Modern Scientific Textual Criticism - Bound or Independent
Forum category
In 1558 William Whitaker, a master apologist for the truth of sola Scriptrua, wrote his comprehensive apology against the Roman Catholic dogma of Bellarmine and Stapleton on the topic of Holy Scripture - Disputations on Holy Scripture. Under the First Controversy and the Sixth question Whitaker writes concerning the necessity of Scripture,
“For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God.” [523:
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC: , in what way is MSTC “bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule” seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of “divine things”?
I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a “will-worship hateful to God.” For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT’s on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.
For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the “prescribed and certain rule” [i.e. Holy Scripture: , know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a “will-worship hateful to God.” Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC’s goal is professedly not that of God’s will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God’s words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation: Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than an present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ’s Kingdom.
“For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God.” [523:
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC: , in what way is MSTC “bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule” seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of “divine things”?
I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a “will-worship hateful to God.” For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT’s on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.
For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the “prescribed and certain rule” [i.e. Holy Scripture: , know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a “will-worship hateful to God.” Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC’s goal is professedly not that of God’s will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God’s words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation: Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than an present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ’s Kingdom.
- 633 views
Before the challenge can be answered, terms have to be clarified.
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:
[Peter] I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing.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:
- Those doing the textual work heard the Spirit speak (as in the book of Acts)
- Those doing the textual work were born along by the Spirit like the “holy men of God” in 1Pet.1.21
- Those doing the textual work had the gift of prophecy and could reveal which readings were correct
- Those doing the textual work were lead by the Spirit through majority vote as local congregations voted on alternate readings
- Those doing the textual work sought wisdom as they evaluated the available copies and were granted that wisdom
There are probably other possibilities, but testing the argument requires clarity on this point.
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).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thank you for your post Brother Blumer. The answer to question 1 is this, the Standard Sacred text position as I maintain it, holds that the believing community (i.e. blood bought saints, the Body of Christ) is lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13) which includes what is God’s word and what is not. The Spirit of God bears witness to the spirit of the believing community, and through this leading, God’s people come to accept or reject the readings of a given text because ultimately the words of Scripture are spiritually discerned, not scientifically.
Answer to question 2. The most concise explanation of the process mention in the first paragraph is found in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in they mouth, shall not depart out of they mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of they seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and forever.
Here is the clearest example of the word of God, Spirit of God, and people of God dynamic. Please note that the covenant maker is Jehovah and the covenant made here is just as strong as that one given to Abraham. Also note that it is upon “seed’s seed”, not merely the educated or leaders but upon generation after generation which leads to the next point. This covenant is transgenerational and given no point of termination. Finally, seeing that the O.T. and N.T are equal in authority, certainty, and inspiration, there is to be no division of testaments with regard to this covenant in the dispensation of grace. (See also Deut. 30:10-14)
Answer to question 3. Is there a place for linguistic, archeological, and hermeneutical investigation? Yes there is, but the conclusions must be kept within the upper and lower control limits of Holy Scripture, which is achieved through following the process briefly described above. As you have already admitted there are some who treat the Scripture as merely a science project, and because of their radically terrestrial Archimedean point their opinions concerning those things which are spiritually discerned bear virtually no authority with regard to the believing community or its sacred text. It is the believing community which has authority over lost scholar’s guesses. Let us assume for the present discussion that there are those who do textual work mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. These laborers for the faith are servants of the believing community not the “Bosses” of the believing community. In other words, the findings of linguists, archeologists, and scholars are not to be foisted upon the Body of Christ. In likeness to a Pauline analogy, this would be like the feet of the body taking the body where the rest of the body is not ready to or does not want to go. Even if the findings are correct, it is the Spirit lead believing community that places the imprimatur upon the finding(s) not the scholarly community. In short, the scholars perform the work in their several disciplines and present their work to the believing community and through the leading of the Spirit the work is accepted or rejected. Those practicing textual reconstruction, even if lead by the Spirit, do not have the power or authority to place the imprimatur on what is God’s word and to withhold it from what is not. Only the Spirit lead believing community is capable of that.
Answer to question 2. The most concise explanation of the process mention in the first paragraph is found in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in they mouth, shall not depart out of they mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of they seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and forever.
Here is the clearest example of the word of God, Spirit of God, and people of God dynamic. Please note that the covenant maker is Jehovah and the covenant made here is just as strong as that one given to Abraham. Also note that it is upon “seed’s seed”, not merely the educated or leaders but upon generation after generation which leads to the next point. This covenant is transgenerational and given no point of termination. Finally, seeing that the O.T. and N.T are equal in authority, certainty, and inspiration, there is to be no division of testaments with regard to this covenant in the dispensation of grace. (See also Deut. 30:10-14)
Answer to question 3. Is there a place for linguistic, archeological, and hermeneutical investigation? Yes there is, but the conclusions must be kept within the upper and lower control limits of Holy Scripture, which is achieved through following the process briefly described above. As you have already admitted there are some who treat the Scripture as merely a science project, and because of their radically terrestrial Archimedean point their opinions concerning those things which are spiritually discerned bear virtually no authority with regard to the believing community or its sacred text. It is the believing community which has authority over lost scholar’s guesses. Let us assume for the present discussion that there are those who do textual work mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. These laborers for the faith are servants of the believing community not the “Bosses” of the believing community. In other words, the findings of linguists, archeologists, and scholars are not to be foisted upon the Body of Christ. In likeness to a Pauline analogy, this would be like the feet of the body taking the body where the rest of the body is not ready to or does not want to go. Even if the findings are correct, it is the Spirit lead believing community that places the imprimatur upon the finding(s) not the scholarly community. In short, the scholars perform the work in their several disciplines and present their work to the believing community and through the leading of the Spirit the work is accepted or rejected. Those practicing textual reconstruction, even if lead by the Spirit, do not have the power or authority to place the imprimatur on what is God’s word and to withhold it from what is not. Only the Spirit lead believing community is capable of that.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] The answer to question 1 is this, the Standard Sacred text position as I maintain it, holds that the believing community (i.e. blood bought saints, the Body of Christ) is lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13) which includes what is God’s word and what is not. The Spirit of God bears witness to the spirit of the believing community, and through this leading, God’s people come to accept or reject the readings of a given text because ultimately the words of Scripture are spiritually discerned, not scientifically.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:
- 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.
- 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.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC] , in what way is MSTC “bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule” seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of “divine things”?Why is this the standard? I am not familiar with the Bible basis for this, nor for the Bible identification of the prescribed and certain rule for textual criticism. Can you be more clear on this? What are the “upper and lower limits” as established by the Bible? And where does the Bible establish them?
where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit.Is the word of God present in the modern Greek texts? If you say No, then tell us why it is virtually identical in all respects to what you say is the Word of God. If you say yes, then why aren’t the modern Greek texts are the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit? What say you?
You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT’s on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned.Can you please quote these prefaces that say their goal is worshiping their own wills and oppressing the church with their findings? I admit to not having read these in a while, but I don’t recall that being found in any prefaces that I am familiar with. And since (as everyone agrees), the modern versions are virtually identical to the ancient versions (in some cases closer to the ancient versions than even the TR is), can you help us understand why would we not want to be oppressed by the Word of God?
Because MSTC’s goal is professedly not that of God’s will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God’s words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelationHow is this different than you, limited by your own human cognition, locating God’s words in only one text or translation? Why should we listen to you rather than to them?
The Spirit of God bears witness to the spirit of the believing community, and through this leading, God’s people come to accept or reject the readings of a given text because ultimately the words of Scripture are spiritually discerned, not scientifically.Lastly, how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of the “believing community” today accepts the eclectic texts and the translations that come from them? This is particularly true among those who know what they are talking about. It seems that very few people in the “believing community” who are informed on the issues accept your position. If God infallibly leads the “believing community” to the right texts and right variants through the Spirit, it seems to me that we have some major problems.
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.
[url] http://oldfaith.wordpress.com/category/king-james-version-issues/
I would be interested to see one from a Critical Text perspective refuting it.
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.
[url] http://oldfaith.wordpress.com/category/king-james-version-issues/
I would be interested to see one from a Critical Text perspective refuting it.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
I really don’t think anybody is disputing that the reformers used TR/MT exclusively. This is not the same as saying it was all they would use if they’d had more options.
But we’re kind of switching horses here a bit aren’t we? Supposedly the argument for TR/MT was that there is a special group of believers with a special knack for hearing from the Holy Spirit in the process of textual reconstruction. And supposedly, anybody who disagrees with them is doing “Modern Scientific Textual Criticism.”
But now we should use TR/MT exclusively because the Reformers allegedly taught that no other text could be authentic. Of course, both arguments could be used for the Traditional Text view, but it’s interesting how switching from one argument to another is so often a method of “let’s hope they won’t notice that we haven’t answered their objections to the other argument.”
I’m intrigued by your claim that the Vulgate was made from a “critical text.”
You’re obviously not using the same definition of “critical” that Peter is using, since, for him, this is a problem of using Science instead using the Spirit. But the Vulgate text was definitely not a product of “Modern Scientific Textual Criticism.”
(And what about the places where KJV translates following the Vulgate?… e.g. “Lucifer”)
But we’re kind of switching horses here a bit aren’t we? Supposedly the argument for TR/MT was that there is a special group of believers with a special knack for hearing from the Holy Spirit in the process of textual reconstruction. And supposedly, anybody who disagrees with them is doing “Modern Scientific Textual Criticism.”
But now we should use TR/MT exclusively because the Reformers allegedly taught that no other text could be authentic. Of course, both arguments could be used for the Traditional Text view, but it’s interesting how switching from one argument to another is so often a method of “let’s hope they won’t notice that we haven’t answered their objections to the other argument.”
I’m intrigued by your claim that the Vulgate was made from a “critical text.”
You’re obviously not using the same definition of “critical” that Peter is using, since, for him, this is a problem of using Science instead using the Spirit. But the Vulgate text was definitely not a product of “Modern Scientific Textual Criticism.”
