers to properly understand and interpret the Word of God. (Aaron says he has no disagreement with this.)
4. Secular text re-constructionists, who do not have the leading of the Holy Spirit, cannot properly reconstruct the text because they have not the discernment of the Scriptures in context. Context controls semantics and word choice. Their reconstruction must be solely on reason and secular literary theory.
5. The Holy Spirit leads the believers by faith to accept, believe, and understand the inspired Scriptures as He led them to belief in the Gospel and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not governed by an overriding rationality.

Life cannot always be be defined clearly and concisely. In fact, we cannot exhaustively and precisely define ultimate realities due to the infinite permutations and the limits of language. Your concise definitions must of necessity be generalities leaving much room for misunderstanding and argument.

So what you're saying is that unless Aaron agrees to your definitions and presuppositions, you can't (won't) discuss them?

If you aren't interested in clarifying your position (which several people, including myself) do not understand, and you aren't interested in discussing what we think, then what are you doing on this thread other than wasting everyone else's time? If you want to put an article out defining and teaching everyone about your textual views, then you should submit an article for posting on the main page rather than fill up threads with posts that cannot be understood, defined, or discussed.

Pardon me but could you please give the post number where you've shown this? I seen your denials but I'm never seen any demonstration of proof. Especially not logical proof. I take it that your denial is proof enough. If you research my posts (and I don't have time to do it for you), you will find that my assertions include observations that your methodology is Modernistic, or your presupposition is Modernistic, or you are reasoning from a Modernistic paradigm. What you have FAILED to do is say, "No, that is not Modernistic methodology," or "I did not use that methodology." You have, however, made feeble attempts to obscure the issue by generalizing it to any use of the mind or reason. A gloss is not persuasive proof or demonstration. So, no, you haven't shown anything.

I won't argue with you. Are you saying that you don't have a paradigm? Or, are you saying that your paradigm is not the Modernist paradigm? If so, what is your paradigm?

What? This is amazing! Jay, don't you think I ought to be able to write my own definitions and presuppositions of MY BELIEFS if I am going to support them in debate? Why should I be forced to agree with his definitions of MY BELIEFS? He doesn't have to "agree" with my definitions and presuppositions but he does have to allow me to state them in my words, not his. What's wrong with that?

This is simply amazing . . . .

Indeed, we do see. To use your own metaphor from earlier in the thread, Aaron has the ball, running away with it at the 80 yard line, with no defenders within 30 yards.

You consistently charge Aaron with having a modernist paradigm, but it's quite clear from history that rational, logical thinking has been around for at least 2500 years, long before any period we would call modernity, and I would argue much of what is written in scripture (by Paul especially, but even in the OT) indicates a rational, logical train of thought. Paul values revelation over any of man's wisdom, but that did not at all prevent him from building long rational arguments in scripture on top of what has been revealed, meaning that revelation for us clearly includes logical arguments.

Which proves his point completely. A view that cannot be put together in a coherent whole, is, by definition, incoherent. It's no wonder very few of us are convinced.

All that Aaron has attempted to do in this thread is to try to get both sides onto a common ground so that a discussion will have meaning. However, you consistently say your paradigm is nothing like Aaron's, and therefore they can't be compared, and since you take all attempts at using rational arguments and claim they are rationalism, it's quite obvious that regardless what the opposition says or what evidence they bring, you will not consider it an answer to your arguments, and you will believe what you want anyway. That is your prerogative, but then you wonder why very few accept your position.

It's pretty clear that your arguments do not stand up to close scrutiny, which leaves you at a disadvantage anyway. Any time someone attempts to get you to clarify what you write, you can't (or won't) do it, and you don't accept anyone else's clarification. Honestly, I'm surprised Aaron has given it this much effort. I have to thank him, though, because it has been instructive. In the end, though, it's a lot like arguing with an insane person. Such a person's perception is so far away from normal and in its own world, that an argument with him doesn't make sense or have any point. You just have to let him go on being in his own world, because there is no common ground to find. To any outsider looking in, he is disadvantaged but doesn't realize it. He is happier that way anyway.

Restating is not the same as clarifying. It's obvious to about anyone that any explanation you give just results in further obfuscation in an attempt to avoid having your views nailed down. I have to admit, though, reading what you write sometimes makes for interesting reading, on the few occasions I need some surrealism in my day.

LOL . . . then you've never heard of Jim Marshall who played for the Vikings and ran the wrong way on a fumble recovery into his own end zone . . . I suppose he wondered why there were no defenders between him and the goal line . . . go Aaron, go Aaron, go . . . LOL How's that for sustaining the metaphor?

Yeah, I suppose you wouldn't know about the changes in epistemology and reasoning that began with the Enlightenment (although some would argue that "Modernity" is a departure from Enlightenment principles) and the advent of the scientific method. If it is just one big continuum of reasoning from Hellenistic Greeks until now, then why are there huge tomes of pedantic philosophy written on the concept of "Modernity?" This isn't something that I made up but I was first introduced to the concept of "Modernity" from reading the publications of the secular Intercollegiate Studies Institute when I was a youngster from the likes of Ronald Nash, Henry Hazilitt, Murray Rothbard, John P. East, Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, et. al. Later, I read Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper for real eye-openers on science. If you want primary sources, I recommend reading Hobbes, Hume, Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, and Bacon. Your argument really isn't with me--it's with all the aforementioned guys! If you think you can wipe them away with three or four lines, then have at it.

Oh, my . . . what such a simple way of looking at the world. If only reality could be so simple, definable, and so easily understood . . . . Reality itself is incoherent to us by your definition. Although the equations of electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces are similar, even Einstein could not come up with an unified field theory. Friend, the profundity of reality can hardly be explained in two line definitions, not even in two hundred thousand lines. I would like to see you explain the Krebs Cycle in one statement. And if you think you have reality explained and wrapped up in a neat little package, then there's only one person deceived . . . . . How is it said? It is better for one to know that he knows not than one who knows not that he knows not. That is, I believe, a pretty good picture of self-deception.

This is a highly skewed misrepresentation prejudiced in the interest of the point that you're trying to make. Aaron argues from a paradigm of logic and reason, which he admits although he denies it is a subset of the Modernist paradigm. Anyway, it is perfectly legitimate for me to argue and show contradiction of his propositions according to his own professed system. On the other hand, he cannot enforce his system's logic upon my propositions that were formed under another paradigm logic. He either demonstrates his paradigm is superior to mine or refutes me within my own paradigm of faith and reason. He has done neither.

Thank you Aaron, Jay, and Dave, for your efforts. I wish I had your patience. I try to read Roland's posts and most of the time my eyes just glaze over. When I do read his posts I find them incoherent and unhelpful.