(And what about the places where KJV translates following the Vulgate?… e.g. “Lucifer”)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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…
… great advice from Calvin there though!
One more sample, a few pages later…
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.
After some general (and not in dispute) observations about the Reformers’ believe in sola scriptura, we find this…
W.R. Farmer explains how the Alexandrian manuscripts were tainted by corruption, “But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used … is not known1.” Calvin said of Origen,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.Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine .
… great advice from Calvin there though!
One more sample, a few pages later…
Commenting on Isaiah 59:21, Calvin affirmed his belief in the perfect preservation of all the Words of Scripture in every age in the true Church,So I guess it’s obvious that Calvin is saying here that…The word of Christ shall always continue in the mouths of the faithful; there shall be some in every age who, believing with the heart unto righteousness, shall with the tongue make confession unto salvation. The word shall never depart out of the mouth of the church; for there shall still be a seed to speak Christ’s holy language and profess his holy religion. Observe, The Spirit and the word go together, and by them the church is kept up. For the word in the mouths of our ministers, nay, the word in our own mouths, will not profit us, unless the Spirit work with the word, and give us an understanding. But the Spirit does his work by the word and in concurrence with it; and whatever is pretended to be a dictate of the Spirit must be tried by the scriptures. On these foundations the church is built, stands firmly, and shall stand for ever, Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Disclaimer: Because of work I will not be able to respond to any further discussion until the weekend, so please bear with me.
Before I begin my response I would like to offer a simple anecdote. After attending an evangelical college, concluding graduate work at a Presbyterian seminary and post-graduate work at a Christian Reformed seminary I never once encountered the historic Standard Sacred Text position being taught by these schools with the exception of two professors. That said, I would not be surprised if some opponents of said position are hearing portions, if not all of this material for the first time. In addition, if you would desire to know the Standard Sacred Text position then allow me a simplistic paraphrase of Socrates, If you are to learn a thing then understand first that there are aspects you don’t know about the thing, for if you already know the thing there is very little to learn. Furthermore, if you do not know then it is unwise to make an enemy of that unknown thing, prematurely.
Brother Blumer, the reason I begin with the anecdote is because a regular and prolific term used throughout church history on this topic is autopistos which brings about the doctrine of self-attestation. As Augustine said, God alone is a fit witness unto Himself. God’s words are self-attesting. They must be because no being in se has the ability to speak for God. God speaks for Himself. Furthermore, the principle of gradation necessitates it. An infinitely lesser gradation i.e. man cannot assert the authority or power of the infinitely greater Source i.e. God. In addition and more importantly, the Scriptures bear out that even when men speak in the authority and/or power of God they speak God’s words, whether that person be a prophet or apostle. There are two other terms which are prolific in the literature, self-authenticating and self-interpreting. Discussion concerning these two terms will remain in the wings until they are needed, but I encourage you Brother Blumer to research and study these terms if your questions are one’s of knowledge because you will not find this terminology in the prevailing academic environment.
So then the proper paradigm for bible translation is this: scholars dutifully engage the available mss > scholars submit their findings as an act of service to the Body of Christ > the Spirit filled Body of Christ reads the submissions > the self-attesting words of God bears witness with the Holy Spirit filled Body of Christ > some findings are rejected (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, the Bishops Bible) and some are accepted (e.g. Tyndale’s NT, Geneva, and KJB) > as this self-attesting/Spirit filled process continues those sources and reading which have been rejected remain so (e.g. Aleph and B) > those things which are accepted remain so until the self-attesting word and the Spirit filled community move point to the next iteration. Note: The quote from the N/A 27 under the next respondent bears not even the slightest inkling of this process.
The transition is not instant but takes time as is the general case related to the movement of the Church. Still, the transition from the Geneva to the KJB was roughly 30yrs. After over 100+ years of MSTC my professors at Calvin [the birthplace of the NIV] and Westminster [ Poythress and the ESV] readily say MSTC is just as much a continuing process as when it started. Over the thirty years from the Geneva to the KJB there was only one version. At present, over a hundred years has produced hundreds of versions. The Standard Sacred Text position is accused of zealotry, but I ask that the accusers take a look in the mirror if they construe a hundred years producing hundreds of versions as a transition rather than a confusing muddle.
Starting in the Enlightenment, scholars cared little for the authority of the Spirit filled believing community and rejected the notion of self-attestation. As a result that which was rejected for hundreds of years was readmitted, not by the Spirit filled believing community but by the will-worship of the scholarly community. The textual criticism to follow was no longer bound by the self-attestation of Scripture or the Spirit filled believing community. As of late, the believing community has become the Guinea Pig of scholarly opinion. I often run into the question, Why don’t the people of God stand against this usurpation by modern scholarship? I believe the answer is simple. The Devil knows and we often forget that God’s people are the sheep of His pasture rather than lions. Ultimately this is why leaders who lead God’s people astray (willingly or otherwise) “shall receive the greater condemnation.”
With regard to the word “scientific”, the term is used in the sense that the vast majority of the textual work being done today is wholly empirical. In other words, look at the mss and make a decision in the place of the believing community. A synonym I use is transcendentless. Of the choices for MSTC I either have scientific or transcendentless. In this case I went with scientific.
Before I begin my response I would like to offer a simple anecdote. After attending an evangelical college, concluding graduate work at a Presbyterian seminary and post-graduate work at a Christian Reformed seminary I never once encountered the historic Standard Sacred Text position being taught by these schools with the exception of two professors. That said, I would not be surprised if some opponents of said position are hearing portions, if not all of this material for the first time. In addition, if you would desire to know the Standard Sacred Text position then allow me a simplistic paraphrase of Socrates, If you are to learn a thing then understand first that there are aspects you don’t know about the thing, for if you already know the thing there is very little to learn. Furthermore, if you do not know then it is unwise to make an enemy of that unknown thing, prematurely.
Brother Blumer, the reason I begin with the anecdote is because a regular and prolific term used throughout church history on this topic is autopistos which brings about the doctrine of self-attestation. As Augustine said, God alone is a fit witness unto Himself. God’s words are self-attesting. They must be because no being in se has the ability to speak for God. God speaks for Himself. Furthermore, the principle of gradation necessitates it. An infinitely lesser gradation i.e. man cannot assert the authority or power of the infinitely greater Source i.e. God. In addition and more importantly, the Scriptures bear out that even when men speak in the authority and/or power of God they speak God’s words, whether that person be a prophet or apostle. There are two other terms which are prolific in the literature, self-authenticating and self-interpreting. Discussion concerning these two terms will remain in the wings until they are needed, but I encourage you Brother Blumer to research and study these terms if your questions are one’s of knowledge because you will not find this terminology in the prevailing academic environment.
So then the proper paradigm for bible translation is this: scholars dutifully engage the available mss > scholars submit their findings as an act of service to the Body of Christ > the Spirit filled Body of Christ reads the submissions > the self-attesting words of God bears witness with the Holy Spirit filled Body of Christ > some findings are rejected (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, the Bishops Bible) and some are accepted (e.g. Tyndale’s NT, Geneva, and KJB) > as this self-attesting/Spirit filled process continues those sources and reading which have been rejected remain so (e.g. Aleph and B) > those things which are accepted remain so until the self-attesting word and the Spirit filled community move point to the next iteration. Note: The quote from the N/A 27 under the next respondent bears not even the slightest inkling of this process.
The transition is not instant but takes time as is the general case related to the movement of the Church. Still, the transition from the Geneva to the KJB was roughly 30yrs. After over 100+ years of MSTC my professors at Calvin [the birthplace of the NIV] and Westminster [ Poythress and the ESV] readily say MSTC is just as much a continuing process as when it started. Over the thirty years from the Geneva to the KJB there was only one version. At present, over a hundred years has produced hundreds of versions. The Standard Sacred Text position is accused of zealotry, but I ask that the accusers take a look in the mirror if they construe a hundred years producing hundreds of versions as a transition rather than a confusing muddle.
Starting in the Enlightenment, scholars cared little for the authority of the Spirit filled believing community and rejected the notion of self-attestation. As a result that which was rejected for hundreds of years was readmitted, not by the Spirit filled believing community but by the will-worship of the scholarly community. The textual criticism to follow was no longer bound by the self-attestation of Scripture or the Spirit filled believing community. As of late, the believing community has become the Guinea Pig of scholarly opinion. I often run into the question, Why don’t the people of God stand against this usurpation by modern scholarship? I believe the answer is simple. The Devil knows and we often forget that God’s people are the sheep of His pasture rather than lions. Ultimately this is why leaders who lead God’s people astray (willingly or otherwise) “shall receive the greater condemnation.”
With regard to the word “scientific”, the term is used in the sense that the vast majority of the textual work being done today is wholly empirical. In other words, look at the mss and make a decision in the place of the believing community. A synonym I use is transcendentless. Of the choices for MSTC I either have scientific or transcendentless. In this case I went with scientific.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Thank you for your post Brother Larry. It has been nearly eight years since last I posted on these forums and I distinctly remember your interaction with my Dad and me. To this day my Dad still has on his computer the hundreds of posts of give and take on this topic which you were part of. I know for certain that years ago we answered the vast majority if not all of the questions you have recently posted. Unless you have drastically changed your position, I know that you disagree the the Standard Sacred Text position, still, you have been given the answers to the questions you ask. So now I wonder why you ask them again? For whatever reason, I hope the post above begins to refresh your memory on the Standard Sacred Text position. Lord willing, as the discussion continues the remainder of your questions will addressed for those who have yet to hear the answers.
With regard to the ideological bent of modern critical language work I think it bears pointing out that p. 45 of the Introduction to the Novum Testamentum Graece reads
“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”
Now for a brief exegesis. The believing community is no where mentioned here, rather all that is mentioned is scholars (i.e. United Bible Societies) and the Vatican. They make no apology that scholars and Rome are making the decisions as to what is God’s word and what is not, which leads to significant steps in interconfessional relationships (read ecumenicism). In other words the NA 26 and 27 are bringing the idolatry of Rome and true worship of Jesus Christ closer together. This text is a working text which means it is in process, but the believing community is to believe that versions translated from this Greek text are not. Furthermore there is no attempt to distinguish between alleged lesser important things and important things. The whole work is in process which means that the believing communities source for divine authority and certainty is also in process. This is why the writers of the Introduction (i.e. the Alands) do not shy away from saying that this work is not suppose to be considered definitive, but those who support MSTC eagerly say definitively that the NIV and ESV are just as much the word of God as the KJB.
What I find most telling is the “century-long Nestle tradition”. Opponents of the Standard Sacred Text position have a propensity to call said position an extremist position when it is the MSTC position that admits to being only 100 years old. How did the believing community get along before the Nestle tradition? The believing community “got along” with Spirit of God working with the self-attesting words of God in the hearts of the believing community.
All in all, the Alands do not say they are performing will-worship, but Satan is Satan whether he admits to it or not. This level of transcendentless abiblical ahistorical contrivance is nothing more than man worshiping himself or will-worship.
____
Brother Ferguson and Pittman, your posts are a delight to see. Thank you for joining us.
With regard to the ideological bent of modern critical language work I think it bears pointing out that p. 45 of the Introduction to the Novum Testamentum Graece reads
“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”
Now for a brief exegesis. The believing community is no where mentioned here, rather all that is mentioned is scholars (i.e. United Bible Societies) and the Vatican. They make no apology that scholars and Rome are making the decisions as to what is God’s word and what is not, which leads to significant steps in interconfessional relationships (read ecumenicism). In other words the NA 26 and 27 are bringing the idolatry of Rome and true worship of Jesus Christ closer together. This text is a working text which means it is in process, but the believing community is to believe that versions translated from this Greek text are not. Furthermore there is no attempt to distinguish between alleged lesser important things and important things. The whole work is in process which means that the believing communities source for divine authority and certainty is also in process. This is why the writers of the Introduction (i.e. the Alands) do not shy away from saying that this work is not suppose to be considered definitive, but those who support MSTC eagerly say definitively that the NIV and ESV are just as much the word of God as the KJB.
What I find most telling is the “century-long Nestle tradition”. Opponents of the Standard Sacred Text position have a propensity to call said position an extremist position when it is the MSTC position that admits to being only 100 years old. How did the believing community get along before the Nestle tradition? The believing community “got along” with Spirit of God working with the self-attesting words of God in the hearts of the believing community.
All in all, the Alands do not say they are performing will-worship, but Satan is Satan whether he admits to it or not. This level of transcendentless abiblical ahistorical contrivance is nothing more than man worshiping himself or will-worship.
____
Brother Ferguson and Pittman, your posts are a delight to see. Thank you for joining us.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Speaking of old saved posts - Most of the old threads are still available at the SI Archive, which is located at http://20.sharperiron.org. If you have an old and broken hyperlink that you want to go to (say, http://sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9901&page=1&pp=10), inserting the “20.” prefix (to get http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9901&page=1&pp=10 instead) should fix it.
I now return you all to the regularly scheduled discussion of textual criticism.
I now return you all to the regularly scheduled discussion of textual criticism.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
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.
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks for your kind response, Peter.
Yes, years ago I interacted on this more than I do these days. And I will probably regret getting involved in this discussion again, though I intend to keep my participation short. Back then the answers that were given were unconvincing to me, or at least they didn’t stick with me. Perhaps I am just forgetful. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered in order to establish your view, starting with some questions just to make sense of your view. Appealing to history, as in “This is the historical view,” doesn’t help that much. It is going to take some explanation. And for my dollar, it seems there’s a reason why the vast majority of the “believing community” who well know history and who are reformed in the Westminster tradition doesn’t hold your view.
Your quote of the preface to the UBS text does not seem to be relevant here. If I am reading you correctly, you said that the preface to these texts shows that the goal of the people involved was “scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned.” I don’t see any evidence of that in the quote you gave. So I think we can dispense with that notion, unless you have another quote.
However, I asked some pretty specific questions that come to my mind in trying to understand your position. I hope you will take time to be clear on the answer to those questions. They may not help anyone else, but they would help me at least understand more about your position. Hopefully you will take time to answer them directly.
Yes, years ago I interacted on this more than I do these days. And I will probably regret getting involved in this discussion again, though I intend to keep my participation short. Back then the answers that were given were unconvincing to me, or at least they didn’t stick with me. Perhaps I am just forgetful. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered in order to establish your view, starting with some questions just to make sense of your view. Appealing to history, as in “This is the historical view,” doesn’t help that much. It is going to take some explanation. And for my dollar, it seems there’s a reason why the vast majority of the “believing community” who well know history and who are reformed in the Westminster tradition doesn’t hold your view.
Your quote of the preface to the UBS text does not seem to be relevant here. If I am reading you correctly, you said that the preface to these texts shows that the goal of the people involved was “scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned.” I don’t see any evidence of that in the quote you gave. So I think we can dispense with that notion, unless you have another quote.
However, I asked some pretty specific questions that come to my mind in trying to understand your position. I hope you will take time to be clear on the answer to those questions. They may not help anyone else, but they would help me at least understand more about your position. Hopefully you will take time to answer them directly.
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):
You can’t a debate about substance (vs. about words) until the terms are clearly defined and real points of disagreement are identified. We have some progress toward a substantive debate, due to post 17.
For purposes of debate I’m willing to stipulate that:
One more:
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.
You can’t a debate about substance (vs. about words) until the terms are clearly defined and real points of disagreement are identified. We have some progress toward a substantive debate, due to post 17.
For purposes of debate I’m willing to stipulate that:
- 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
One more:
- Roland’s paradigm = truth is never discovered, only revealed
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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 how’s this:
[Aaron]So have I correctly summarized your definitions?
You can’t a debate about substance (vs. about words) until the terms are clearly defined and real points of disagreement are identified. We have some progress toward a substantive debate, due to post 17.
For purposes of debate I’m willing to stipulate that:When I say “stipulate” I mean, accept for the purposes of argument. Have I correctly summarized your definitions?
- 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] Only if you accept my description of truth as absolute, immutable, eternal, and universal.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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Brother Blumer thank you again for your post. Comparing mss and evaluating data (time, place, age etc) is already part of the process. Because the state of one’s soul is known only to God and that person, both the lost and saved can do this work. What is in dispute is the authority of subsequent findings after the comparing and evaluating has concluded. The Standard Sacred Text position locates the scholarship at the beginning of the process and their findings as holding little authority. Rather the authority rests in the believing community.
With regard to the definition of “believing community”, I have already offered that definition in post #2 “blood bought believers, the Body of Christ”. Scholarship is not the Body of Christ. Those scholars who are blood bought believers are part of the Body of Christ.
Self-attestation in an essential quality of Holy Scriptures. Self-attestation is confirmed by the Holy Spirit to the believing community. “The people” never looked at a “variety of writings” because they were for the most part unable to read the Greek and Hebrew. As for English readings, you could count on one hand how many were in circulation, and over time each iteration went by the wayside until the KJB and it remained the uniting text of the believing community until the 1800’s. Since that time, the believing community has never be united around a single text. Somehow that is good for the believing community?
The common response from the Multiple Version Only (MVO) position is that all of the hundreds of versions are equal or the same. This reasoning ignores a fundamental of logical reasoning, Two things that are different cannot be equal/the same. To make this principle more appropriate to the discussion, Hundreds of things that are different cannot be the same and as such do not bear equal/the same authority. If you were in a class where a professor offered a syllabus where of the 70 he issued, each one differed ever so slightly in the due dates for given assignments, any self respecting student would protest. But when Holy Scripture is altered, omitted, or added to certain ecclesiastical attendees are happy for the gender neutral bible, the ebonics bible, or the feminist bible.
As has been my experience here on Shaper Iron years ago and I expect still lingers, those who stand against the Standard Sacred Text position stand against the versions mentioned in the previous sentence. Why? The Hebrew Al-Shaddai means “god of the mountains or mounds” and “Shaddai” when used in a non-covenantal sense is plural for “breasts”. Given certain scholarly evidence concerning oppression of women by men in the ANE it has been concluded that the removal of that oppression and acceptance of a valid reading of God’s name necessitates at least the gender neutral version and more accurately a feminist version of the Bible. This is the result of sound Post-Enlightenment scholarship, but you resist. What entitles you to resist? “God’s word”, you might say. But why? The same hardball scholarship and attention to linguistic detail that brought you MSTC was simply embraced without consulting God’s words, even further is has been held here on SI that the dictates of Scripture have no place in directing MSTC. Again, the scholarship that brought you hundreds of versions also brings you the feminist version. If God is pleased with the former why is not pleased with the latter? Whatever your answer is Brother Blumer please accompany it with the “why”.
The Standard Sacred Text position maintains that the scholars practicing the MSTC which produced the gender neutral version and the scholars practicing MSTC which produced a Bible omitting 1 John 5:7 have usurped the authority of the Spirit of God working in the people of God through the self-attesting word of God by pretending their scholarly opinions to be of more worth than they are. Why? Because there is an illegitimate treatment of God in the person of the Holy Spirit and His words in both cases. If God wanted to be called a woman than the believing community would have been lead by the Holy Spirit to do so through the self-attesting word of God. The believing community has not. If God wanted 1 John 5:7 omitted from the Scripture then the believing community would have been lead by the Holy Spirit to do so through the self-attesting word of God.
Brother Blumer, has the believing community been lead to omit 1 John 5:7 by the leading of the Holy Spirit because 1 John 5:7 is not self-attesting? If no, then what lead the believing community to do so? If Yes, then you are closer to the right side than you know.
With regard to the definition of “believing community”, I have already offered that definition in post #2 “blood bought believers, the Body of Christ”. Scholarship is not the Body of Christ. Those scholars who are blood bought believers are part of the Body of Christ.
Self-attestation in an essential quality of Holy Scriptures. Self-attestation is confirmed by the Holy Spirit to the believing community. “The people” never looked at a “variety of writings” because they were for the most part unable to read the Greek and Hebrew. As for English readings, you could count on one hand how many were in circulation, and over time each iteration went by the wayside until the KJB and it remained the uniting text of the believing community until the 1800’s. Since that time, the believing community has never be united around a single text. Somehow that is good for the believing community?
The common response from the Multiple Version Only (MVO) position is that all of the hundreds of versions are equal or the same. This reasoning ignores a fundamental of logical reasoning, Two things that are different cannot be equal/the same. To make this principle more appropriate to the discussion, Hundreds of things that are different cannot be the same and as such do not bear equal/the same authority. If you were in a class where a professor offered a syllabus where of the 70 he issued, each one differed ever so slightly in the due dates for given assignments, any self respecting student would protest. But when Holy Scripture is altered, omitted, or added to certain ecclesiastical attendees are happy for the gender neutral bible, the ebonics bible, or the feminist bible.
As has been my experience here on Shaper Iron years ago and I expect still lingers, those who stand against the Standard Sacred Text position stand against the versions mentioned in the previous sentence. Why? The Hebrew Al-Shaddai means “god of the mountains or mounds” and “Shaddai” when used in a non-covenantal sense is plural for “breasts”. Given certain scholarly evidence concerning oppression of women by men in the ANE it has been concluded that the removal of that oppression and acceptance of a valid reading of God’s name necessitates at least the gender neutral version and more accurately a feminist version of the Bible. This is the result of sound Post-Enlightenment scholarship, but you resist. What entitles you to resist? “God’s word”, you might say. But why? The same hardball scholarship and attention to linguistic detail that brought you MSTC was simply embraced without consulting God’s words, even further is has been held here on SI that the dictates of Scripture have no place in directing MSTC. Again, the scholarship that brought you hundreds of versions also brings you the feminist version. If God is pleased with the former why is not pleased with the latter? Whatever your answer is Brother Blumer please accompany it with the “why”.
The Standard Sacred Text position maintains that the scholars practicing the MSTC which produced the gender neutral version and the scholars practicing MSTC which produced a Bible omitting 1 John 5:7 have usurped the authority of the Spirit of God working in the people of God through the self-attesting word of God by pretending their scholarly opinions to be of more worth than they are. Why? Because there is an illegitimate treatment of God in the person of the Holy Spirit and His words in both cases. If God wanted to be called a woman than the believing community would have been lead by the Holy Spirit to do so through the self-attesting word of God. The believing community has not. If God wanted 1 John 5:7 omitted from the Scripture then the believing community would have been lead by the Holy Spirit to do so through the self-attesting word of God.
Brother Blumer, has the believing community been lead to omit 1 John 5:7 by the leading of the Holy Spirit because 1 John 5:7 is not self-attesting? If no, then what lead the believing community to do so? If Yes, then you are closer to the right side than you know.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] With regard to the definition of “believing community”, I have already offered that definition in post #2 “blood bought believers, the Body of Christ”. Scholarship is not the Body of Christ. Those scholars who are blood bought believers are part of the Body of Christ.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?
[Peter] “The people” never looked at a “variety of writings” because they were for the most part unable to read the Greek and Hebrew. As for English readings, you could count on one hand how many were in circulation, and over time each iteration went by the wayside until the KJB and it remained the uniting text of the believing community until the 1800’s. Since that time, the believing community has never be united around a single text. Somehow that is good for the believing community?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.
[Peter] If you were in a class where a professor offered a syllabus where of the 70 he issued, each one differed ever so slightly in the due dates for given assignments, any self respecting student would protest. But when Holy Scripture is altered, omitted, or added to certain ecclesiastical attendees are happy for the gender neutral bible, the ebonics bible, or the feminist bible.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.
[Peter] As has been my experience here on Shaper Iron years ago and I expect still lingers, those who stand against the Standard Sacred Text position stand against the versions mentioned in the previous sentence. Why? … This is the result of sound Post-Enlightenment scholarship, but you resist. What entitles you to resist? “God’s word”, you might say. But why?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.
[Peter]…even further is has been held here on SI that the dictates of Scripture have no place in directing MSTC.Where did that happen?
[Peter] Again, the scholarship that brought you hundreds of versions also brings you the feminist version. If God is pleased with the former why is not pleased with the latter? Whatever your answer is Brother Blumer please accompany it with the “why”.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.
[Peter]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?
Brother Blumer, has the believing community been lead to omit 1 John 5:7 by the leading of the Holy Spirit because 1 John 5:7 is not self-attesting? If no, then what lead the believing community to do so? If Yes, then you are closer to the right side than you know.
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”)?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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…
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.
If you are unwilling to be clear, we have nothing to talk about.
Guess I was right…
[Aaron] 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.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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
what do you make of believing scholars who do not prefer the traditional text?First we have to assume they are “believing scholars” then when we do, Agabus and Paul disagreed but still one was right and one was wrong. They were not both right as when the MSTC crowd argues that the NIV and ESV are “both right”.
It doesn’t much matter if it’s good or notIt certainly does matter. Anything that comes into the fold must be examined. If it is of the shepherd then it must be from the Shepherd, and the only way to know that is by looking to Scripture, except if your Scripture is gender neutral, then the shepherd must take the revelation of the Shepherd and preach gender neutral. The motivation behind the above statement alludes me, but it is nevertheless troubling.
If the believing community is not united,Here it is. Where you see logical inconsistency, I see a break in the system. There was a time when there was only one version of the Bible and it was based on a standard set of Greek and Hebrew mss. That singularity and unity has been stripped away through the methods and practices of MSTC, as is evident in the multiple and continuing editions of the Greek NT and the myriads of English translations. I have seen what happens in Sunday School where there are multiple versions in the room and we begin to read around the room and one of God’s people becomes confused because their Bible is missing a verse so they read the wrong one or they think a verse has ended because their Bible omits the last phrase. I have seen responsive reading vanish from public worship. In the places where it is still practiced, the muddle in the verse of response is tragic. The fact is that the believing community is not united. Just as there were times in the history of Israel where Israel had no shepherd (I King 22:17 and Matt. 9:36) or no revelation from Jehovah (Intertestimental Period). The system was not whole at the time, which by no means lends to the conclusion that the system is flawed. I read here and other places the desire for revival from on high, but how do you expect to get there when the prophets of Baal are allowed imput (Vatican see Introduction to the NA 27) along side the prophets of God?
the analogy of different dates distorts the reality of the kinds of differences we find in the MSSBrother Blumer I offer this analogy in the context of the multiplicity of English versions. No, school or student would allow multiple version of a syllabus, nor would we as Americans allow for multiple versions of the Constitution, but we will allow for the Bible. This is intellectually inconsistent. We don’t allow the terrestrial and imminent to be altered, but you fight vociferously for the right to alter the ineffable and transcendent.
Second, that there are bad translations is not in dispute.In taking your position, I dispute it. By what authority do you determine the gender neutral translation to be bad? Why don’t you use your own words above and say “It doesn’t much matter if it’s good or not. It just is.”? And by that reasoning if it “just is” then it is by definition rationally permissible.
that would be because translations that are producing incorrect readingsAgain, based on what rule or standard to make such an assumption? You may say, “Because God has revealed himself as male.” Not according to the gender neutral version, and who are you to stand over this Bible and judge it. Is it not a necessary quality of Scripture to judge you? The answer is, yes. So you are not in place to judge it as correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad. See, what you are blind to is that you usurp the authority of the Bible you have made. This is strikingly similar to the practice of idolatry where you may take a piece of wood and burn it but with the other piece make a god. Scholarship makes a Bible that is 95% like the rest with the exception of the gender neutral element and you “burn” it. The Bible must be 100% God’s word. If it is 99% God’s word and 1% something else, then with part we worship God and the other part is fit for the furnace.
Where did that happen?You would be the first to dispute this with me. What verses in God’s Holy word govern the rules of MSTC like shortest is best and hardest is best?
Peter, the grocery store that brought you pickled pigs feet (or whatever yucky thing you’d like insert here)I need not make this of my own admission, my advisor for my ThM in Philosophical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary told the whole class the summary contribution of post-Enlightenment philosophical theology is that we now have a better understanding of the pervasiveness of sin with regard to the human condition and we understand better that the human ability to know a particular is far more handicapped than we first thought. It is under this guise that we are now allowed to question God’s word and the leading of the Spirit in a way we had never done before, because, hey, we can never know for certain which reading the word God gave in the autographa. Following this line of reasoning, that is why the UBS “rates” God’s word like on American Idol. If the reading gets enough votes it gets to stay and keep singing, but if not then its a see-you-later on results night. So yes, all the MSTC grocery store sells in rotten produce and rotten pigs feet, at least we think its produce and pigs feet, but who knows.
this statement is nonsense because the believing community is not agreed on this point.The believing community did agree for the hundreds of years through the existence of the KJB. Your statement is simply revisionist history in full color.
“Self attesting” describes what Scripture does, not what we do.Correct, the “what we do” part is when the Holy Spirit part comes in. God in the person of the Spirit moves the Spirit-filled believing community which in turn acknowledges the self-attesting nature of God’s word in the English.
we are clearly not infallible in our ability to recognize correct readingsThis is why you will never hold God’s word in certainty and authority, nor will your children so long as this sectarian rhetoric persists. You may say your Bible is certain and authoritative, but just because you call a duck a dog, does not make the duck a dog. If you are able, through a small community decide for God’s people what God’s word says in the original and in the English yet at the same time reserve the right to lord over that Bible and call it into contempt when you see fit according to your interpretation of the “evidence”, then you are the master of your master, and that is a fallacy.
I’m off to the Church picnic.
Sorry, still figuring out the quote feature.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Peter… you quoted alot of my statements out of context here and then responded to something other than my intent. I’m not sure what that accomplishes since the context is just a couple posts up for all to see. I’ll probably just ignore most of those. On to some responses:
That said, you are comparing documents that are a. not ancient, b. not in another language, c. able to be mass produced by printing presses and copiers.
Finally, your last sentence assumes the conclusion as part of the support.. and strawmans at the same time. Nobody is claiming a right to alter the ineffable and transcendent.
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.]This does not solve the problem for your view. If your argument is that the correct text is the one that has been kept by the believing community and that all others are not the product of the believing the community, the argument is defeated if the believing community includes those who do not favor the traditional text.[Aaron] what do you make of believing scholars who do not prefer the traditional text?First we have to assume they are “believing scholars” then when we do, Agabus and Paul disagreed but still one was right and one was wrong…
[Peter]If the system has a break, the “text kept by the believing community” argument fails because the text has not been kept. The argument either has to claim that those who reject the traditional text are not to true believers or it has to admit that there is no single text that has been kept.[Aaron] If the believing community is not united,Here it is. Where you see logical inconsistency, I see a break in the system. There was a time when …
[Peter]Several things wrong here. First, though, this particular point is ancillary to the “single traditional text via believing community” argument.[Aaron] the analogy of different dates distorts the reality of the kinds of differences we find in the MSS… I offer this analogy in the context of the multiplicity of English versions. … We don’t allow the terrestrial and imminent to be altered, but you fight vociferously for the right to alter the ineffable and transcendent.
That said, you are comparing documents that are a. not ancient, b. not in another language, c. able to be mass produced by printing presses and copiers.
Finally, your last sentence assumes the conclusion as part of the support.. and strawmans at the same time. Nobody is claiming a right to alter the ineffable and transcendent.
[Peter]I already answered the “by what authority” question when I answered the “why” question in the previous post.[Aaron] Second, that there are bad translations is not in dispute.In taking your position, I dispute it. By what authority do you determine the gender neutral translation to be bad?… [the rest of this statement takes what I said out of context and distorts so… omitting here]
[Peter]It’s not an “assumption.” And I’ve already answered that question. “Stand over the Bible and judge it”? Surely you are toying with me a bit here? An intentionally incorrect rendering of perfectly clear Greek and Hebrew is not “the Bible.”[Aaron] that would be because translations that are producing incorrect readingsAgain, based on what rule or standard to make such an assumption? You may say, “Because God has revealed himself as male.” Not according to the gender neutral version, and who are you to stand over this Bible and judge it…
[Peter]Quite a few verses govern everything we do. If we must compare differing MSS and identify which are correct, we should do so to the glory of God (1Cor.10:31). We should do so for the edification of believers (Rom.14:19). We should do so with a determination to do the best we can to find and declare the truth (Eph. 4:25). The particular criteria are completely open to debate. I’m especially skeptical of “hardest is best” idea. But the whole process of evaluating by criteria cannot be dismissed on the grounds that … well, whatever in the world your grounds are (a. it’s not knowledge directly imputed by the Spirit apart from a conscious thought process? b. it doesn’t produce the text received by the believing community? c. everything but the traditional text is pure post enlightenment junk?).[Aaron] Where did that happen?…What verses in God’s Holy word govern the rules of MSTC like shortest is best and hardest is best?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Peter]… the summary contribution of post-Enlightenment philosophical theology is that we now have a better understanding of the pervasiveness of sin with regard to the human condition and we understand better that the human ability to know a particular is far more handicapped than we first thought. It is under this guise that we are now allowed to question God’s word…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
But this doesn’t work in persuading any of the “not us” people… because they know the group is not homogenous.
[Peter] The believing community did agree for the hundreds of years through the existence of the KJB. Your statement is simply revisionist history in full color.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.”
[Peter]… God in the person of the Spirit moves the Spirit-filled believing community which in turn acknowledges the self-attesting nature of God’s word in the English.(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?
[Peter]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?[Aaron] we are clearly not infallible in our ability to recognize correct readingsThis is why you will never hold God’s word in certainty and authority, nor will your children so long as this sectarian rhetoric persists. ….
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?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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…
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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:
So just need an example.
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”…
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.
So just need an example.
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”…
- 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.”
- 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.”
- A person who came to believe the gospel by faith rather than by empirical or rational proofs does not hold to a “modernist paradigm.”All of these describe me.
On “modern science”….- A person who does not believe inductive reasoning can result in certainty is not a believer in “modern science.”
- A person who believes that a great deal of what is real cannot be observed is not a believer in “modern science.”
- A person who does not believe in evolution is not a believer in “modern science.”All of these describe me also.
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.”
- A person who does not believe inductive reasoning can result in certainty is not a believer in “modern science.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m sure this is much simpler than I’m making it. Just haven’t quite figured out how to boil it down.
Maybe this works:
Maybe this works:
- The argument that eclectic texts must be rejected because they are just modern science and rationalism fails when modern science and rationalism are precisely defined.
- Similarly, the argument that the traditional text is the right one because it has been kept by the believing community through the Holy Spirit fails when the believing community is precisely defined and the scope of Spirit activity is not unduly restricted.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If your argument is that the correct text is the one that has been kept by the believing community and that all others are not the product of the believing the communityNot quite. The Standard Sacred Text position maintains that the correct text is in and of itself correct. How that text is manifest to the believing community is from the text side, the text self-attests and from the community side, the Spirit through the believing community bears witness with the Spirit’s own self-attesting words. Therefore Tyndale’s NT and the Geneva were fantastic translations as is evidenced by the presence of the self-attesting words in these texts as well as the moving of the Spirit among the Body of Christ. **This next part is key. Please do not overlook it. Some of the new versions (i.e. the version after the KJB) contain alot of God’s words both in the Greek and English. Don’t lose me, there’s more. The foundation of the contention can be brought down to three points: 1.) The Method: MSTC as a product of post-Enlightenment scholarship has no historical, theological, or biblical moorings [it is a new way, as if the believing community had it all wrong with regard to the formation of the Canon until the mid-1800‘s] , where the “text criticism” pre-Enlightenment did have these moorings. You need look no further than Andrew Willet’s commentary on Romans. Thus the empirical method is incapable of discerning the difference between human words and transcendent words, and as such bears little to no authority.
2.) The Process: The authority of the Spirit lead believing community has been usurped by the scholarly community. You need look no further than yourself, Brother Aaron. Ask yourself, why do you argue the rather young perspective of MSTC and not the time-tested rich historical and exegetical position of the Standard Sacred Text position? I know for one that you were not taught it. In addition, you do so because the academy has told you to lecture after lecture. I dare say that your colleagues at your school and your professors poked fun at the Standard Sacred Text position and ignored its rich theological and exegetical history. This is the case with my schooling, with few exceptions. Pre-Enlightenment the academy was more Bible and Church centered and as such the academy was a help to the Church in the area of Bibliology. (e.g. pre-Enlightenment “Holy Scripture” was a technical term for the O.T. Hebrew not the LXX as the Post-Es want to argue in II Tim 3; “Inspiration” was not limited to the autographs as the Post-Es want to argue (i.e. Warfield), but rather the supstantia doctrina extended to the apographa as well).
3.) The Product: Bible making has got to be the only industry where hundreds of prototypes are distributed over a hundred years without ever issuing a finished product. Furthermore, the autographs were composed of one set of words, which God by inspiration brought to the original writers. MSTC is incapable of locating that set of words therefore God’s people, so long as the leaders of the believing community maintain your position, will always be man‘s words coupled with portions of that autographic set of words. Can man’s words be the object of faith? No. So where you say the thousands of differences between these hundreds of versions do not affect anything important, I retort with, On the contrary, those thousands of differences in hundreds of versions affects whether or not faith can be exercised toward what those versions say.**
If the system has a break, the “text kept by the believing community” argument fails…If I said “kept” then I retract, but I don‘t think I did. The believing community does not preserve God’s words, rather God does by means of secondary causes. The “break” does not mean the system has failed. Just because a saint sins does not mean that the system of salvation has failed and similarly just because the believing community has in part ceased in their roll with regard to the movement of the Spirit does not mean that the system of self-attesting word/Spirit filled believer has failed. Israel ignored the one prophet of God, but Israel to this day remains remains God’s chosen people.
Nobody is claiming a right to alter the ineffable and transcendent.Brother Aaron, do you think that without the transcendent God in the person of the Holy Spirit, you could comprehend the height and depth of the person of Jesus Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture? I hope you would not answer yes. Therefore the content of Scripture being spiritually discerned is outside the confines of your standard noetic equipment and therefore is transcendent and ineffable. You need the transcendent and ineffable Holy Spirit to guide you through His transcendent and ineffable words.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
In taking your position, I dispute it. By what authority do you determine the gender neutral translation to be bad? [Your Answer?] Why… that would be because translations that are producing incorrect readings are, well, incorrect. What entitles us to resist?Who are you to determine a reading is incorrect. You are a man, of course you prefer God to be masculine so that you can maintain your strangle hold over the females. What you don’t understand, because you are a man is that the reason why the Bibles up until now read as masculine concerning God is because men were in charge and were oppressing women. Al-Shaddai rendered faithfully in the Hebrew as God of breasts. That is a correct rendering of the Hebrew word and coupled with the fact that women were oppressed in the ANE, it is rationally permissible under the dictates of MSTC that God be referred to as god our father/mother. You cannot dispute with me that the rendering of Al-Shaddai is out side the lexical values of the term. Furthermore, you cannot legitimately argue with me that women were not oppressed in the ANE. If you do then consider situations where a woman’s hand would be cut off for a particular infraction, polygamy, the practice of the nearer kinsman, an active menstral cycle would put a woman out of the camp as unclean etc. How many scribes were female…0. From a liberated female perspective the gender neutral version hasn’t gone far enough.
Because you cannot locate in God’s word the process of how an English bible makes its way to the English speaking Church, all your eggs are in the MSTC basket, and MSTC is incapable of discrediting the above argument. So, how do you know with certitude that the reading “god our father/mother” is wrong? Are you going to appeal to that Bible that you admit has errors in it? Why? Error cannot be the source of faith, and how do you know with certainty that whatever verse you bring to bear on the above argument is not a result of oppression over women? Or worse, perhaps that verse you turn to is part of that error you admit to. How do you know for certain that the verse you employ to combat the feminist perspective above is free from all error? You don’t know for certain.
We should do so with a determination to do the best we can to find and declare the truth.Really. Brother Blumer, can “the best you can” locate with certainty one word of God? How is it that you are going to “find” transcendent truth? I mean, are you so sure of yourself that you think you can find it on your own? Those engaged in MSTC do. Do you consider yourself part of that crowd that thinks they can “find” transcendent truth by doing “the best you can”? Satan brings God glory, does he not? Can Satan as an angel of light edify a believer by quoting Scripture as he did at the temptation of Christ? If you say no, then you severely under estimate our Adversary. If this anemic exegetical foundation is all that you have to support the practice of MSTC then apparently Satan could be running the joint.
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.I have never said that, nor have a reasoned such. The “traditional text” is the true word of God because the self-attesting word of God has born witness with the believing community through the Spirit of God. The writers of the various modern versions ascribe to no such paradigm. They translate and issue a prototype. The End. There is no room for the self-attesting word of God or the Spirit’s leading. The writers of the modern versions “question” because those scholarly few are in no place to decide for the believing community. Even after the huge uproar over the gender neutral NIV, guess what, it is still being published. Why? Because the self-attesting word and the believing community are not part of the picture.
Your argument requires us to believe that anyone who thinks, say, “oldest is best,” is one or more of the following:Anyone who ascribes to “oldest is best” is a believer in post-enlightenment philosophy with regard to that statement. I do not lump together as you suggest. The reason why I offered my professors summation is so that you might recognize the cancer from which MSTC has spawned. “Oldest is best” was born from the notion that nothing can be known for certain, not even the Bible. Lions breed lions. Dogs breed dogs. Error breeds error, and for you to accept a product from a source that is fundamentally against the nature of Christianity is dangerous at least and perhaps reckless.
(Wow… so now the English is supposed to be self-attesting, too? I’m going to just leave that idea alone for now.)You would. I venture a guess that you have little to no knowledge of the transmission of substantia doctrina as it occurs in the literature. It probably is best that you leave it alone.
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.These are the words of the defeated and unwilling.
the creators of the KJV clearly did not believe they were infallible in identifying correct readings.That is because those that worked on the KJB were aware that it was not their place to discern such truths. The MSTC crowd on the other hand gladly and wrongfully have taken that place without apology or repentance.
Thank you for your post Brother Blumer. I truly enjoy this back and forth.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Sorry to drop out, guys, but I’m resting my case… I hope. The basic facts are not going to change so I think I have little more to say that is worth the time.
Roland: what I posted is just logic. Nothing more than math with concepts. As a field of study it goes back at least as far as Aristotle. Nothing modernist or post Enlightenment about it. I didn’t invent it. It’s just how the universe I live in works.
On definitions: if short definitions are good enough for dictionaries, they’re good enough for me. Defining terms concisely at the beginning of a process of argument or refutation is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. More to the point, it’s step one in thinking clearly about anything. Any “paradigm” that rejects that is a paradigm of obscurity and confusion.
The basic facts are not going to change here:
1. Roland cannot show that I hold to a modernistic paradigm or am influenced by one in any way that matters in this debate.
2. The “believing community” includes men who believe the best text is eclectic. Therefore, there is no single “text kept by the believing community.”
3. There is nothing in the act of comparing manuscripts according to thoughtfully developed criteria that is unique to “modern science” as Roland has defined it. Nor is there anything in this activity that is unique to a “modernist paradigm.”
4. Peter cannot prove that all who favor eclectic texts do so without a serious commitment to obedience to all applicable Scriptures.
5. Peter cannot prove that the Holy Spirit does not guide believers who are engaged in the work of eclectic textual reconstruction as they work through their process of evaluation.
As a summation, I think that about covers it.
Roland: what I posted is just logic. Nothing more than math with concepts. As a field of study it goes back at least as far as Aristotle. Nothing modernist or post Enlightenment about it. I didn’t invent it. It’s just how the universe I live in works.
On definitions: if short definitions are good enough for dictionaries, they’re good enough for me. Defining terms concisely at the beginning of a process of argument or refutation is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. More to the point, it’s step one in thinking clearly about anything. Any “paradigm” that rejects that is a paradigm of obscurity and confusion.
The basic facts are not going to change here:
1. Roland cannot show that I hold to a modernistic paradigm or am influenced by one in any way that matters in this debate.
2. The “believing community” includes men who believe the best text is eclectic. Therefore, there is no single “text kept by the believing community.”
3. There is nothing in the act of comparing manuscripts according to thoughtfully developed criteria that is unique to “modern science” as Roland has defined it. Nor is there anything in this activity that is unique to a “modernist paradigm.”
4. Peter cannot prove that all who favor eclectic texts do so without a serious commitment to obedience to all applicable Scriptures.
5. Peter cannot prove that the Holy Spirit does not guide believers who are engaged in the work of eclectic textual reconstruction as they work through their process of evaluation.
As a summation, I think that about covers it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] Therefore Tyndale’s NT and the Geneva were fantastic translations…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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
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…
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…
- 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.
- Observation and inductive reasoning (“scientific method”) can, at best, only establish the probability of hypotheses and theories.
- 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.
- 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.
- What we know by reasoning and observation is always subordinate to what we know by revelation.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.”
On the text question…- 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”)
- I believe God inspired every word of Scripture by the entirely supernatural work of the Spirit.
- I believe God’s word is preserved forever in Heaven.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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”)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
One quick answer to your first question:
Rational thought process = conscious thinking, reasoning.
I have class until noon.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
On my http://sharperiron.org/comment/36503#comment-36503] alleged whining … Think what you like.
On ” http://sharperiron.org/comment/36504#comment-36504] no mention of the Holy Spirit “
See letters d, f, g and h http://sharperiron.org/comment/36478#comment-36478] here .
On my parenthetical statement…
But, again, seeing that what Scripture teaches is true and how it applies to us personally etc. (“spiritual discernment”) is the work of the Spirit. However, I do not believe He is limited to this. He is able to guide our reasoning as well.
The reason so many get it wrong is simple: we are sinners with imperfect minds, varying levels of intelligence, varying levels of willingness to see what is right in front of us.
But regardless of what the particular criteria are, the evaluation process is what translation teams like the guys who brought us ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. did—this is textual reconstruction. “Textual reconstruction” here means “doing your best to get the text right when you have copies that don’t match.” Nothing more. Nothing less.
Do I think unbelievers are influenced… what does that have to do with anything?
http://sharperiron.org/comment/36510#comment-36510] Questions in post 56 …
I’ve answered these. I’ll try to say it another way.
Understanding written material involves reasoning with the parts of speech, the grammar, the context, etc. This is true of all writing that people produce with the goal of being understood. The Bible is no different on that score.
But seeing that “the Bible teaches X” is not the same as seeing that “X is true.” It’s even more different from seeing that “X is true, and X describes me, and Y is what I need to do about it.” The “true” and “me” and “I must” parts are all dependent on the work of the Spirit. I belive that even the grammatical reasoning part is often aided by the Spirit as well, since even people who believe in reasoning have trouble doing it.
Disagree if you like. Label it “modernist paradigm” if you like. If you want to persuade anyone, prove me wrong.
One more thing about variants = errors. Verbal inspiration is the doctrine that God gave us the words of Scripture, not “semantic content” or concepts or some such. Therefore, when MSS disagree, there is always an error in one or the other (if not both).
But even from a purely historical perspective it’s obvious that variant=error. There was a moment when Paul wrote the words of Romans 1:1. What he actually wrote is what he wrote… any copy that differs is in error at any point where it differs.
There’s no need to obscure the situation by dragging in weird linguistic theories.
On ” http://sharperiron.org/comment/36504#comment-36504] no mention of the Holy Spirit “
See letters d, f, g and h http://sharperiron.org/comment/36478#comment-36478] here .
[Roland] 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 ScriptureThis is not in dispute. Read my post again. Look carefully for distinctions.
On my parenthetical statement…
[Aaron] (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.)This is actually very important. What I’ve described in the parenthesis is all that is left if we reject the idea that the meaning of Scripture is apprehended formally by the process of reasoning from nouns, verbs, sentences, paragraphs and larger contexts. It’s also important because some do indeed believe that we are not obligated to support our doctrines from biblical evidence. But if we do not support them from biblical evidence, we have no valid claim at all that they are “biblical.”
But, again, seeing that what Scripture teaches is true and how it applies to us personally etc. (“spiritual discernment”) is the work of the Spirit. However, I do not believe He is limited to this. He is able to guide our reasoning as well.
[Roland] If the Bible can be rationally comprehended, then why are there so many divergent and opposing teachings?The real question is if it cannot be rationally comprehended, why does anyone get it right? Is it because they reasoned it out or because the Spirit revealed it directly (in which case the words may as well be random marks)? Has to be one or the other.
The reason so many get it wrong is simple: we are sinners with imperfect minds, varying levels of intelligence, varying levels of willingness to see what is right in front of us.
[Roland] Although culture and language changes with time and place, you seem to assign a static, locked-in semantic content to words.I don’t know what that means or how you are getting that impression. If you can define your terms and/or link this in some way to what I’m saying, I might be able to respond in some meaningful way.
[Roland] [Quote=Aaron]How do you know? Is this a rationally derived conclusion because of the variants?I’m having hard time believing you really need an answer to this. But, FWIW… If two MSS disagree, one of them is in error. Errors exist, ergo, God permitted them to exist.
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.
[RP] What do you mean by errors?Really? OK, I guess…. Error=something incorrect.
[Roland] Because you seem informed and on speaking terms with the field of “text reconstruction,” you surely realize that the reconstruction of the Biblical text is a part of the larger scholarly field of text reconstruction in literature, philosophy, etc. Do you agree with the current trend that the edited text is many times the correct text because…It’s way simipler than any of that. MSS’s differ. When they do, at least one of them is wrong. Figuring out which is mostly likely correct requires evaluating them in some way, by some criteria. There are no divinely inspired criteria or scientifically “final” criteria. Just ideas that have more or less merit.
But regardless of what the particular criteria are, the evaluation process is what translation teams like the guys who brought us ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. did—this is textual reconstruction. “Textual reconstruction” here means “doing your best to get the text right when you have copies that don’t match.” Nothing more. Nothing less.
[Roland] Do you know any believers doing text reconstruction. Do you think unbelievers are influenced in their reconstruction by what Scripture teaches?I’ve done some myself. It didn’t happen to be for anybody making a translation but I did it in the process of translating some passages myself.
Do I think unbelievers are influenced… what does that have to do with anything?
http://sharperiron.org/comment/36510#comment-36510] Questions in post 56 …
I’ve answered these. I’ll try to say it another way.
Understanding written material involves reasoning with the parts of speech, the grammar, the context, etc. This is true of all writing that people produce with the goal of being understood. The Bible is no different on that score.
But seeing that “the Bible teaches X” is not the same as seeing that “X is true.” It’s even more different from seeing that “X is true, and X describes me, and Y is what I need to do about it.” The “true” and “me” and “I must” parts are all dependent on the work of the Spirit. I belive that even the grammatical reasoning part is often aided by the Spirit as well, since even people who believe in reasoning have trouble doing it.
Disagree if you like. Label it “modernist paradigm” if you like. If you want to persuade anyone, prove me wrong.
One more thing about variants = errors. Verbal inspiration is the doctrine that God gave us the words of Scripture, not “semantic content” or concepts or some such. Therefore, when MSS disagree, there is always an error in one or the other (if not both).
But even from a purely historical perspective it’s obvious that variant=error. There was a moment when Paul wrote the words of Romans 1:1. What he actually wrote is what he wrote… any copy that differs is in error at any point where it differs.
There’s no need to obscure the situation by dragging in weird linguistic theories.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Brother Blumer, I am delighted to see that you have not yet rested your case.
Thank you for your post Brother Van Emmerik.
The example begins with a cardinal doctrine of the faith - the Holy Trinity. We all have grown up in our respective churches. Our pastors teach it to us and our schools of higher learning explain some of the details, but there was a time when the believing community struggled over the formulation of this doctrine. The believing community had to wrestle against the heathens (polytheists and pantheists) as well as the Tritheists in the codification of the doctrine that God is one. In addition to that the believing community had to wrestle against the Socinians and the Remonstrance to the fact that God is one substance and three subsistences or persons. Once the distinctions of person and essence had been ironed out and once the question of whether homoousion should be admitted in the Trinitarian language, the believing community as moved by the Spirit looked to the self-attesting word of God for guidance, and came to an agreement that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons in one essence. There was a process of discovery and debate about the nature of the Trinity as there was with many many other central doctrines of the faith (e.g. the hypostatic union, the virgin birth, justification); a refinement if you will. If we were in the Ancient, Medieval, or Reformation Church we would be struggling through things that we now take for granted because they are all around us in commentaries, systematic theologies, and study helps of all kinds. That said, do we hold those in contempt who did not get it right the very first time in the instant they sat down around the table of Trinity discussions? No, of course not.
Now here is where the rubber meets the road. What do we call a person who has been taught through Scripture that God is one substance and three distinct subsistences, but that soul rejects this truth and declares something contrary to that. Perhaps he is a nominalist or a modalist, and he rejects the truth of the Trinity. Is this man allowed to preach in your church? No. Is this man allowed to teach his form of doctrine in Sunday School? No. Why is it that we allow for young Christians who have only been saved for a few weeks but haven’t grasped as much of the Scripture as the pastor has and as such manifests need for improvement in his Christian walk, but we do not allow for a pastor to stand up and say, “Hell does not exist”? The difference is in where the person is found in the process. The young Christian/early Church have yet to come into a more mature knowledge of what lay before them in revelation. But the pastor in the present day who denies the existence of Hell, may receive church discipline because he knows the truth and has turned from it to his own devices.
Thank you for your post Brother Van Emmerik.
It seems you contradict your entire position with this statement. How can these be great translations when they are different from the KJV?It is hard for the believing community in the West to come to grips with certain aspects of history. History bears out terrible atrocities and oppressive tyrants. These are not things that we wrestle with on a day-to-day basis. One thing that is often difficult to grasp is the fact that there was a time when God’s word was not in our language. There were no personal devotions. There was no street preaching by the average Christian with zeal. There were no family devotions around the table. I think you get the point. Then there arose men like William Tyndale who took it upon themselves in the face of present day scholarship and the ecclesiastical elites to live and die by the conclusion that if the word of God has come to English speakers then it should be in English. It was at this time that the process for the English Bible began. The self-attesting word of God in Greek and Hebrew bore witness with the Spirit filled believing community that knew how to read those languages. But when the Holy Scriptures came to English speaking land, the process of English translation must needs be undertaken. That is to say that the English translation work was not the beginning of the struggle to fulfill the great commission with regard to the spread of God’s words rather it was another step among many. That said I hope to offer an example that will help you understand how translations before the KJB were good translations and why those that came after are bad.
The example begins with a cardinal doctrine of the faith - the Holy Trinity. We all have grown up in our respective churches. Our pastors teach it to us and our schools of higher learning explain some of the details, but there was a time when the believing community struggled over the formulation of this doctrine. The believing community had to wrestle against the heathens (polytheists and pantheists) as well as the Tritheists in the codification of the doctrine that God is one. In addition to that the believing community had to wrestle against the Socinians and the Remonstrance to the fact that God is one substance and three subsistences or persons. Once the distinctions of person and essence had been ironed out and once the question of whether homoousion should be admitted in the Trinitarian language, the believing community as moved by the Spirit looked to the self-attesting word of God for guidance, and came to an agreement that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons in one essence. There was a process of discovery and debate about the nature of the Trinity as there was with many many other central doctrines of the faith (e.g. the hypostatic union, the virgin birth, justification); a refinement if you will. If we were in the Ancient, Medieval, or Reformation Church we would be struggling through things that we now take for granted because they are all around us in commentaries, systematic theologies, and study helps of all kinds. That said, do we hold those in contempt who did not get it right the very first time in the instant they sat down around the table of Trinity discussions? No, of course not.
Now here is where the rubber meets the road. What do we call a person who has been taught through Scripture that God is one substance and three distinct subsistences, but that soul rejects this truth and declares something contrary to that. Perhaps he is a nominalist or a modalist, and he rejects the truth of the Trinity. Is this man allowed to preach in your church? No. Is this man allowed to teach his form of doctrine in Sunday School? No. Why is it that we allow for young Christians who have only been saved for a few weeks but haven’t grasped as much of the Scripture as the pastor has and as such manifests need for improvement in his Christian walk, but we do not allow for a pastor to stand up and say, “Hell does not exist”? The difference is in where the person is found in the process. The young Christian/early Church have yet to come into a more mature knowledge of what lay before them in revelation. But the pastor in the present day who denies the existence of Hell, may receive church discipline because he knows the truth and has turned from it to his own devices.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Track with me. I say Tyndale’s NT and the Geneva were good translations because they were in process leading toward a conclusion or final product. I do not throw them under the bus so to speak because they were maturing from no English translation to a codified canon in their own language. Tyndale’s NT, Coverdale, Matthews, the Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, and KJB all represent a maturation, the one pointing to the next. I say “pointing” for two reasons. First, the self-attesting word of God in these versions coupled with the Spirits leading in the believing community guided the Church along the way to the better translation. (incidentally, not better translations) Tyndale’s NT was in 1529 and the KJB comes on the scene in 1611 and does not enjoy full acceptance by the believing community until about 1640. Second, at no point did the translators of the Geneva throw out the findings of the Tyndale or the other versions and start from scratch. That is to say that it took the believing community 100+ years to transition over 8 or so English versions all building off their respective predecessors, culminating in the King James Bible.
After the King James Bible, the Spirit of God working in the people of God through the word of God paradigm was never again visited by post-Enlightenment scholarship in the formation of any of the modern English Bibles. It is evident even hear on SI in the examples of Brother Blumer and Brother Van Emmerik who refuse to visit said paradigm.
Post-Enlightenment scratched Tyndale’s work and the Spirits leading of the believing community through a process of maturation toward the KJB. Post-Enlightenment scholarship ignored the methodology of the Spirit of God>people of God>word of God paradigm and put in its place science (oldest is best, shortest is best, hardest is best which never before existed). Pre-Enlightenment, science and philosophy were the hand maidens of theology and the believing community, not forces that dictated to the believing community.
As a result a wholly different product immerged post-Enlightenment.
Yes, it bore certain likenesses to text of the believing community, but the search for the historical bible has become like the search for the historical Jesus fraught with uncertainty and impossible to conclude. The conclusion is ultimately this, there was a maturation process and it lead to the KJB. Post-Enlightenment scholarship has abandoned that maturation process and subsequent conclusions, and has started afresh and anew. As a result, whether wittingly or otherwise, MSTC has carried us back to the uncertainty of the middle ages, and it appears that there are some here on SI that happily defend such retardation of traditional orthodoxy. One final point, and I believe a grave one. What would we say to a mature saint who rejected the existence of Hell? More appropriately, what would we say to a mature Christian who rejected the existence of an already codified Spirit lead, self-attesting sacred text?
After the King James Bible, the Spirit of God working in the people of God through the word of God paradigm was never again visited by post-Enlightenment scholarship in the formation of any of the modern English Bibles. It is evident even hear on SI in the examples of Brother Blumer and Brother Van Emmerik who refuse to visit said paradigm.
Post-Enlightenment scratched Tyndale’s work and the Spirits leading of the believing community through a process of maturation toward the KJB. Post-Enlightenment scholarship ignored the methodology of the Spirit of God>people of God>word of God paradigm and put in its place science (oldest is best, shortest is best, hardest is best which never before existed). Pre-Enlightenment, science and philosophy were the hand maidens of theology and the believing community, not forces that dictated to the believing community.
As a result a wholly different product immerged post-Enlightenment.
Yes, it bore certain likenesses to text of the believing community, but the search for the historical bible has become like the search for the historical Jesus fraught with uncertainty and impossible to conclude. The conclusion is ultimately this, there was a maturation process and it lead to the KJB. Post-Enlightenment scholarship has abandoned that maturation process and subsequent conclusions, and has started afresh and anew. As a result, whether wittingly or otherwise, MSTC has carried us back to the uncertainty of the middle ages, and it appears that there are some here on SI that happily defend such retardation of traditional orthodoxy. One final point, and I believe a grave one. What would we say to a mature saint who rejected the existence of Hell? More appropriately, what would we say to a mature Christian who rejected the existence of an already codified Spirit lead, self-attesting sacred text?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
That said, I don’t mind making my own views as clear as I can.
[RPittman]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.
- 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.
- You have previously denied any role for the Holy Spirit in translation.
- I have not seen you accord the Holy Spirit any role in text reconstruction.
- 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.
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.
[RP]…I think you strategically left out some things.I quoted your question and answered it.
[Rp] Many times an author revises his work. Some, such as Solzhenitsyn, went through many versions before and after publication. Now, which revision is the correct one? How do you know. I think you’re being overly simplistic in a very complicated and snarled tangle.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.
[RP] Are you saying that God’s Word is locked into these specific Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words? Do you have Scriptural support for your view of verbal inspiration?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.
[RP] From your statements, it appears that you may hold to a dictation theory. Is that correct? If so, I can understand why any word variance whatsoever would be considered an error.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.
[RP] Furthermore, why don’t you try to reconcile the II Timothy 3:15-17 problem?What problem?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
While I am waiting for your response to my previous questions, let me add a question about this:
What would we say to a mature saint who rejected the existence of Hell? More appropriately, what would we say to a mature Christian who rejected the existence of an already codified Spirit lead, self-attesting sacred text?Are you arguing that acceptance of one of the editions of the TR or one of the editions of the KJV has the same revealed biblical basis as hell?
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] I say “pointing” for two reasons. First, the self-attesting word of God in these versions coupled with the Spirits leading in the believing community guided the Church along the way to the better translation. (incidentally, not better translations) Tyndale’s NT was in 1529 and the KJB comes on the scene in 1611 and does not enjoy full acceptance by the believing community until about 1640. Second, at no point did the translators of the Geneva throw out the findings of the Tyndale or the other versions and start from scratch. That is to say that it took the believing community 100+ years to transition over 8 or so English versions all building off their respective predecessors, culminating in the King James Bible.Peter,
After the King James Bible, the Spirit of God working in the people of God through the word of God paradigm was never again visited by post-Enlightenment scholarship in the formation of any of the modern English Bibles. It is evident even hear on SI in the examples of Brother Blumer and Brother Van Emmerik who refuse to visit said paradigm.
…Yes, it bore certain likenesses to text of the believing community, but the search for the historical bible has become like the search for the historical Jesus fraught with uncertainty and impossible to conclude. The conclusion is ultimately this, there was a maturation process and it lead to the KJB. Post-Enlightenment scholarship has abandoned that maturation process and subsequent conclusions, and has started afresh and anew. As a result, whether wittingly or otherwise, MSTC has carried us back to the uncertainty of the middle ages, and it appears that there are some here on SI that happily defend such retardation of traditional orthodoxy. One final point, and I believe a grave one. What would we say to a mature saint who rejected the existence of Hell? More appropriately, what would we say to a mature Christian who rejected the existence of an already codified Spirit lead, self-attesting sacred text?
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:
[SharperIron]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?
Among other important truths, registered SharperIron users hold to the following:
1. The plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.
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.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
you’re both having trouble focusing on what’s relevant here.Brother Blumer this is commandeering an argument which you have been attempting to do throughout this thread. It first occurred to me when you began and continue to offer only questions and then your propensity to use the language characteristic of that in the above quote solidified it in my mind. You have not done your opponents the common courtesy of knowing their position, therefore you demand that I stay within your template of constant questioning in order to engage in the discussion. At least my professors who loathed my Baptist heritage paid me the courtesy to know my position and did not try to steer my position by declaring to me what they thought was relevant or not. You have not put forth a position. You have not proven that the MSTC position in any way recognizes the leading of the Spirit in God’s people. You have been unable to prove that the versions of the modern era are held by the believing community as certain and authoritative. You seem to be devoid of the standard terminology of pre-Enlightenment formulation of Bibliology. Most importantly, you have attacked a thing that you are not certain is your enemy, when if fact, in reality it is your friend. Ultimately, with regard to our present interaction you have no argument all you are doing is arguing.
Are you arguing that acceptance of one of the editions of the TR or one of the editions of the KJV has the same revealed biblical basis as hell?Brother Larry, the point of the post was about process and maturation. I don’t know how many times I used those words in my previous post. The point is, if you find yourself in a learning process then you will most likely not get the ire of the believing community but if after you have matured and for some reason you turn from your maturity then your actions are unacceptable. Those involved in the translation of the English bibles before the KJB were maturing and as such are not judged as the more mature participant of the future. What happened with MSTC is that linguistic scholarship abandoned ship and started their own system apart from the input of the believing community, apart from recognizing the self attesting character of Scripture. If you will allow me the word, they “devolved” on purpose to serve their own wills, thus we are returned to the uncertainty of the Middle Ages.
As to your second question, you quoted me as saying “
scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned.”That full sentence actually says
The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned.The quote I offered clearly stated the in-process character of the NA 27 and unless certainty, truth and doxology are in process that should be enough to conclude will-worship.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Brother JayC thank you for your post. We will take one question at a time.
1. How do you know that the KJB is the ‘final product’ or ‘conclusion’ of these works?I would put the answer to your question this way. The train that represents the English Bible tradition in pre-Enlightenment scholarship [Holy Spirit>people of God>word of God paradigm] stopped at the KJB. Not necessarily because the believing community wanted to but because those who were suppose to be submitting to the above paradigm abandoned that previous train, built their own train, then their own track, and hire a new conductor. If there is another iteration of the pre-Enlightenment English Bible tradition, the only way to get there is to get back on the previous train. You say, “How could the believing community stray like that given your [my] position?” I find the clearest example is when the Barnabas and even the Apostle Peter along certain saint removed themselves from the table of the Gentiles and moved to the table of the Jews. It took the lone voice of the Apostle Paul to withstand Peter to the face to set forth the Gospel as it is in the Dispensation of Grace. It does not take a whole lot to scare God’s sheep. Perhaps you have never experienced this but I have in every institution I have ever attended [4 total]. The Standard Sacred Text position is laughed at and mocked. God’s sheep in the 21st century often do not have the fortitude to that sort of onslaught, and so as sheep do in real life, they wonder into the river and oil of their wool grants buoyancy and the flock floats with the current.
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?With post-Enlightenment theology came an accompanying post-Enlightenment hermeneutic. We know pre-Enlightenment Bibliology worked because it was based in Scripture. It
beganwith premises like not one jot or one tittle meant not one jot or one tittle. That the words “Holy Scripture” were not a substitute for the LXX. That Isaiah 59:21 showed a covenantal bond between the triune God, His people, and His word. That when the Bible said every word of God is pure, it really meant that with regard to the Bible in the hand of the reader. Heaven and Earth will pass away before God’s word will pass away. The list goes on. You get a taste of this with another topic here in the English Bible Debate section where I posted a challenge. There is not an MSTC on the planet that would profess such certainty and authority concerning God’s word. These words by Turretin do not grow out of some scholarly contrivance but on the belief that the purity of God’s words are no good to us in Heaven, then must be present to us to affect and change us. Once note on the process thing I brought up in my last post. You will not find in the literature in the early 16th century that when the Geneva was already in circulation and the there began a transition to the KJB a spirit of “Oh that Geneva has all kinds of errors and really is not that trustworthy.” Why? The believing community wouldn’t say such things about the Bible when the Bible has said so many things about itself to the contrary of what is in the quotes.
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?I believe this is answered in Q.1.
4. How can we know God’s revelation in another 500 years?If the process in Q.1 were to be required God that would be the mechanism of how we would know.
4 [5]. Do you hold to a double-inspiration view? Can you affirm Doctrinal Statement 1.1.No to the first part and yes to the second but I take the second part further to say that transmission of substantia doctrina allows for the words of Scripture to be self-attesting and authoritative in the receptor language.
5 [6]. 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 use KJB [King James Bible] to hold some fidelity with what the Bible is generally called - The Holy Bible. It is not The Holy Version or The Holy Bible Version. The point is to focus on the idea that the volume in your hand is the Bible not a version. This is yet another loss the Church has suffered because of pre-Enlightenment theology. The Bible is no longer Holy, but rather close to the autographs coupled with errors.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
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.
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.
- The “modern science” argument
- The “modernist paradigm” argument
- The “believing community” argument
- 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.- 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”
- The “modernist paradigm” argument: same as above only replace “modern science” with “modernist paradigm”
- The “believing community” argument: God uses the believing community preserve His word and the scholars who make nontraditional texts are not the believing community.
- 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.
- 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”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion