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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCImR8fiJ58] As I read I’m reminded of this.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I’m starting to feel a little bit sorry for Peter since he’s outnumbered here. Then again, he issued a challenge to an open forum.
I’d be happy to tell you more about my position if there is some particular aspect of it that isn’t clear.
As for “only until recently,” I said this http://sharperiron.org/comment/36407#comment-36407] way back on page one of this thread .
As for “the point of this discussion,” it was to show that “MSTC” is “bound.” I’ve explained multiple times how believers doing textual work are in fact, “bound” by Scripture in that work.
The supposed (but not supported) uniqueness of my position is not relevant to the question.
You seemed quite willing enough until now to classify any view but your own as “MSTC.”
But now, apparently, it is possible to reject the traditional text view articulated here but also not embrace “MSTC”? Who knew?
Assertion: Aaron’s position is held only by Aaron
Conclusion: Aaron’s position is not MSTC and is not contrary to the traditional text view?
This requires some unstated premises, namely, “All positions held by only one person are not MSTC.” That one is defensible, since we can assume that “MSTC is a position held by more than one person.” But the second part of the conclusion requires the premise “All positions held by only one person are consistent with the traditional text view.”
[Peter]This one is getting pretty stale. How many times do I have to post my position? Take a look http://sharperiron.org/comment/37438#comment-37438] here and http://sharperiron.org/article/preservation-how-and-what-part-4] here .[Aaron] The truth is that I do not care if I’m “on the side of progress” or on the side of “tradition.” What does that have to do with whether what I’m saying is true? Both “progress” and “tradition” are subject to error and being on either “side” would prove nothing about whether my position is true.In short, Brother Blumer has not yet posited a position…
I’d be happy to tell you more about my position if there is some particular aspect of it that isn’t clear.
[Peter]… but has simply questioned mine, and only until recently questioned the standard modernistic approach.Most of the translations made from NASB onward have been made from eclectic texts. An eclectic text is not compiled using “the standard modernistic approach” if you define that term as following W & H right down the line on every point.
As for “only until recently,” I said this http://sharperiron.org/comment/36407#comment-36407] way back on page one of this thread .
[Aaron] 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…
[Peter] This fact is extremely telling as to why Brother Blumer has yet to offer a summary of his position or verifiable quotation.Summary… done that. Verifiable quotation… I’ve explained why that is not necessary. Is there something wrong with my explanation?
[Peter] Brother Blumer’s position and verifiable quotation are himself. The point of this discussion was not to engage Brother Blumer’s unique perspective which is ground no where except in his singular mind/reason. I find it most ironic that he has thrown out the “heresy-tinged” [whatever that means] card which denotes schism, while at the same time being the most schismatic of us all, seeing that he holds to himself [i.e. his reason + Scripture].I encourage readers to note that Peter apparently has no answer to my argument that there is no higher authority than Scripture. He’s also changed “Scripture + reason” now to “his reason + Scripture.” The former proved too difficult to reject?
As for “the point of this discussion,” it was to show that “MSTC” is “bound.” I’ve explained multiple times how believers doing textual work are in fact, “bound” by Scripture in that work.
The supposed (but not supported) uniqueness of my position is not relevant to the question.
[Peter]…it was never my intention to engage a system of belief that is held by one soul, Brother Blumer but rather to engage MSTC. Nor was it his intention to defend MSTC because it was not his position.Who says my position is not “MSTC”? The reason I asked for definitions of terms in the beginning was so that we could avoid any equivocation later.
You seemed quite willing enough until now to classify any view but your own as “MSTC.”
But now, apparently, it is possible to reject the traditional text view articulated here but also not embrace “MSTC”? Who knew?
[Peter] position which when compared to MSTC is not a threat to Standard Sacred Text position seeing that his position lives and dies with him.This is an interesting line of reasoning. A view does not threaten the traditional text view because of the number of people it lives and dies with? I wonder how the number of people who believe it is relevant.
[Peter] While on the other hand, the Standard Sacred Text position did not live and die with the early Church nor has MSTC lived and died with W&H.It’s not clear to me whether you believe MSTC is limited to exact and comprehensive agreement with W & H or not? Here you seem to say that a view can still be “MSTC” even if it does not perfectly align with W & H. If that’s the case, why is my view not “MSTC”?
[Peter] Brother Larry is about as progressive as it gets. It is his position that I have been writing against these past weeks.How is my view different from his?
[Peter] In sum, Brother Blumer is not arguing the topic of MSTC vs. the Standard Sacred Text position in the question of whether or not MSTC is bound or independent of Scripture because his position is his alone.I’m still trying to extract a coherent argument from this.
Assertion: Aaron’s position is held only by Aaron
Conclusion: Aaron’s position is not MSTC and is not contrary to the traditional text view?
This requires some unstated premises, namely, “All positions held by only one person are not MSTC.” That one is defensible, since we can assume that “MSTC is a position held by more than one person.” But the second part of the conclusion requires the premise “All positions held by only one person are consistent with the traditional text view.”
[Peter] In the end I don’t know if anyone knows what Brother Blumer is arguing except for Brother Blumer.I’m not worried about that. I’ve made it reasonably clear.
[Peter] I think that we have come to the conclusion of this topic. Fabulous job everyone!IOW, “I give up. You win”?
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’ve tried to follow your (Brother Blumer and company) line of questioning and that was rejected. Then I inserted 40 or so pages of double spaced material in summarizing my position and the position of the modern text critical approach. I have answered Brother Larry’s question in that the apographa is revealed as pure because the Scripture says so of itself, and the KJB is the only English translation from that apographa therefore I hold to the KJB. I have addressed all of Brother Blumer’s questions and concerns. I wish there were more engaged on your side so that perhaps through your combined effort perhaps you will present something substantive.
The fact is gentlemen that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. I bring up the tradition and you ignore it. I bring up the exegesis of particular passages as the believing community has commonly held them and you ignore it. I show orthodox theology as God’s people have held to it and you ignore that. Then I bring up some foundational elements of modern text critical theory and you agree with them and then claim orthodoxy when they are in fact quite contrary to what the blood bought community held to in the past. The fact is that I could say Narnia exists and get more traction then to quote from history. Nonsense rules the day on these forums. The difficulty I am faced with is trying to tell a blind man what “blue” looks like or describe to a deaf man was the cry of a baby sounds like. You do not have the catagorites to consider or accept what I present.
The case that I am making is not my own nor is it a construction of mine. I have come to this case through believing that the Bible in my hand talks about the Bible in my hand because there is nothing in the Bible that tells me to think otherwise.
From there I began to study what God’s people have said on the topic of Scripture with regard to a standard authoritative text. Those I studied include: Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, Whitaker, Willet, the Westminster Divines, Turretin, Leigh, Musculus, Boethius, Muller, Letis, Burgon, Fuller, and my Dad. I did not invent this position. It is a very old position, and I never feel ganged up on because I know that my case follows those mentioned above, so the more people that will talk with me the merrier.
In the end, we disagree, but it is not me that you disagree with for I am only a messenger of the historic orthodox tradition. You disagree with the material that got me here. The only way you can be persuaded is if you make a massive paradigm shift, and it would look something like this,
“The NIV (insert whatever version you like) is the (not “a”) authoritative inspired word of God in English according to res which is based on the inspired and authentic words (all of the words not some of the words) of the standard (that is, there is only one) sacred (that is, Scripture is not like any other book) apographa (copy) of the NA 27 (insert whatever Greek/Hebrew text you like).”
Ultimately, why do I disagree with MSTC? Because the Bible (Greek and Hebrew) in my hand says the Bible in my hand is pure and MSTC says it is impure and is therefore not bound by the Scripture that says the Bible is pure. Jesus Christ said in the Bible in my hand concerning the Bible in my hand that not one jot or one tittle will pass and MSTC says that the best we can do is approximate purity therefore MSTC is not bound to the Lord’s words which tell us that one jot or one tittle will never pass away. There is no reason given in Scripture to believe otherwise.
I have read Aleph and B and am very aware there are differences in mss, so my eyes are telling me there are alot of variant readings, but I begin with what the Bible in my hand is telling me about the Bible in my hand which says, despite the variations in the mss the Bible in my hand is pure down to the letter. If there is need to modify the Bible in my hand as was the case of the Geneva Bible to the KJB then I trust the Bible in my hand when it says that the Holy spirit will guide his people into all truth and because the words of God are in and of themselves truth the modification will be done by God’s people through God’s Spirit concerning God’s words with certainty and authority not uncertainty and impotence. I then consult the way God’s people have been lead by God in the past and learn from them, but ultimately my case for disagreeing with MSTC is because MSTC does not agree/is not bound by Holy Scripture (i.e. The Bible in the hand of the Church speaking by the Spirit about the Bible in the hand of the Church).
An astrophysics told me that the light of the stars tells us that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that theistic evolution is correct but the Bible in my hand disagrees in saying that God created the universe in 6 days, so I disagree.
A philosopher told me that there is no such thing as absolute truth but the Bible in my hand disagrees in saying Jesus Christ is Truth, so I disagree.
A biologist once told me that a child at conception does not bear the traits of a person and therefore an abortion is not the death of a person and is therefore not murder, but the Bible in my hand disagree in that a child at conception is a person, so I disagree.
A non-reductive phsyicalist told me that man does not have a soul, but the Bible in my hand disagrees in saying that we Do indeed have a soul, so I disagree.
A text critic told me that the Bible in my hand has errors, but the Bible in my hand disagrees in that the Bible says that it is very pure to the letter, so I disagree.
It is really no more complicated than this.
The fact is gentlemen that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. I bring up the tradition and you ignore it. I bring up the exegesis of particular passages as the believing community has commonly held them and you ignore it. I show orthodox theology as God’s people have held to it and you ignore that. Then I bring up some foundational elements of modern text critical theory and you agree with them and then claim orthodoxy when they are in fact quite contrary to what the blood bought community held to in the past. The fact is that I could say Narnia exists and get more traction then to quote from history. Nonsense rules the day on these forums. The difficulty I am faced with is trying to tell a blind man what “blue” looks like or describe to a deaf man was the cry of a baby sounds like. You do not have the catagorites to consider or accept what I present.
The case that I am making is not my own nor is it a construction of mine. I have come to this case through believing that the Bible in my hand talks about the Bible in my hand because there is nothing in the Bible that tells me to think otherwise.
From there I began to study what God’s people have said on the topic of Scripture with regard to a standard authoritative text. Those I studied include: Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, Whitaker, Willet, the Westminster Divines, Turretin, Leigh, Musculus, Boethius, Muller, Letis, Burgon, Fuller, and my Dad. I did not invent this position. It is a very old position, and I never feel ganged up on because I know that my case follows those mentioned above, so the more people that will talk with me the merrier.
In the end, we disagree, but it is not me that you disagree with for I am only a messenger of the historic orthodox tradition. You disagree with the material that got me here. The only way you can be persuaded is if you make a massive paradigm shift, and it would look something like this,
“The NIV (insert whatever version you like) is the (not “a”) authoritative inspired word of God in English according to res which is based on the inspired and authentic words (all of the words not some of the words) of the standard (that is, there is only one) sacred (that is, Scripture is not like any other book) apographa (copy) of the NA 27 (insert whatever Greek/Hebrew text you like).”
Ultimately, why do I disagree with MSTC? Because the Bible (Greek and Hebrew) in my hand says the Bible in my hand is pure and MSTC says it is impure and is therefore not bound by the Scripture that says the Bible is pure. Jesus Christ said in the Bible in my hand concerning the Bible in my hand that not one jot or one tittle will pass and MSTC says that the best we can do is approximate purity therefore MSTC is not bound to the Lord’s words which tell us that one jot or one tittle will never pass away. There is no reason given in Scripture to believe otherwise.
I have read Aleph and B and am very aware there are differences in mss, so my eyes are telling me there are alot of variant readings, but I begin with what the Bible in my hand is telling me about the Bible in my hand which says, despite the variations in the mss the Bible in my hand is pure down to the letter. If there is need to modify the Bible in my hand as was the case of the Geneva Bible to the KJB then I trust the Bible in my hand when it says that the Holy spirit will guide his people into all truth and because the words of God are in and of themselves truth the modification will be done by God’s people through God’s Spirit concerning God’s words with certainty and authority not uncertainty and impotence. I then consult the way God’s people have been lead by God in the past and learn from them, but ultimately my case for disagreeing with MSTC is because MSTC does not agree/is not bound by Holy Scripture (i.e. The Bible in the hand of the Church speaking by the Spirit about the Bible in the hand of the Church).
An astrophysics told me that the light of the stars tells us that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that theistic evolution is correct but the Bible in my hand disagrees in saying that God created the universe in 6 days, so I disagree.
A philosopher told me that there is no such thing as absolute truth but the Bible in my hand disagrees in saying Jesus Christ is Truth, so I disagree.
A biologist once told me that a child at conception does not bear the traits of a person and therefore an abortion is not the death of a person and is therefore not murder, but the Bible in my hand disagree in that a child at conception is a person, so I disagree.
A non-reductive phsyicalist told me that man does not have a soul, but the Bible in my hand disagrees in saying that we Do indeed have a soul, so I disagree.
A text critic told me that the Bible in my hand has errors, but the Bible in my hand disagrees in that the Bible says that it is very pure to the letter, so I disagree.
It is really no more complicated than this.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] I’ve tried to follow your (Brother Blumer and company) line of questioning and that was rejected.Not rejected, countered. There’s a difference.
[Peter] Then I inserted 40 or so pages of double spaced material in summarizing my position and the position of the modern text critical approach. I have answered Brother Larry’s question in that…Not really. It’s a yes or no question and the “in that… [etc] ” tends to be unclear. It doesn’t directly relate to the OP, but it would be interesting to see what your answer to that is.
[Peter] the apographa is revealed as pure because the Scripture says so of itselfActually, it does’t say “apographa” anywhere. But it’s OK. What it says of itself generally applies to the apographa. What it says of itself does not include “a chosen group of believers will be able to maintain a perfect text from perfect (or imperfect, take your pick) copies. Even thousands of years later.”
[Peter] I have addressed all of Brother Blumer’s questions and concerns. … perhaps you will present something substantive.I’ve offered multiple counterarguments for every point you have “addressed.” You have not been able to answer any of them.
[Peter] The fact is gentlemen that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.I’m quite content to let readers judge that.
[Peter] I bring up the tradition and you ignore it. I bring up the exegesis of particular passages as the believing community has commonly held them and you ignore it.What you have done, more or less, is offer supporting arguments. What I have done is show that they are unsound or invalid. This is not “ignore.” Just as countering is not “rejecting,” countering is not “ignoring.”
(It sure has taken me alot of posts to do all that “ignoring”!)
[Peter] Then I bring up some foundational elements of modern text critical theory and you agree with them and then claim orthodoxy when they are in fact quite contrary to what the blood bought community held to in the past.The blood bought community is a community of sinners. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to prove they’ve made a mistake or two.
But you really haven’t shown that they took the position that there would never need to be adjustments to the traditional text if MS discoveries commended those adjustments. And if you look at what guys like Erasmus, Scrivener, Stephanus, Beza, et. al., actually did… it looks a lot like adjusting the text based on manuscript discoveries.
[Peter] Nonsense rules the day on these forums.Rules… no. I think we’ve answered it pretty well for the most part.
[Peter] I have come to this case through believing that the Bible in my hand talks about the Bible in my hand because there is nothing in the Bible that tells me to think otherwise.This argument has been answered many times. Repeating it won’t make it stronger. The Bible in your hand is a copy. Everything the Bible says about itself, it says about your copy—with one exception: it does not promise that the copies made by men will be flawless.
[Peter] From there I began to study what God’s people have said on the topic of Scripture with regard to a standard authoritative text. Those I studied include: Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, Whitaker, Willet, the Westminster Divines, Turretin, Leigh, Musculus, Boethius, Muller, Letis, Burgon, Fuller, and my Dad.I think it’s only the last two or three in that list that really support (parts of) your view.
I’ve already conceded many times that the traditional text is indeed traditional. That folks recognized it as true Word of God and authoritative is not in dispute. And it’s true Word of God and authoritative in my view as well.
What’s much harder to prove is that those who upheld the traditional text in the old days meant to say that it was perfect in every single word and that it would never need correcting even if piles of additional manuscripts would be found later. That you haven’t been able to demonstrate.
[Peter] You disagree with the material that got me here.For the most part, no. Disagree with what you believe it means and necessarily implies and with reasoning you have based on it.
[Peter] The only way you can be persuaded is if you make a massive paradigm shift, and it would look something like this,I’ll let others answer that one…
“The NIV (insert whatever version you like) is the (not “a”) authoritative inspired word of God in English according to res which is based on the inspired and authentic words (all of the words not some of the words) of the standard (that is, there is only one) sacred (that is, Scripture is not like any other book) apographa (copy) of the NA 27 (insert whatever Greek/Hebrew text you like).”
- AV Translator’s Preface
[Peter] A text critic told me that the Bible in my hand has errors, but the Bible in my hand disagrees in that the Bible says that it is very pure to the letter, so I disagree.1. Erasmus was a text critic.
2. The KJV translators were text critics (see 1611 marginal notes)
3. The Bible in your hand is a copy and nothing in it talks specifically about copies.
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, I wonder if you’ve ever watched or participated in a policy-style or Lincoln Douglas style debate… or watched a reasonably accurate courtroom drama. What happens is that one side expresses it’s position then supports it with arguments. Then the other side offers counterarguments to those and offers arguments in support of its own position. Then the first side has an opportunity to defend it’s original arguments by finding flaws in the counterarguments and/or offers new arguments. And so on.
The judges watch for sound arguments on both sides and cross off the ones that are successfully countered and not successfully defended.
If a counterargument is ignored, the argument it countered is usually not scored. It’s dead.
I only mention all of this because your method in this entire discussion has been kind of like this:
The judges watch for sound arguments on both sides and cross off the ones that are successfully countered and not successfully defended.
If a counterargument is ignored, the argument it countered is usually not scored. It’s dead.
I only mention all of this because your method in this entire discussion has been kind of like this:
- Peter: Supporting argument A, Supporting argument B, Supporting argument C
- Aaron: Counterargument to A, Counterargument to B, Counterargument to C
- Peter: Supporting argument D, Supporting argument E, Repeat Supporting Argument A and B.
- Peter: Counterargument(defense) to counterargument A, Counterargument to counterargument B, etc.
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 honestly think what I have expressed to you Brother Blumer is something you have no idea about. I really think that. It is not some condescending statement but the true belief of my heart. You have demonstrated almost zero understanding of the church historical position, Latin/Greek terminology, and the historical exegesis of the passages I have offered. As a result I ask that you leave the complexity of the argument out and deal with an extremely elementary presentation of the position.
My argument concerning the Greek and Hebrew:
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentatuch with Moses’ fingure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Your counterargument:
____________________________
I argue among many other things the resurrection, 6 day creation, the virgin birth, the Trinity, justification, eternal life, the nature of sin, the existence of the soul, the foundation of truth, the deity of Christ, the aseity of God in the same way I argue for the purity of Scripture. The Bible says so.
Then arise those who say that say Jesus body was stolen, that the creation account is about the Creator King, the creature king, and the creature kingdoms and therefore the 6 days in irrelavant, that the “virgin” is mearly a young woman, that the Trinity is realy Tritheism or Modalism, that justification is to make righteous rather than declare righteous, that eternal life simply does not exist, that sin is simply behavioural rather than spiritual, that the soul does not exist, that the foundation of truth is in constant flux, that Christ was simply a good man and teacher, and that God is the earth or is in the earth.
When this kind material comes up then I resort to the historical theology and reasoning of the believing community and use their scholarship against errors like those in the above paragraph. Scholarship hardly ever wins the day, but it shows that the Standard Sacred Text position is not a 20th century contrivance seeing that it can be traced back to before the Middle Ages.
My argument concerning the Greek and Hebrew:
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentatuch with Moses’ fingure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Your counterargument:
____________________________
I argue among many other things the resurrection, 6 day creation, the virgin birth, the Trinity, justification, eternal life, the nature of sin, the existence of the soul, the foundation of truth, the deity of Christ, the aseity of God in the same way I argue for the purity of Scripture. The Bible says so.
Then arise those who say that say Jesus body was stolen, that the creation account is about the Creator King, the creature king, and the creature kingdoms and therefore the 6 days in irrelavant, that the “virgin” is mearly a young woman, that the Trinity is realy Tritheism or Modalism, that justification is to make righteous rather than declare righteous, that eternal life simply does not exist, that sin is simply behavioural rather than spiritual, that the soul does not exist, that the foundation of truth is in constant flux, that Christ was simply a good man and teacher, and that God is the earth or is in the earth.
When this kind material comes up then I resort to the historical theology and reasoning of the believing community and use their scholarship against errors like those in the above paragraph. Scholarship hardly ever wins the day, but it shows that the Standard Sacred Text position is not a 20th century contrivance seeing that it can be traced back to before the Middle Ages.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] My argument concerning the Greek and Hebrew:Peter -
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentatuch with Moses’ fingure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
You make an assumption here that Ps. 119:140 is applicable to ONLY one manuscript family. I was reading in Ps. 119 yesterday, and I do not recall any portion of that Psalm talking about manuscripts or preserved copies, let alone one specific family of texts. So can you please explain how that passage clearly links to the manuscript of your choice, and how that is certain?
If you can do that, then I think we might be able to make headway in agreeing. That said, asserting that Ps. 119:140 teaches the perfect preservation of one specific manuscript type is bad exegesis at a minimum. That Psalm teaches the preservation of God’s Word (along with all it’s other manifest perfections), but it does not argue that only one text family is the pure one, unless you want to argue that the Word that is perfectly preserved in heaven, as Ps. 119:89 says.
"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
More counterarguments then, I guess.
Though I accept that Peter means his observation kindly, it is nonetheless, a type of red herring fallacy known as the ad hominem. People usually attach “attack” after ad hominem these days, but that’s really not the issue. The fallacy basically says “So and so’s argument A is unsound because he lacks quality B.” But the soundness of arguments does not depend on who expresses them.
On the second part, I decline to accept any restrictions on what points I’ll argue. If it matters, I had something like six semesters of Greek and at least two of Hebrew… and I’ve got some really good books by guys way smarter than me. I think I’ll go ahead and brave the complex stuff.
On the other hand, I’ve been saying all along that this is really pretty simple.
http://sharperiron.org/comment/36413#comment-36413] Boiling it down…
http://sharperiron.org/comment/37388#comment-37388] Argumentum verbosium
http://sharperiron.org/comment/37438#comment-37438] About the OP
A few others scattered inside other posts.
[Quote=Peter] My argument concerning the Greek and Hebrew:
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentatuch with Moses’ fingure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H] Three counterarguments:
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] I honestly think what I have expressed to you Brother Blumer is something you have no idea about. I really think that. It is not some condescending statement but the true belief of my heart. You have demonstrated almost zero understanding of the church historical position, Latin/Greek terminology, and the historical exegesis of the passages I have offered. As a result I ask that you leave the complexity of the argument out and deal with an extremely elementary presentation of the position.On the first part. You’re welcome to believe what you like about my understanding of the issues involved. But as far as it relates to the debate, it’s not really relevant. My claims and supporting arguments should be considered on their own merits.
Though I accept that Peter means his observation kindly, it is nonetheless, a type of red herring fallacy known as the ad hominem. People usually attach “attack” after ad hominem these days, but that’s really not the issue. The fallacy basically says “So and so’s argument A is unsound because he lacks quality B.” But the soundness of arguments does not depend on who expresses them.
On the second part, I decline to accept any restrictions on what points I’ll argue. If it matters, I had something like six semesters of Greek and at least two of Hebrew… and I’ve got some really good books by guys way smarter than me. I think I’ll go ahead and brave the complex stuff.
On the other hand, I’ve been saying all along that this is really pretty simple.
http://sharperiron.org/comment/36413#comment-36413] Boiling it down…
http://sharperiron.org/comment/37388#comment-37388] Argumentum verbosium
http://sharperiron.org/comment/37438#comment-37438] About the OP
A few others scattered inside other posts.
[Quote=Peter] My argument concerning the Greek and Hebrew:
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentatuch with Moses’ fingure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H] Three counterarguments:
- There are different ways to be pure. Two come pretty quickly to mind: pure as in morally/spiritually flawless, and pure as in unmixed with anything else. How do you know which David means? If you think he means both, how do you know he means both?
- It is possible that the copy he had was “pure as in having no scribal errors.”
These two counterarguments both assume that you are correct that “God’s word” means “my copy of God’s word, specifically.” I’ve assumed it provisionally for the first two arguments. The next does not assume it.
- It is possible, indeed likely, that David is speaking of the Word itself and not of any particular set of copies—and that he includes all of God’s spoken word (as in “Let there be light” at creation) as well as what is inspired and written.
Evidence: For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven. Ps.119:89- (As an interesting digression: the very next verse, Ps.119:90 has a footnote in the KJV where the translators note that the Hebrew reads a bit differently than they have translated it. So I wonder which is “the word of God,” the way they handled v.90 or the way they noted it in the margin?)
Anyway, I’ve pointed out several times already (one of those counterarguments you keep ignoring) that David clearly believes God’s word is not necessarily just on earth. He seems to view its permanence and perfection as being rooted in the God who’s word it is (and not in mere human efforts to copy it, etc.).
So my view, once again, is that God’s Word is indeed pure. I have several copies in different translations on my shelf. Those are pure too, though not in precisely the same degree in every sense of the term.[Peter] I argue among many other things… in the same way I argue for the purity of Scripture. The Bible says so.
Well, that is the question isn’t it. What does it say in this case?
Another counterargument I mentioned earlier (that I don’t think you’ve answered) is that the Bible does not always mean what seems to mean at first glance. Does the earth have four corners? (Is.11:12).[Peter] Scholarship hardly ever wins the day, but it shows that the Standard Sacred Text position is not a 20th century contrivance seeing that it can be traced back to before the Middle Ages.
Already counterargued many times. Repeating your claim/argument will not make it stronger.
The discussion has been pretty enjoyable, but it’s getting more and more repetitive now. Maybe I’ll put anchors in my previous posts so I can link to specific paragraphs, then just post the links. Save some typing.
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’s three counterarguments:
There are different ways to be pure. Two come pretty quickly to mind: pure as in morally/spiritually flawless, and pure as in unmixed with anything else. How do you know which David means? If you think he means both, how do you know he means both?
It is possible that the copy he had was “pure as in having no scribal errors.”
These two counterarguments both assume that you are correct that “God’s word” means “my copy of God’s word, specifically.” I’ve assumed it provisionally for the first two arguments. The next does not assume it.
It is possible, indeed likely, that David is speaking of the Word itself and not of any particular set of copies—and that he includes all of God’s spoken word (as in “Let there be light” at creation) as well as what is inspired and written.
You counter arguments are bogus for at least 2 reasons:
1.) You defeat your own counterarguments by not giving a definitive alternative. That is to say, you say “there are different ways” and “it is possible” but in the end you do not confirm the truth of your own conclusions you simply note their possibility. If you do not agree then neither do I.
Side Note: Not only have you demonstrated your pitiful understanding of church history, historical theology, and the Standard Sacred Text position you have now demonstrated that your hermeneutic (Method of Interpretation) is shot too. How else to explain the comfort whereby you offer 3 separate and equal interpretations, as Medieval Rome did?
2.) You “counterarguments” are not Scripturally based. There is nothing in the context to lend itself toward your possibilities. This goes for Brother Blumer and Brother JayC, there is nothing in the text to point to a moral/spiritual quality, text types, scribal errors, or Christ. All it says is the word (hr’m.ai) which means “utterance, speech, or word” is very (daom.) “exceedingly, abundance, muchness” pure (@rc) “test, to test and prove true”.
Am I missing something or is there nothing in here about Brother Blumer’s and Brother JayC’s supposed counterarguments.
Brother JayC, I don’t care at this point about mss families. I just wish you would grow some courage and say your Greek and Hebrew text is very pure as to the words. Then say it of the latest version of the Bible that you read, “so long as it agrees with your very pure Greek and Hebrew”.
So I restate my position,
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
There is no mention here of KJB, TR, Masoretic, Standard Sacred Text, text types, scribal errors etc. So don’t go there. Do the grammatical and exegetical work and if I missed something about mss text types or scribal error in the Hebrew of Ps. 119:140, then by all means exegete the Hebrew for me and lend a Brother a hand.
As for whether I have ever been in a formal debat, no I have not but I have always thought it would be a fun thing to do. I perfer discussing theology face-to-face sitting around a table at Mr. Fables (a family restaraunt in Grand Rapids MI) over a cup of coffee and a slice of pie, but SI will do. :)
There are different ways to be pure. Two come pretty quickly to mind: pure as in morally/spiritually flawless, and pure as in unmixed with anything else. How do you know which David means? If you think he means both, how do you know he means both?
It is possible that the copy he had was “pure as in having no scribal errors.”
These two counterarguments both assume that you are correct that “God’s word” means “my copy of God’s word, specifically.” I’ve assumed it provisionally for the first two arguments. The next does not assume it.
It is possible, indeed likely, that David is speaking of the Word itself and not of any particular set of copies—and that he includes all of God’s spoken word (as in “Let there be light” at creation) as well as what is inspired and written.
You counter arguments are bogus for at least 2 reasons:
1.) You defeat your own counterarguments by not giving a definitive alternative. That is to say, you say “there are different ways” and “it is possible” but in the end you do not confirm the truth of your own conclusions you simply note their possibility. If you do not agree then neither do I.
Side Note: Not only have you demonstrated your pitiful understanding of church history, historical theology, and the Standard Sacred Text position you have now demonstrated that your hermeneutic (Method of Interpretation) is shot too. How else to explain the comfort whereby you offer 3 separate and equal interpretations, as Medieval Rome did?
2.) You “counterarguments” are not Scripturally based. There is nothing in the context to lend itself toward your possibilities. This goes for Brother Blumer and Brother JayC, there is nothing in the text to point to a moral/spiritual quality, text types, scribal errors, or Christ. All it says is the word (hr’m.ai) which means “utterance, speech, or word” is very (daom.) “exceedingly, abundance, muchness” pure (@rc) “test, to test and prove true”.
Am I missing something or is there nothing in here about Brother Blumer’s and Brother JayC’s supposed counterarguments.
Brother JayC, I don’t care at this point about mss families. I just wish you would grow some courage and say your Greek and Hebrew text is very pure as to the words. Then say it of the latest version of the Bible that you read, “so long as it agrees with your very pure Greek and Hebrew”.
So I restate my position,
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentatuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
There is no mention here of KJB, TR, Masoretic, Standard Sacred Text, text types, scribal errors etc. So don’t go there. Do the grammatical and exegetical work and if I missed something about mss text types or scribal error in the Hebrew of Ps. 119:140, then by all means exegete the Hebrew for me and lend a Brother a hand.
As for whether I have ever been in a formal debat, no I have not but I have always thought it would be a fun thing to do. I perfer discussing theology face-to-face sitting around a table at Mr. Fables (a family restaraunt in Grand Rapids MI) over a cup of coffee and a slice of pie, but SI will do. :)
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] You counter arguments are bogus for at least 2 reasons:Not sure I follow your reasoning here. Your claim was that David meant “pure” to say that “my copy has every single word of the original.” I showed a couple ways that this claim is not necessarily true.
1.) You defeat your own counterarguments by not giving a definitive alternative. That is to say, you say “there are different ways” and “it is possible” but in the end you do not confirm the truth of your own conclusions you simply note their possibility. If you do not agree then neither do I.
When countering a claim by showing that there are other possibilities, it isn’t necessary to commit to one of the possibilities.
Rather, by showing the possibilities I’m basically arguing that some support is necessary for the claim that David meant “pure” in the particular way you’re claiming.
I thought the questions I asked in the context made that pretty clear.
[Quote=Peter]… you have now demonstrated that your hermeneutic (Method of Interpretation) is shot too. How else to explain the comfort whereby you offer 3 separate and equal interpretations, as Medieval Rome did?Umm… not quite what I did. I listed possible ways to understand what David said. See above. There is nothing hermeneutically special about looking at a passage and considering several possible meanings as part of the process of identifying the most likely correct one. There’s really no other way to read anything, though we usually intuitively settle on a most likely meaning very quickly as we read.
[Quote=Peter] 2.) You “counterarguments” are not Scripturally based. There is nothing in the context to lend itself toward your possibilities.Actually, for the third possibility I quoted Psalm 119.89. Everybody can see that.
As for the other two, you don’t really need biblical support to list the lexical possibilities for a term. It’s just part of reading. But as it turns out, the passage I cited in the third possibility also lends some support to at least one of the others. In fact, there is no reason why two of the three cannot both be correct. I.e. “God’s words are pure in character—including every word He has ever said and ever will say.”
[Quote=Peter]..there is nothing in the text to point to a moral/spiritual quality, text types, scribal errors, or Christ.There is also nothing in the context that excludes these things. We were talking about what “pure” means there, and to some extent, what “word” means.
Your view of the meaning of “pure” requires support just as much as anyone else’s view… and yours is as much without support in the context or text itself as any other.
[Quote=Peter] All it says is the word (hr’m.ai) which means “utterance, speech, or word” is very (daom.) “exceedingly, abundance, muchness” pure (@rc) “test, to test and prove true”.See? Even whatever lexicon you were using there lists the possibilities… which means selecting one of them requires some support. Why that one? It matters to your argument whether David meant “utterance” or “written Scripture.” Your argument depends on it being “written Scripture” because David has to be thinking “this copy I have here.”
(Though it seems like I remember you expressing some disbelief in authorial intent a while back. If that’s the case, I guess what David was thinking is irrelevant.)
[Quote=Peter] So I restate my position,It remains inadequately supported.
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.
My position restated:
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Brother Blumer’s bogus counterarguments:
1.) There are different ways to be pure. Two come pretty quickly to mind: pure as in morally/spiritually flawless, and pure as in unmixed with anything else. How do you know which David means? If you think he means both, how do you know he means both?
2.) It is possible that the copy he had was “pure as in having no scribal errors.”
These two counterarguments both assume that you are correct that “God’s word” means “my copy of God’s word, specifically.” I’ve assumed it provisionally for the first two arguments. The next does not assume it.
3.) It is possible, indeed likely, that David is speaking of the Word itself and not of any particular set of copies—and that he includes all of God’s spoken word (as in “Let there be light” at creation) as well as what is inspired and written.
I reiterate, there is only one interpretation of a given passage of Scripture and many applications. This is not philosophy class, or art class. The Bible in a given passage says only one thing. Offering multiple meanings is to say the Bible has multiple meanings concerning a single passage which is exactly what Medieval Rome presented in their, literal, metaphorical, moral and anagogical meanings. You have offered three meanings, which is to demonstrate that you are Romanish in your hermeneutic or hermeneutically bankrupt as a Protestant/Baptist.
You counter arguments are bogus for at least 2 reasons:
1.) You defeat your own counterarguments by not giving a definitive alternative. That is to say, you say “there are different ways” and “it is possible” but in the end you do not confirm the truth of your own conclusions you simply note their possibility. If you do not agree then neither do I.
Simply because you offer possibilities that you yourself are not sure are true does not demonstrate a legitimate alternative, rather mere presentation of several possibilities shows that you doubt your own possibilities. You see you have only offered possibilities, not even probabilities, let alone certainties, which means you are the furthest you can be from actuality apart from falsities or lying. So if you are not certain that what you say is true, I agree that what you have said is not true, but possible, less than probable and definitely not certain.
Ex.: I say President Obama is the President. Your counterargument is that it is possible that Joe Biden be President. This is not a counter argument, it is simply a non-actual possibility. The only thing that makes Joe Biden President is if there are certain evident contextual supports, which do not now exist. There is no evident contextual support to argue from Ps. 119:140 about moral purity, scribal error, or Messianic prophecy specifically. It is simply saying that God’s word is very pure.
2.) You “counterarguments” are not Scripturally based. There is nothing in the context to lend itself toward your possibilities. This goes for Brother Blumer and Brother JayC, there is nothing in the text to point to a moral/spiritual quality, text types, scribal errors, or Christ. All it says is the word which means “utterance, speech, or word” is very “exceedingly, abundance, muchness” pure “test, to test and prove true”.
Words have inherit meaning. The context limits the meaning of the word. In this case the context limits the meaning to “word”, “very”, and “pure” in the present tense. Furthermore, your first “counterargument” is about moral purity which in the OT is more connected to the Hebrew (qodesh) not (tsaraph) of Ps. 119:140. Your second “counterargument” says nothing of “scribal error”, which amounts to isogeses (adding something to God’s word that God did not say) on your part. Your third “counterargument” depends on your ability to demonstrate that this passage is clearly a Messianic prophecy beyond the Christocentric character of Scripture, which you have not. Once again, at this point your 3 “counterarguments” are bogus.
You know why Brother Blumer will never understand the Standard Sacred Text position nor will he ever be persuaded? Brother Blumer cannot admit that when God’s word says God’s word is very pure that God’s word means God’s word is very pure.
Brother Blumer, Is God’s word, God’s word?
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Brother Blumer’s bogus counterarguments:
1.) There are different ways to be pure. Two come pretty quickly to mind: pure as in morally/spiritually flawless, and pure as in unmixed with anything else. How do you know which David means? If you think he means both, how do you know he means both?
2.) It is possible that the copy he had was “pure as in having no scribal errors.”
These two counterarguments both assume that you are correct that “God’s word” means “my copy of God’s word, specifically.” I’ve assumed it provisionally for the first two arguments. The next does not assume it.
3.) It is possible, indeed likely, that David is speaking of the Word itself and not of any particular set of copies—and that he includes all of God’s spoken word (as in “Let there be light” at creation) as well as what is inspired and written.
I reiterate, there is only one interpretation of a given passage of Scripture and many applications. This is not philosophy class, or art class. The Bible in a given passage says only one thing. Offering multiple meanings is to say the Bible has multiple meanings concerning a single passage which is exactly what Medieval Rome presented in their, literal, metaphorical, moral and anagogical meanings. You have offered three meanings, which is to demonstrate that you are Romanish in your hermeneutic or hermeneutically bankrupt as a Protestant/Baptist.
You counter arguments are bogus for at least 2 reasons:
1.) You defeat your own counterarguments by not giving a definitive alternative. That is to say, you say “there are different ways” and “it is possible” but in the end you do not confirm the truth of your own conclusions you simply note their possibility. If you do not agree then neither do I.
Simply because you offer possibilities that you yourself are not sure are true does not demonstrate a legitimate alternative, rather mere presentation of several possibilities shows that you doubt your own possibilities. You see you have only offered possibilities, not even probabilities, let alone certainties, which means you are the furthest you can be from actuality apart from falsities or lying. So if you are not certain that what you say is true, I agree that what you have said is not true, but possible, less than probable and definitely not certain.
Ex.: I say President Obama is the President. Your counterargument is that it is possible that Joe Biden be President. This is not a counter argument, it is simply a non-actual possibility. The only thing that makes Joe Biden President is if there are certain evident contextual supports, which do not now exist. There is no evident contextual support to argue from Ps. 119:140 about moral purity, scribal error, or Messianic prophecy specifically. It is simply saying that God’s word is very pure.
2.) You “counterarguments” are not Scripturally based. There is nothing in the context to lend itself toward your possibilities. This goes for Brother Blumer and Brother JayC, there is nothing in the text to point to a moral/spiritual quality, text types, scribal errors, or Christ. All it says is the word which means “utterance, speech, or word” is very “exceedingly, abundance, muchness” pure “test, to test and prove true”.
Words have inherit meaning. The context limits the meaning of the word. In this case the context limits the meaning to “word”, “very”, and “pure” in the present tense. Furthermore, your first “counterargument” is about moral purity which in the OT is more connected to the Hebrew (qodesh) not (tsaraph) of Ps. 119:140. Your second “counterargument” says nothing of “scribal error”, which amounts to isogeses (adding something to God’s word that God did not say) on your part. Your third “counterargument” depends on your ability to demonstrate that this passage is clearly a Messianic prophecy beyond the Christocentric character of Scripture, which you have not. Once again, at this point your 3 “counterarguments” are bogus.
You know why Brother Blumer will never understand the Standard Sacred Text position nor will he ever be persuaded? Brother Blumer cannot admit that when God’s word says God’s word is very pure that God’s word means God’s word is very pure.
Brother Blumer, Is God’s word, God’s word?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] I reiterate, there is only one interpretation of a given passage of Scripture and many applications.…
[Peter] The Bible in a given passage says only one thing. Offering multiple meanings is to say the Bible has multiple meanings …If you reread my previous post I think you’ll see that you’re arguing a point that is not in dispute. Every passage means only one thing. The question is, which thing does it mean?
My point in showing possible interpretations was to urge you to support the particular interpretation you’ve chosen.
There seemed to be an unstated premise in your argument: “these words can only mean x.” Such a premise is defeated by pointing out that w, y or z are also possibilities.
The “only x is possible” claim is defeated with or without certainty about w, y or z.
[Peter] your first “counterargument” is about moral purity which in the OT is more connected to the Hebrew (qodesh) not (tsaraph) of Ps. 119:140.Now here is actual engagement. If there is lexical evidence that “pure” in the passage must mean “pure as in containing every word originally inspired” that would be support for your claim. I’ll have to do a bit of research on that and see if there’s something to it.
[Peter] Your second “counterargument” says nothing of “scribal error”, which amounts to isogeses (adding something to God’s word that God did not say) on your part.I think you’re not understanding my counter there. The point there is to grant, for the sake of argument that “word” and “pure” mean “the copy I have” and “pure as in has every original word.” I then point out that if you’re right that he’s talking about his copy, it doesn’t follow that he means “every copy” much less “every copy, or a text made from them by the believing community with the aid of the Spirit.”
So, basically, with that counter, I’m saying “What if David really does mean ‘my copy’ when he says word and what if his copy really does have every original word in it? What does that prove about the traditional text other people compiled thousands of years later?”
This counter is intended to pull for more clarity of the term “word.” It either means David’s copy or it is comprehensive, not both. If it means David’s copy, his statements do not clearly apply to other copies. If it’s meant comprehensively, his statement does not necessarily apply to any particular copy.
But really, option 2 is not my view. It’s just another possibility to show that the claim “this passage can only mean x” is not true…. as a back up in case counter 1 should fail. Which it hasn’t yet.
My own view is that both 1 and 3 are correct. They are not mutually exclusive because counter 1 has to do with “pure” and counter 3 has to do with “word.”
[Peter] Your third “counterargument” depends on your ability to demonstrate that this passage is clearly a Messianic prophecy beyond the Christocentric character of Scripture, which you have not.Actually messianic prophecy is not at all related, nor is christocentrism. The third counter is supported by Psalm 119:89… that “word” is meant comprehensively and David is not limiting his observation about purity to the Scriptures, much less his own copy of them.
[Peter] You know why Brother Blumer will never understand the Standard Sacred Text position nor will he ever be persuaded? Brother Blumer cannot admit that when God’s word says God’s word is very pure that God’s word means God’s word is very pure.Peter, I think you know that if you look up “pure” you’ll find different senses of the term. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God’s word is entirely pure.
[Peter] Brother Blumer, Is God’s word, God’s word?Yes.
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, have you read or do you intend to answer my http://sharperiron.org/comment/37985#comment-37985] post #213 ?
"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
All I have said thus far is,
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
I find nothing in the text, context, or lexical meanings to assume any of your “counterarguments” except for the case of one and it will need some tweeking. Furthermore you have presented nothing in those regards to support your “counterarguments”.
Second until you actually say which of the possibilities you have offered is indeed the correct interpretation, I still maintain that what you have presented is not a “counterargument” but a series of possibility, and a possibility has no bearing in reality until it becomes actual. Therefore until you chose the 1 interpretation that you think is correct, then you defeat your own “counterarguments” by not admitting the correctness of one over the others.
Brother Blumer wrote
You answered “Yes” to Is God’s word, God’s word?
Next question, Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch, God’s word?
Brother JayC I already answered any question you might have in Post#213 in the sense that right now in our discussion mss families have nothing to do with Ps. 119:140. So I am not going to address Post #213 for the same reason I would not address a question about the concept that the shortest, oldest, and hardest reading is best. It is simply not in view here. What is in view is that David said God’s word is pure, and MSTC says it is approximately pure ergo MSTC is not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity. Stay on track.
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
I find nothing in the text, context, or lexical meanings to assume any of your “counterarguments” except for the case of one and it will need some tweeking. Furthermore you have presented nothing in those regards to support your “counterarguments”.
Second until you actually say which of the possibilities you have offered is indeed the correct interpretation, I still maintain that what you have presented is not a “counterargument” but a series of possibility, and a possibility has no bearing in reality until it becomes actual. Therefore until you chose the 1 interpretation that you think is correct, then you defeat your own “counterarguments” by not admitting the correctness of one over the others.
Brother Blumer wrote
that “word” is meant comprehensively and David is not limiting his observation about purity to the Scriptures, much less his own copy of them.Let’s run with this one for a bit.
You answered “Yes” to Is God’s word, God’s word?
Next question, Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch, God’s word?
Brother JayC I already answered any question you might have in Post#213 in the sense that right now in our discussion mss families have nothing to do with Ps. 119:140. So I am not going to address Post #213 for the same reason I would not address a question about the concept that the shortest, oldest, and hardest reading is best. It is simply not in view here. What is in view is that David said God’s word is pure, and MSTC says it is approximately pure ergo MSTC is not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity. Stay on track.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).This is not in dispute.
[Peter] Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)Part B is not in dispute if you take “word” to mean “the text we have compiled” and “pure” to mean “pure, as in containing every word originally inspired”
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Part A has already been effectively countered. You have not shown that “word” in David’s statement must mean “my copy” or even “written Scriptures only.”
[Peter] I find nothing in the text, context, or lexical meanings to assume any of your “counterarguments” except for the case of one and it will need some tweeking. Furthermore you have presented nothing in those regards to support your “counterarguments”.Anyone who can read can see that this is not the case. The text itself contains the words “word” and “pure” and these terms have more than one possible meaning. I have argued that the meaning you have chosen is not necessarily the right one and requires support.
Further, I have supported this using Psalm 119:89. David’s assertion that the word is in heaven supports the idea that David uses “word” to mean “all that God has ever communicated or will communicate, whether written, spoken or other.” It indirectly supports the idea that “pure” means “pure in character.”
[Peter] until you actually say which of the possibilities you have offered is indeed the correct interpretation, I still maintain that what you have presented is not a “counterargument” but a series of possibility, and a possibility has no bearing in reality until it becomes actual. Therefore until you chose the 1 interpretation that you think is correct, then you defeat your own “counterarguments” by not admitting the correctness of one over the others.I’ve already covered both of these bases.
a. If someone claims that “x must mean y,” that assertion is effectively countered by showing that “x may mean v, w, or z.”
b. I’ve told you which possibility I prefer: a combination of possibility 1 and possibility 3. Possibility 1 concerns “pure” and takes it mean “pure in character,” and possibility 3 concerns “word” and takes it to mean “all that God has communicated or will communicate in any form.”
[Peter] You answered “Yes” to Is God’s word, God’s word?Yes.
Next question, Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch, God’s word?
One loose end from a couple posts ago.
Is there lexical evidence that the word “pure” in Psalm 119:140 means “pure, as in containing every word originally inspired”?
The word “pure” there is צרף (tsaraph) which is a metallurgical term (Is.40:19 -AV, “goldsmith;” Jer.10:9- AV, “founder;” Mal. 3:2 - AV, “refiner”) normally meaning refined by fire/smelting. Metaphorically, it has the idea of tested and proven. (Psalm 18:30, 2Sam22:31- AV, “tried”)
I suppose one could argue that having tested and proven character includes the idea of “having all of something and none of something else.” But really, the key to understanding “pure” in the passage is to understand “word” properly. David only has a copy, but that doesn’t mean he can only talk about a copy. He is speaking about the character of God’s “word” in the comprehensive sense.
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 am beginning to think Peter is getting paid by the word.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Please remember, an accurate counterargument will disprove the position that God’s word calls God’s word very pure and MSTC calls God’s word approximately pure, therefore MSTC is not bound by Scripture.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote
Brother Blumer wrote,
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch, God’s word?
I’ll give you my answer, Yes. Now what is your answer?
Brother Blumer where does “the Bible being in Heaven” come into the context of Ps. 119:140? If you are looking for a cross reference why don’t you go to Proverbs 30:5 using the same Hebrew word for “word” and “pure” which says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Is this verse only about the Bible in Heaven too?
Side Note: Brother Blumer how do you get Hebrew font to come over into the forums?
Brother Van Emmerik wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Anyone who can read can see that this is not the case. The text itself contains the words “word” and “pure” and these terms have more than one possible meaning.I have already given that up but I have added that the context has limited the possible meanings. Word’s do not have multiple meanings in a given context unless you are Roman Catholic. Simply stating a possibility does not conclude anything real. You assume your possibility is valid and sound, but offer nothing in the text, context, or grammar to support it. A possibility can only be valid and/or sound if it is proven to be so. You have not done this. If we were in a court case and I said as the prosecutor that defendant X murdered so and so. Your counterargument is, “No, my defendant was in Tahiti.” Is this possible? Sure, planes and travel as they are, but is there anything to show this is the case. Do you have something in the context of the situation that puts your client in Tahiti?
Brother Blumer wrote
I suppose one could argue that having tested and proven character includes the idea of “having all of something and none of something else.”Then concede the point. It is clear that you are not sure of your own possibilities, seeing that you have offered three possibilities for a text that you concede has only one meaning. This is proof of your own indecision. Then you agree that my one position works and still you disagree, from a position of uncertainty concerning your own position.
Brother Blumer wrote,
David only has a copy, but that doesn’t mean he can only talk about a copy. He is speaking about the character of God’s “word” in the comprehensive sense.I said I’d be willing to run with this one for a bit. But please answer my question so we can continue to run with option 3 of your three possible options.
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch, God’s word?
I’ll give you my answer, Yes. Now what is your answer?
Brother Blumer where does “the Bible being in Heaven” come into the context of Ps. 119:140? If you are looking for a cross reference why don’t you go to Proverbs 30:5 using the same Hebrew word for “word” and “pure” which says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Is this verse only about the Bible in Heaven too?
Side Note: Brother Blumer how do you get Hebrew font to come over into the forums?
Brother Van Emmerik wrote,
I am beginning to think Peter is getting paid by the word.I love your signature. So are you about the Master’s business when you issue cheap shots?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] Please remember, an accurate counterargument will disprove the position that God’s word calls God’s word very pure and MSTC calls God’s word approximately pure, therefore MSTC is not bound by Scripture.Actually, a counterargument only needs to show that the particular argument it is countering is faulty.
The fact that God’s word calls itself very pure is not even in dispute. I’m not going to argue against that. The points of contention are what what statement means.
As to what it means, I’ve not only shown that your view lacks adequate support but that another view has better support.
[Peter]We’re back to that again? Nobody is saying the word has all the possible meanings.[Aaron] Anyone who can read can see that this is not the case. The text itself contains the words “word” and “pure” and these terms have more than one possible meaning.I have already given that up but I have added that the context has limited the possible meanings. Word’s do not have multiple meanings in a given context unless you are Roman Catholic.
It’s increasingly apparent that you cannot follow the argument. I’m not sure why.
Suppose a guy named Bob walks into the kitchen one morning and finds a little note from his wife saying “Kids need breakfast.” Son comes into the kitchen at that point and says “Where’s Mom?” Bob shows him the note.
Bob says: “The note clearly means that your mother has gone shopping and will be returning shortly to fix breakfast.”
Son says: “No, I think she means that’s gone over to the orphanage to serve breakfast. It’s her turn this week.”
Bob: “Looks like this note has more than one possible meaning. Can you tell me why I should understand it the way you do?”
Son: “Come on, Dad. Everybody knows the note can’t have more than one meaning! … unless you’re a Roman Catholic.”
Bob: “I don’t know what Roman Catholics have to do with this conversation, but I didn’t say the note had more than one meaning. I said, it has more than one possible meaning. I don’t think you’re understanding of it is correct. Can you tell me why I should interpret it that way?”
Son: “It has to mean that. The context limits the meaning of the words.”
Bob: “How so? Looks to me like ‘kids’ could mean you and your sister or could mean the orphans.”
Son: “There you go again, saying words have more than one meaning.”
I don’t really know what can be done for the son in this scenario. He’s not thinking clearly.
[Peter] Simply stating a possibility does not conclude anything real.Actually showing possibilities can prove something. Another analogy.
A murder has occurred. Police think the butler did it. They question him. Butler says “It’s impossible that I could have done it. I was at the dentist having my teeth fixed.”
Police question further and find out butler was not at the dentist at the time of the murder. Police: “Dentist says you were not there. It is therefore possible that you committed the murder.” The possibility is the conclusion of the counterargument. It defeats the claim that “My murdering him is impossible.”
In the case at hand…
Your claim, Peter, is that “word” and “pure” can only mean x and y. This is another way of saying “It is impossible that ‘word’ and ‘pure’ could mean anything but x and y.”
My counter was to show that “word” and “pure” can also mean other things. “Possible” counters “impossible.”
But I went a step further and showed evidence for taking “word” and “pure” to mean particular other things (pure in character, and all word of God in all forms).
Your claim is dead twice over.
[Peter]You just said stating a possibility doesn’t prove anything. In most cases, that’s true (if the claim is ‘impossible’ then showing a possibility does prove something.)I suppose one could argue that having tested and proven character includes the idea of “having all of something and none of something else.”Then concede the point.
But if you think that “pure” can be understood in this way in this case, that would be your point. You are welcome to support it. I’ve already suggested why I don’t think it fits the passage. It’s in the last couple sentences of my previous post.
[Peter]At least twice now I’ve told you which possibility I prefer and have supported it from Scripture (Psalm 119:89). My view is that “pure” means “pure in character” and “word” means “everything God has ever said, etc.”[Aaron] David only has a copy, but that doesn’t mean he can only talk about a copy. He is speaking about the character of God’s “word” in the comprehensive sense.I said I’d be willing to run with this one for a bit. But please answer my question so we can continue to run with option 3 of your three possible options.
This is getting tediously repetitive.
Soon, I’ll have nothing more to say than “Already answered. See previous posts.”
[Peter] Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch, God’s word?Pretty sure I already answered that. Yes.
I’ll give you my answer, Yes. Now what is your answer?
That David had God’s word is not in dispute here.
[Peter] Brother Blumer where does “the Bible being in Heaven” come into the context of Ps. 119:140? If you are looking for a cross reference why don’t you go to Proverbs 30:5 using the same Hebrew word for “word” and “pure” which says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Is this verse only about the Bible in Heaven too?Already explained this…. more than once. See previous posts.
[Peter] Side Note: Brother Blumer how do you get Hebrew font to come over into the forums?I’m not sure. I just copied and pasted from Logos. I think the key is probably that it’s using the Hebrew characters in a unicode font. There might be some PCs on which the text I pasted is gibberish, depending on what fonts they have installed.
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 wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote
Concerning your scenario,
You are exactly the Son in your scenario because you have issued nothing to support the claims of options 1 and 2 and number 3 needs some refinement which I am attempting to work with you on.
Concerning your second scenario you wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
All I have said is that Bible in David’s hand is called very pure, and there is nothing in the text or context of Ps. 119:140 that in some way disputes this, yet you do and still you say you are in submission to God’s word with something as clear as this.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
The two questions concerning the option your “prefer” have been:
Do you believe God’s word is God’s word?
Brother Blumer said Yes.
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch God’s word.
Brother Blumer said Yes.
New Question:
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch very pure according to Ps. 119:140?
My answer - Yes. What is your answer?
I don’t have Logos so that may be my problem. I’ll keep working on it.
Actually, a counterargument only needs to show that the particular argument it is countering is faulty.You can’t show fault with an unsupported guess.
Brother Blumer wrote
We’re back to that again? Nobody is saying the word has all the possible meanings.You can’t follow your own argument. If it is not all then pick one, and reject the other. I’m not going to hold your hand and pick for you. They are your ideas, pick the one you think is right.
Concerning your scenario,
You are exactly the Son in your scenario because you have issued nothing to support the claims of options 1 and 2 and number 3 needs some refinement which I am attempting to work with you on.
Concerning your second scenario you wrote,
A murder has occurred. Police think the butler did it. They question him. Butler says “It’s impossible that I could have done it. I was at the dentist having my teeth fixed.”The essence of the underlined portion is not represented in any of your counterarguments. You have presented no syntactical, grammatical, or contextual evidence that supports your several options. There is a little in #3 and I think we are getting there.
Police question further and find out butler was not at the dentist at the time of the murder.
Brother Blumer wrote,
My counter was to show that “word” and “pure” can also mean other things. “Possible” counters “impossible.”Without grammatical, syntactical, and contextual support your possibilities are absurd. David could be a Sodomite according to some with regard to his relationship to Jonathan. The word he is speaking of may be the word of his God that allows Sodomy and purity may be in reference to the fact that the Bible in his hand is not leprous. The fact is that you offer “possibilities” as some how they are legitimate because you think they make sense. **News Flash** Sodomy makes sense to a Sodomite but that does not make it reasonable or right before God. Offering “possibilities” that you have yet to support with the grammar are senseless and ungodly unless you can show their existence in the text and context of the verse in question. You apparently have no problem adding words to Scripture in your text criticism, and you have no problem adding words to God’s words in your preaching either.
All I have said is that Bible in David’s hand is called very pure, and there is nothing in the text or context of Ps. 119:140 that in some way disputes this, yet you do and still you say you are in submission to God’s word with something as clear as this.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I suppose one could argue that having tested and proven character includes the idea of “having all of something and none of something else.”The reason I called for you to concede the point was that you seemed to understand the validity of the case but at the same time were unsure of yours because you have yet to choose one of the multiple options as to how to interpret Ps. 119:140. Let me refresh everyone’s memory of your multiple options,
Brother Blumer wrote,
1.) There are different ways to be pure. Two come pretty quickly to mind: pure as in morally/spiritually flawless, and pure as in unmixed with anything else. How do you know which David means? If you think he means both, how do you know he means both?Brother Blumer wrote,
2.) It is possible that the copy he had was “pure as in having no scribal errors.”
These two counterarguments both assume that you are correct that “God’s word” means “my copy of God’s word, specifically.” I’ve assumed it provisionally for the first two arguments. The next does not assume it.
3.) It is possible, indeed likely, that David is speaking of the Word itself and not of any particular set of copies—and that he includes all of God’s spoken word (as in “Let there be light” at creation) as well as what is inspired and written.
At least twice now I’ve told you which possibility I prefer…So you “prefer” the third option. Is your preference what the Bible says or not? You make me laugh sometimes. So when you speak with other concerning the truth of Scripture is this how speak, teach, and preach, with “Well I prefer to read the Bible as x and y”. No wonder our Baptist churches are in trouble, we have men like Brother Blumer comfortably saying, “I prefer to read the Bible this way.” One’s relationship with the Bible is a matter of right and wrong not “I prefer.” I guess the big question is, Do you believe through the gift of faith what your “prefer”?
The two questions concerning the option your “prefer” have been:
Do you believe God’s word is God’s word?
Brother Blumer said Yes.
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch God’s word.
Brother Blumer said Yes.
New Question:
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch very pure according to Ps. 119:140?
My answer - Yes. What is your answer?
I don’t have Logos so that may be my problem. I’ll keep working on it.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] You can’t show fault with an unsupported guess.Readers can see that I supported it. In fact, in an earlier post, you supported it also by quoting various meanings of “pure”—presumably from a lexicon.
Also supported from Psalm 119:89.
[Peter] You can’t follow your own argument. If it is not all then pick one, and reject the other.Already picked one. Are you even reading what I post?
But if someone claims “only one thing is possible,” that claim is refuted by pointing out that there are other possibilities. Picking one of them is just icing on the cake.
[Peter] You are exactly the Son in your scenario because you have issued nothing to support the claims of options 1 and 2 and number 3 needs some refinement which I am attempting to work with you on.I’ve already answered the “nothing to support” claim multiple times. See previous posts.
[Peter]I’ve quoted Psalm 119:89 as support and have explained its relevance.[Peter] A murder has occurred. Police think the butler did it. They question him. Butler says “It’s impossible that I could have done it. I was at the dentist having my teeth fixed.”The essence of the underlined portion is not represented in any of your counterarguments. You have presented no syntactical, grammatical, or contextual evidence that supports your several options. There is a little in #3 and I think we are getting there.
Police question further and find out butler was not at the dentist at the time of the murder.
I’ve also supported the claim with an argument from how language works: words have multiple possible meanings and readers must decide which is correct/most likely. (This is “lexical” evidence, I suppose… or “just obvious” evidence.) If they want to persuade others, they have support the choice they’ve made.
I’m not using syntactical or grammatical arguments here because the grammar and syntax of Psalm 119:140 are not in dispute.
[Peter]Already answered.[Aaron] My counter was to show that “word” and “pure” can also mean other things. “Possible” counters “impossible.”Without grammatical, syntactical, and contextual support your possibilities are absurd.
[Peter] David could be a Sodomite according to some with regard to his relationship to Jonathan. The word he is speaking of may be the word of his God that allows Sodomy…I’m not seeing the relevance.
[Peter] All I have said is that Bible in David’s hand is called very pure, and there is nothing in the text or context of Ps. 119:140 that in some way disputes this, yet you do and still you say you are in submission to God’s word with something as clear as this.I believe David’s Bible was very pure. This is not in dispute.
[Peter] because you have yet to choose one of the multiple options as to how to interpret Ps. 119:140. Let me refresh everyone’s memory of your multiple options…Already selected one…. three or four posts ago. I’m sure nobody’s memory needs refreshing on that.
[Peter] New Question:Yes. Everything God has ever communicated or ever will communicate is pure.
Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch very pure according to Ps. 119:140?
My answer - Yes. What is your answer?
I’m out of time. Will see if I missed anything important later.
Edit. Missed this one…
[Peter] So you “prefer” the third option. Is your preference what the Bible says or not?I’ll take the second half that question first. What it “says” is not in dispute. What it means is the issue.
On that, and to answer the first part of the question, I’ll quote myself…
[Aaron] b. I’ve told you which possibility I prefer: a combination of possibility 1 and possibility 3. Possibility 1 concerns “pure” and takes it mean “pure in character,” and possibility 3 concerns “word” and takes it to mean “all that God has communicated or will communicate in any form.”As for “prefer,” if you find that language puzzling, you clearly don’t read commentaries much. But either way, consider it an invitation. Since I’m not claiming the view with absolute certainty, you may be able to persuade me to take another view. Providing support for your view would be a good place to start.
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 focus of the present discussion is the following:
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Simply that, and still Brother Blumer fights.
Brother Blumer wrote
Brother Blumer wrote,
New Flash -Scripture would mean what it means without a single human reader. -New Flash
Let me break it to you again, the context limits the meaning of a given word, not the reader.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I wrote,
Simply put, “very pure” does not equal “in Heaven.” The Hebrew word simply does not support it. Now you can be a crazy man and say that 2+2=5, but the Math simply does not support that. It is the same case here “very pure” in the Hebrew of Ps. 119:140 does not mean “in Heaven” of Ps. 119:89. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Hebrew word for “word” to say that it is specifically speaking of a word in Heaven. Still you bring it into Heaven. Stay on track Brother Blumer.
Did you know Brother Blumer that every verse of Ps. 119 says something of God’s testimonies, commandments, statues, words, laws etc except two? Do you claim that all of the verses of Ps. 119 are to be filtered through v. 89?
When David speaks of keeping, obeying, seeking them with his whole heart, trusting, hoping, not declining, beholding, etc is he talking about the the word of v.89 or is Ps 119 about the Bible in David’s hand?
David is keeping, obeying, seeking, trusting, hoping and beholding a real book in his hand that is called “very pure,” unless of course you are prepared to demonstrate that David is in Heaven when writing Ps. 119 so that he may “behold“ that heavenly Book.
I can’t believe you are trying to argue this with me.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote in response to the question, “Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch very pure according to Ps. 119:140?”
Brother Blumer wrote,
In this case, it comes down to “Scholar X prefers to include reading Y.” and preachers who ascribe to this pitiful scholarship say “I prefer to preach X because Scholar X preferred to include Y.” You see how stupid this sounds. What you prefer to preach is based on a scholar who prefers to include a text. Your preaching is then a preference based on a preferences based on an assumption that the oldest, shortest, and hardest reading is best. So then what you preach is hemmed in by preferences and driven by an assumption. And people wonder why there is no revival and that Independent Baptist movement is falling apart in so many sectors. Look no further than Brother Blumer and those like him and their treatment of Holy Scripture.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Simply that, and still Brother Blumer fights.
Brother Blumer wrote
I’ve quoted Psalm 119:89 as support and have explained its relevance.You have demonstrated no relevance to “very pure” other than quoting a verse that says “thy word is settled in heaven.” What in the context of Ps 119:140 directs the reader to look to Heaven for the purity of God’s word? You cannot simply quote a verse that is not in the immediate context and then say that both are saying the same thing. You need to show that they are saying the same thing. V. 140 uses “word” and “very pure”, no mention of Heaven. So how do you make the connection? Because v. 140 says “very pure” it has to mean Heaven? That is pitiful exegesis, and just to make a point that is simply wrong.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I’ve also supported the claim with an argument from how language works: words have multiple possible meanings and readers must decide which is correct/most likely.This continues to show that you hermeneutic is bankrupt. The above statement is Roman Catholic to the core. You said above that the “readers must decide which is correct/most likely.” That is exactly what the Roman said was the job of the Priest and Bishops, to decide for the rest of us how the Bible reads, and therefore it was those heretics (Baptist and Protestants) who wanted the Bible in English that needed to be burned at the stake, because they believed that “readers” do not decide the meaning of the text but the text itself in its context by the Holy Spirit so it does not matter what language the Bible is in. The more you talk the more Roman Catholic you get.
New Flash -Scripture would mean what it means without a single human reader. -New Flash
Let me break it to you again, the context limits the meaning of a given word, not the reader.
Brother Blumer wrote,
“just obvious” evidenceI suppose obvious to a crazy man. You are fighting tooth and nail to say that David is not talking about the Bible in his hand when there is nothing in the text and context to point to anything else. Truly madness.
I wrote,
David could be a Sodomite according to some with regard to his relationship to Jonathan. The word he is speaking of may be the word of his God that allows Sodomy…Let me simplify this for you. You said that your preferred to read the Bible as X. I offered the above argument to show other poitions (in this case theologians that support Sodomy) that prefer to read the Bible you read a different way. My point is this, simply because you prefer to read the Bible as X does not make it right before God whether you are a theologian arguing for Sodomy or a Baptist arguing that “pure” equals “in Heaven”.
Simply put, “very pure” does not equal “in Heaven.” The Hebrew word simply does not support it. Now you can be a crazy man and say that 2+2=5, but the Math simply does not support that. It is the same case here “very pure” in the Hebrew of Ps. 119:140 does not mean “in Heaven” of Ps. 119:89. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Hebrew word for “word” to say that it is specifically speaking of a word in Heaven. Still you bring it into Heaven. Stay on track Brother Blumer.
Did you know Brother Blumer that every verse of Ps. 119 says something of God’s testimonies, commandments, statues, words, laws etc except two? Do you claim that all of the verses of Ps. 119 are to be filtered through v. 89?
When David speaks of keeping, obeying, seeking them with his whole heart, trusting, hoping, not declining, beholding, etc is he talking about the the word of v.89 or is Ps 119 about the Bible in David’s hand?
David is keeping, obeying, seeking, trusting, hoping and beholding a real book in his hand that is called “very pure,” unless of course you are prepared to demonstrate that David is in Heaven when writing Ps. 119 so that he may “behold“ that heavenly Book.
I can’t believe you are trying to argue this with me.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I believe David’s Bible was very pure.And MSTC does not, therefore MSTC is not bound to Scripture with regard to the purity of Scripture. Yield the point of post #1.
Brother Blumer wrote in response to the question, “Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch very pure according to Ps. 119:140?”
Yes. Everything God has ever communicated or ever will communicate is pure.MSTC replaces “very pure” with “approximately pure”, therefore MSTC is not bound by Scripture. Yield the point of post #1.
Brother Blumer wrote,
As for “prefer,” if you find that language puzzling, you clearly don’t read commentaries much.Once again you made me laugh. Thank you. Like what commentaries? I’m calling your bluff. Show us. Show us the commentary that “prefers” to read Ps. 119:140 as you do. Furthermore, I suppose you think it a coincidences that those who think they can prefer to include or exclude a particular Greek or Hebrew reading in the text critical process would also say they prefer to read the Bible this way or that way. The point is that people who mess with their own Bible will mess with their own preaching.
In this case, it comes down to “Scholar X prefers to include reading Y.” and preachers who ascribe to this pitiful scholarship say “I prefer to preach X because Scholar X preferred to include Y.” You see how stupid this sounds. What you prefer to preach is based on a scholar who prefers to include a text. Your preaching is then a preference based on a preferences based on an assumption that the oldest, shortest, and hardest reading is best. So then what you preach is hemmed in by preferences and driven by an assumption. And people wonder why there is no revival and that Independent Baptist movement is falling apart in so many sectors. Look no further than Brother Blumer and those like him and their treatment of Holy Scripture.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Since I’m not claiming the view with absolute certainty, you may be able to persuade me to take another view.You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole on this point. So, do you “not claim a view with absolute certainty” on a regular basis? I mean, when you preach or teach are you offering an educated guess to God’s people, then wait to see if you can be dissuaded? Faith is not based on preferences or educated guesses. The very fact that you are not claiming with absolute certainty your own position shows that your position is dubious, flawed, and wrong. How do you expect us to believe your understanding is worthy of the certainty of faith if you don’t believe it is worthy of the certainty of faith.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter] You have demonstrated no relevance to “very pure” other than quoting a verse that says “thy word is settled in heaven.” What in the context of Ps 119:140 directs the reader to look to Heaven for the purity of God’s word?First, Psalm 119:89 is in the context. It’s the same Psalm.
Second, it doesn’t have to be in the immediate context to tell us something about David’s theology. Regardless of where he says it, when he talks about the word, he is revealing truth about the word and—presumably, his own view as well. So when he says the word is settled forever in heaven in 119:89, we can conclude that David does not see “word” as being limited to written copies on the earth.
That in, turn, introduces a possibility in 119:140.
Because it is possible that David does not mean to limit “word” to written copies in 119:140, the question for you is: what evidence do you have that David is not using “word” comprehensively in 119:140?
[Peter]I think anyone who has used a dictionary or lexicon knows that listing possible meanings for words is how they all work—Catholic, Protestant, Atheist, you name it (maybe not Buddhist… once you throw zen in, words get really weird).[Aaron] I’ve also supported the claim with an argument from how language works: words have multiple possible meanings and readers must decide which is correct/most likely.This continues to show that you hermeneutic is bankrupt. The above statement is Roman Catholic to the core…
Was the guy below using some kind of Roman Catholic hermeneutic?
[Peter] All it says is the word which means “utterance, speech, or word” is very “exceedingly, abundance, muchness” pure “test, to test and prove true”.You listed “utterance, speech or word” as possible meanings of “word” in Ps.119:140. Admittedly, it’s hard to see the diff. between “utterance” and “speech” but “word” is definitely a broader meaning, because it can mean speech or writing. But you listed these possible meanings then concluded that it must mean David’s written copy only. OK, we have your claim. How about supporting it?
You also listed two possible meanings for “pure.” They overlap, but one specifies proving true and the other doesn’t. So which is it and why? …but I guess deciding what words mean is for Catholics.
[Peter] Scripture would mean what it means without a single human reader.Not in dispute.
[Peter]… the context limits the meaning of a given word, not the reader.Not in dispute either.
(“Context” = immediate + larger context of passage, book, section, and all of Scripture + theological context of everything a given writer reveals on a topic.)
[Peter] My point is this, simply because you prefer to read the Bible as X does not make it right before God whether you are…Certainly true. This is why I supported my view. I don’t believe in arbitrarily looking at verses and saying “I think I would like it to mean A.”
By the way, this is also why you need to support your view that David means only his written copy when he says “word” and that he is talking about textual completeness when he says “pure.”
[Peter] Simply put, “very pure” does not equal “in Heaven.”Of course. “Word” is the term that points beyond mere copies on earth. “Pure” has to do with the character of that word.
[Peter].. there is nothing in the Hebrew word for “word” to say that it is specifically speaking of a word in Heaven.Sigh. Psalm 119:89. But actually, using your definition above (‘utterance’ etc.) the word does point beyond writings or copies.
[Peter]…every verse of Ps. 119 says something of God’s testimonies, commandments, statues, words, laws etc except two… Do you claim that all of the verses of Ps. 119 are to be filtered through v. 89?Now there’s an argument. The problem, though, is that v.89 is also in the Psalm. Result…
In your view, every reference to word, precept, statue, etc. must mean “my copy” and (somehow) the traditional text. But that fails when you get to v.89.
In my view, every reference to word, precept, statute, etc. refers to something that is not limited to what is written or physical copies. I’m not sure why that’s a problem.
[Peter]You have not established that “very pure” means “contains every word God originally inspired.” Why can’t it mean “pure in character, trustworthy”?[Aaron] I believe David’s Bible was very pure.And MSTC does not, therefore MSTC is not bound to Scripture with regard to the purity of Scripture. Yield the point of post #1.
[Peter] “Is King David’s copy of the Pentateuch very pure according to Ps. 119:140?”I can’t speak for the abstraction “MSTC,” but neither I nor anyone else I know who is unconvinced of the perfection of the traditional text believes that God’s word is approximately pure. We understand that the copies (and texts made from them) are approximately pure. They are pure to the degree they are faithful to the originals.[Aaron] Yes. Everything God has ever communicated or ever will communicate is pure.MSTC replaces “very pure” with “approximately pure”, therefore MSTC is not bound by Scripture. Yield the point of post #1.
[Peter] Show us the commentary that “prefers” to read Ps. 119:140 as you do. Furthermore, I suppose you think it a coincidences that those who think they can prefer to include or exclude a particular Greek or Hebrew reading in the text critical process would also say they prefer…“Prefer” simply means that you look at possible interpretations, weigh evidence, and when the correct interpretation is not 100% certain, you leave some room to learn better later by saying “I prefer the view best supported by the evidence.” Everybody who studies the Bible does this, though they may weigh the evidence quite differently.
[Peter]Just inviting you to make a case for your interpretation. I’m open to persuasion. Support your claims.[Aaron] Since I’m not claiming the view with absolute certainty, you may be able to persuade me to take another view.You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole on this point.
[Peter] So, do you “not claim a view with absolute certainty” on a regular basis?Claim it when I have it. Don’t when I don’t.
[Peter] How do you expect us to believe your understanding is worthy of the certainty of faith if you don’t believe it is worthy of the certainty of faith.What I expect people to do is look at the claims I make and how I support them and see if they find them persuasive. Nothing more.
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.] The focus of the present discussion is the following:Emphasis added.
Presupposition: King David did not have the original Pentateuch with Moses’ figure prints on it, therefore what King David did have was a copy of the Pentateuch (apographa).
Part A: God’s word [a copy] is pure indeed, very pure because it says it is. (Ps. 119:140)
Part B: Modern text critical theory argues that God’s word [a copy] is approximately pure. [e.g. W&H]
Conclusion: Modern text critical theory has replaced “very pure” with “approximately pure” with regard to God’s word and is therefore not bound by Scripture with regard to Scriptural purity.
Didn’t want this missed in the multitude of words. Peter finally answered one of the questions posed by simply making an assumption. He believes the “word” referenced here is the specific copy David was reading. This dramatically changes the original question as it was posed. Agreeing with Aaron et al., it is clear that this assertion demands convincing argument in support rather than repeated emphasis.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Brother Blumer wrote,
Its not the fact that you have said words have multiple meanings that make your hermeneutic Roman Catholic it is the fact that you wrote that “readers must decide which is correct/most likely.” That in the quotes in Roman Catholic.
I wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
My question is, Even with the inclusion of v. 89 does that EXCLUDE copies from being referred to in vs. 140?
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Do you believe the notion of approximate purity is bound by Scripture?
Let me put it this way,
Presupposition: The “word” of Ps. 119:140 concerns the written (a copy) and spoken word which David had access to by a copy of the Law and the Prophets (Samuel and Nathan).
Part A: The Hebrew word (tsaraph) meaning “pure” denotes the removal of corruption to the place of purity by fiery trial.
Part B: Only creaturely words are capable of corruption.
Conclusion: Concerning the word of God whether spoken or a written copy (David’s Pentateuch), they are free from corruption so that it can be said that David “received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” (1 Thess 2:13)
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
You are not open to persuasion because you cannot even persuade yourself by holding to what you “prefer”. How can you persuade someone who is not persuaded that his own position is certainly right? The prospect is laughable.
Brother Blumer wrote,
So when he says the word is settled forever in heaven in 119:89, we can conclude that David does not see “word” as being limited to written copies on the earth.True, but what you have said above does not exclude my conclusion it merely includes it. That is what I have been trying to get to. What you have yet to prove is that David DOES NOT say his copy is pure according to Ps. 119:140, but rather is EXCLUSIVELY saying Ps. 119:140 in the context of v. 89.
Its not the fact that you have said words have multiple meanings that make your hermeneutic Roman Catholic it is the fact that you wrote that “readers must decide which is correct/most likely.” That in the quotes in Roman Catholic.
I wrote,
Scripture would mean what it means without a single human reader.You claim this is not in dispute. Think about it, “readers must decide which is correct/most likely.” and “Scripture would mean what it means without a single human reader” are mutually exclusive. The Bible is correct in meaning without a single reader’s decision.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I don’t believe in arbitrarily looking at verses and saying “I think I would like it to mean A.”What is the difference between this and “I prefer”?
Brother Blumer wrote,
“Word” is the term that points beyond mere copies on earth.But does it include copies?
Brother Blumer wrote,
But actually, using your definition above (‘utterance’ etc.) the word does point beyond writings or copies.Except the word in Ps 119:140 is “word” not “utterance”. Once again, I have no problem systematizing God’s word for a better understanding of a given passage.
My question is, Even with the inclusion of v. 89 does that EXCLUDE copies from being referred to in vs. 140?
Brother Blumer wrote,
Why can’t it mean “pure in character, trustworthy”?God’s word being free from corruption (i.e. very pure) is trustworthy. The latter is an outworking of the former. Furthermore the word in Scripture is “pure” not “trustworthy”. Here is a perfect example of your bankrupt hermeneutic. “Trustworthy” isn’t even in the lexicon for (tsaraph) and is not the word in the context, still you prefer it as a viable option. It is simply not there. How am I to dissuade you of things you prefer to imagine?
Brother Blumer wrote,
I can’t speak for the abstraction “MSTC,” but neither I nor anyone else I know who is unconvinced of the perfection of the traditional text believes that God’s word is approximately pure.W&H did hold to approximate purity the work of which Warfield accepted in his work on the Westminster Assembly and Protestant text critical work follows. Thus the point of Post #1 is proven that Modern Scientific [Remember this is Warfield’s word] Textual Criticism [MSTC] believes in the approximate purity of God’s word and David does not, therefore the notion of approximate purity is not bound by Scripture.
Do you believe the notion of approximate purity is bound by Scripture?
Let me put it this way,
Presupposition: The “word” of Ps. 119:140 concerns the written (a copy) and spoken word which David had access to by a copy of the Law and the Prophets (Samuel and Nathan).
Part A: The Hebrew word (tsaraph) meaning “pure” denotes the removal of corruption to the place of purity by fiery trial.
Part B: Only creaturely words are capable of corruption.
Conclusion: Concerning the word of God whether spoken or a written copy (David’s Pentateuch), they are free from corruption so that it can be said that David “received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” (1 Thess 2:13)
Brother Blumer wrote,
“Prefer” simply means that you look at possible interpretations, weigh evidence, and when the correct interpretation is not 100% certain, you leave some room to learn better later by saying “I prefer the view best supported by the evidence.You can’t be 100% certain as to what “Thy word is very pure.” means? Wow. I reiterate, this sense of uncertainty is the ruin of the Church.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Just inviting you to make a case for your interpretation. I’m open to persuasion. Support your claims.You cannot be persuaded. It is impossible by all accounts, because you in all your work have conceded that you are not 100% certain of your own position which is in “opposition” to my position and some how I am going to persuade you of my position when you are not 100% persuaded of your own. This is foolishness. You are asking me to persuade you of my position by dissuading you of your position when you don’t hold a position, rather you hold a preference which may be right and it may be wrong by your own account.
You are not open to persuasion because you cannot even persuade yourself by holding to what you “prefer”. How can you persuade someone who is not persuaded that his own position is certainly right? The prospect is laughable.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Claim it when I have it. Don’t when I don’t.So do you preach it when you have it and not preach it when you don’t? Beside, how on earth do you “claim it when you have it” about any passage in Scripture if the words “Thy word is very pure” escape your ability to “have” with certainty?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter]As I understand it, your view is that in Psalm 119:140, David is saying his copy of the Scriptures is not missing any words/has no scribal errors (and somehow this also applies to the traditional text). So your view depends on these definitions:[Aaron]… we can conclude that David does not see “word” as being limited to written copies on the earth.True, but what you have said above does not exclude my conclusion it merely includes it. …What you have yet to prove is that David DOES NOT say his copy is pure according to Ps. 119:140…
word=”David’s copy”
pure=”no scribal errors”
If “word” means “everything God has ever communicated or ever will communicate,” it’s possible to make your view work, but it’s a poor fit with your idea of “pure” because much of what God has communicated has never been written down anywhere.
So, to be clear, yes, I believe David is including his copy when he says “word” there. But he is including much more than copies as well—and talking about the pure character of all communication that issues from God.
[Peter] Its not the fact that you have said words have multiple meanings that make your hermeneutic Roman Catholic it is the fact that you wrote that “readers must decide which is correct/most likely.”“Decide” does not equal “determine.” I’m not saying that readers vest the words with their meaning. I’m saying readers must discover what the words mean. When faced with multiple possibilities they must figure out which meaning is the true one.
“Readers must decide which is correct/most likely” and “Scripture would mean what it means without a single human reader” are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe this helps
- You have words on paper. They mean what the writer intended.
- Reader encounters words, is not sure what meaning is intended.
- Reader must decide/figure out what meaning is intended.
- Reader evaluates possibilities, decides meaning A is most likely.
- Reader says he prefers meaning A over the other possibilities.
[Peter]The word there is אמרה. What must be decided is whether it means written word, utterance or something more comprehensive.[Aaron] But actually, using your definition above (‘utterance’ etc.) the word does point beyond writings or copies.Except the word in Ps 119:140 is “word” not “utterance”.
[Peter] My question is, Even with the inclusion of v. 89 does that EXCLUDE copies from being referred to in vs. 140?It doesn’t have to exclude. See above.
[Peter]Actually several posts ago, I posted the lexical evidence that צרף (“pure”) there has the idea of tested/proven. And you quoted some source to that effect as well.[Aaron] Why can’t it mean “pure in character, trustworthy”?God’s word being free from corruption (i.e. very pure) is trustworthy. The latter is an outworking of the former. Furthermore the word in Scripture is “pure” not “trustworthy”.
It does not follow that if scribes made errors in making copies, the copies are therefore not trustworthy and not pure in character.
[Peter]You’re equivocating with the word “word” here. I seriously doubt that any of these guys thought the word itself is approximately pure in character. What they believed was that copies of the word are approximately pure textually.[Aaron]… neither I nor anyone else I know who is unconvinced of the perfection of the traditional text believes that God’s word is approximately pure.W&H did hold to approximate purity the work of which Warfield accepted in his work on …
The word that exists forever in the mind of our immutable God can never be anything less than entirely pure in every way. The word, in the comprehensive sense that includes our copies remains pure in character. It is holy and trustworthy. The copies are manifestly not “pure” in the sense of having every word exactly right.
[Peter] Do you believe the notion of approximate purity is bound by Scripture?It’s not clear what you mean by “bound,” but if you mean “supported by,” then yes. I made a case for this in my series on Preservation, that I’ve linked to several times in this discussion. The Bible teaches that humans are both weak and wicked and prone to error in all they do. It does not teach that this essential trait of our being is nullified when we’re making copies of the Bible.
[Peter] Part A: The Hebrew word (tsaraph) meaning “pure” denotes the removal of corruption to the place of purity by fiery trial.First, “pure” cannot mean the removal of corruption in reference to God’s words. They are eternally pure in His mind and are pure when they are revealed.
Part B: Only creaturely words are capable of corruption.
Conclusion: Concerning the word of God whether spoken or a written copy (David’s Pentateuch), they are free from corruption so that it can be said that David “received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” (1 Thess 2:13)
Second, there is no such thing as a “spoken copy.” When I say “spoken” I mean things God has said that have not been written. Christ Himself is “word” (John 1:1).
Third, it’s true that only creaturely words are capable of corruption. But think this through. It means that whenever an error occurs in copying, the change is creaturely. God’s actual words are as immutable as He is (Ps.119:89)
Surely you do not deny faulty manuscripts exist. Say, Vaticanus. How did its errors occur? Did the copyists corrupt God’s words? Not really. Their errors introduced human “corruptions” to copies.
[Peter] You cannot be persuaded. It is impossible by all accounts, because you in all your work have conceded that you are not 100% certain of your own position which is in “opposition” to my position and some how I am going to persuade you of my position when you are not 100% persuaded of your own.People can only be persuaded to change their views if they are 100% convinced of their views? Really?
But let’s get this clear: having some uncertainty about “word” and “pure” in Ps.119.140 does not equal “uncertain of my view” as a whole. I am quite certain that we cannot claim the traditional text is 100% word perfect and that this view of the traditional text is Bible doctrine.
[Peter] how on earth do you “claim [certainty] when you have it” about any passage in Scripture if the words “Thy word is very pure” escape your ability to “have” with certainty?It’s only a problem if you live in a binary universe, where everything must be 100% certain or 100% useless… I don’t live in a world like that.
It’s quite common in exegetical work to narrow the possible meanings of a word or phrase down to 2 or 3 very strong possibilities. Often a student of the word can settle on one with a great deal of confidence. But often he has to settle for being 100% certain that the phrase means either A or B, but not 100% certain of which. It’s not a big problem, because the “point” of a passage is often quite certain and clear even though a term or two remains ambiguous.
If I was preaching Psalm 119:140, I would preach with certainty that God’s word is as pure as God Himself. I would certainly not try to make the verse teach that a particular text has no scribal errors.
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.
[PVK] Brother Blumer wrote,Peter,[Blumer] So when he says the word is settled forever in heaven in 119:89, we can conclude that David does not see “word” as being limited to written copies on the earth.True, but what you have said above does not exclude my conclusion it merely includes it. That is what I have been trying to get to. What you have yet to prove is that David DOES NOT say his copy is pure according to Ps. 119:140, but rather is EXCLUSIVELY saying Ps. 119:140 in the context of v. 89.
Its not the fact that you have said words have multiple meanings that make your hermeneutic Roman Catholic it is the fact that you wrote that “readers must decide which is correct/most likely.” That in the quotes in Roman Catholic.
You are reading FAR too much into what is written or not written in that verse. There is no support whatsoever for what you are trying to make Psalm 119:140 say, and I don’t care if you use the KJV or the ESV or any other version. You can only get to your conclusion if you force it into that section of the Psalm.
Furthermore, just because Roman Catholics believe something doesn’t make it wrong. They believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity, for example. Muslims believe that there was a real person named Jesus, even though they deny his deity.
"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
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
On the other hand, I know that Ps. 119:140 is speaking of David’s Bible and that Bible is pure (i.e. free from human corruptions). You see we are arguing on two different levels. I argue that Ps. 119:140 means David’s Bible was pure of human corruptions as an object of faith. You are arguing your preference which is not an object of faith for you because you do not accept you own preference as an object of faith, nor can you because a preference is uncertain and as such you cannot put your faith in the uncertain.
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Let me go a bit further to show this “trustworthy” idea does not work. There are people in the present who deal with “errors” in Scripture nearly every day in our think-tanks and universities. Two things persist: 1.) With the errors we know of we cannot decide how to correct them with certainty, which means the best of the best do not think that what they have chosen as a reading is trustworthy, rather it is the best they can do. 2.) No one has come out and said, “We have found all the errors in the Bible, for certain.” As a result, the possibility of errors creeping around in the text still exist which means that the reading you think is certain may be in fact erroneous making an air of untrustworthiness about the Bible. So, if you believe there are errors in the Bible then you believe the Bible is not pure and if it is not pure then you cannot trust it.
Just to refresh you memory W&H wrote these words,
“[O] n any view many important churches for long ages have had only an approximately pure New Testament, so that we have no right to treat it as antecedently incredible that only an approximately pure New Testament should be attainable now, or even in all future time.” (pp. 267-277)
Approximate purity in content ensures approximate purity in “character”. “Character” by the way is a terrible word, do you have something more specific. “Character” has primary and secondary substance implications in the modern Baptist mind, which makes the word very imprecise.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
It is sad that we are at the place where we can say the words that came from God are pure, but the words we have now are not pure but are still God’s words. This is so wrong.
If “word” means “everything God has ever communicated or ever will communicate,” it’s possible to make your view work, but it’s a poor fit with your idea of “pure” because much of what God has communicated has never been written down anywhere.The important difference is that Scripture is written and can therefore stand the test of time while the prophecies of Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc that were not written down were pure in the moment. In the case of David’s view of Scripture, he by inspiration gives us no hint at all that his Bible contained scribal errors. If David by inspiration did not bring it into the conversation then we should not either.
Brother Blumer wrote,
“Decide” does not equal “determine.” I’m not saying that readers vest the words with their meaning. I’m saying readers must discover what the words mean.Discover is a much better word, but what would be better is that each saint must agree and submit to the meaning of Scripture which is present before the reader reads. Mere discovery is not enough, agreement by the gift of faith is essential and a preference or a guess cannot be the object of faith.
Brother Blumer wrote,
You cannot do this with the Bible. If you do not know what the Bible says then you cannot say what the Bible says. It is better to be silent. Pretending to know what the Bible says, or preferring to know what the Bible says is insufficient to be the object of faith. Thus whatever you say if it is merely based on a preference is not of faith and as such what you say has no authoritative bearing on the people of God.
- Reader evaluates possibilities, decides meaning A is most likely.
- Reader says he prefers meaning A over the other possibilities.
On the other hand, I know that Ps. 119:140 is speaking of David’s Bible and that Bible is pure (i.e. free from human corruptions). You see we are arguing on two different levels. I argue that Ps. 119:140 means David’s Bible was pure of human corruptions as an object of faith. You are arguing your preference which is not an object of faith for you because you do not accept you own preference as an object of faith, nor can you because a preference is uncertain and as such you cannot put your faith in the uncertain.
Brother Blumer wrote,
The word there is אמרה. What must be decided is whether it means written word, utterance or something more comprehensive.What in the text of Ps. 119:140 removes prophecy, Scripture, or the audible voice of God saying “Samuel, Samuel”? Is God’s word spoken through Samuel and more pure than God’s word written by Samuel under inspiration or vice versa? No.
Brother Blumer wrote,
It does not follow that if scribes made errors in making copies, the copies are therefore not trustworthy and not pure in character.It most certainly does, because the copy is only God’s word insofar as it contains God’s words much like a tract or commentary. The “What Must I Do To Inherit Eternal Life” tract is not God’s word purely because it contains men’s words as well. Furthermore the power of the tract is not in the incorporation of men’s words, but the power is in the words of God accompanied by the Spirit of God. Getting back to your ancient scribes idea, where there are errors there is corruption, and where there are errors there is no power of the Spirit, therefore there are words in that copy that are not trustworthy.
Let me go a bit further to show this “trustworthy” idea does not work. There are people in the present who deal with “errors” in Scripture nearly every day in our think-tanks and universities. Two things persist: 1.) With the errors we know of we cannot decide how to correct them with certainty, which means the best of the best do not think that what they have chosen as a reading is trustworthy, rather it is the best they can do. 2.) No one has come out and said, “We have found all the errors in the Bible, for certain.” As a result, the possibility of errors creeping around in the text still exist which means that the reading you think is certain may be in fact erroneous making an air of untrustworthiness about the Bible. So, if you believe there are errors in the Bible then you believe the Bible is not pure and if it is not pure then you cannot trust it.
Just to refresh you memory W&H wrote these words,
“[O] n any view many important churches for long ages have had only an approximately pure New Testament, so that we have no right to treat it as antecedently incredible that only an approximately pure New Testament should be attainable now, or even in all future time.” (pp. 267-277)
Approximate purity in content ensures approximate purity in “character”. “Character” by the way is a terrible word, do you have something more specific. “Character” has primary and secondary substance implications in the modern Baptist mind, which makes the word very imprecise.
Brother Blumer wrote,
The word, in the comprehensive sense that includes our copies remains pure in character. It is holy and trustworthy. The copies are manifestly not “pure” in the sense of having every word exactly right.We fundamentally disagree here. You are prepared to name a mingling of holy corruption and a trustworthy error. I cannot.
I wrote,
Do you believe the notion of approximate purity is bound by Scripture?Brother Blumer answered,
It’s not clear what you mean by “bound,” but if you mean “supported by,” then yes.This is momentous. “Supported” is fine. Where in the Bible does Scriptural support exist?
Brother Blumer wrote,
The Bible teaches that humans are both weak and wicked and prone to error in all they do. It does not teach that this essential trait of our being is nullified when we’re making copies of the Bible.I agree but what you are apparently unable to accommodate is the leading of the Spirit through His people in accordance with the self-authenticating words of Scripture in spite of the human condition to provide for His Church the words of Scripture that were given to the original writers.
Brother Blumer wrote,
First, “pure” cannot mean the removal of corruption in reference to God’s words. They are eternally pure in His mind and are pure when they are revealed.I agree with the latter sentence and I was hoping that you would say that. The fact is that David here is treating his copy of the Bible as pure words that came directly from God even though they came from God to Moses generations before David.
It is sad that we are at the place where we can say the words that came from God are pure, but the words we have now are not pure but are still God’s words. This is so wrong.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Brother Blumer wrote,
Are the words of Ps. 119:140 God’s word? Yes.
Are the words of Ps. 119:140 as pure as when God first gave them? Yes.
Are the words of the whole Bible as pure as when God first gave them? Yes.
Are the words of the whole Bible at present as pure as when God first gave them? Yes.
To believe otherwise is to believe contrary to what the word of God in the present says about the word of God in the present.
See you think you can have divinely pure ideas without divinely pure words, which is fundamentally in error. The only way the revelation of Jesus Christ is revealed to us is through words (i.e. Scripture) and from those words we get an idea. If we begin the discussion with some of “those words” are in error then it follows that parts of the ideas are in error which leads to some of the revelation Jesus Christ is in error which results in some of what we know about Jesus Christ is in error. Then out of some other motivation you assume that the errors you hold concerning Jesus Christ have nothing to do with salvation. Your only basis for this assumtion is a revelation of Jesus Christ that you confess has a host of errors.
So you look to a revelation of truth and errors to show that the salvation in that revelation is only truth, and you are too blind to see how obsurd this is.
Brother JayC,
1.) All I have said is that David’s Bible is not the document on which Moses put pen to paper, therefore it is a copy. That‘s all.
2.) David then says by inspiration that God’s word is very pure. There is no aspectual qualifications as to “character”, grammar, syntax, form (verba), method, or content (res). It simply says God’s word is very pure. The my Bible is without a doubt God’s word, I must therefore submit to the Bible and say that it is very pure in all of its aspects (“character”, grammar, syntax, form, method, and content). You on the other hand, refuse to submit to God’s word because mss evidence tells you to read Ps. 119:140 some other preferred way. In your case, mss evidence trumps a clear reading of Scripture. I don’t factor in scribal error or mss evidence because the Bible does not. Simple as that.
If David said, “Because of copyist errors my Bible is missing some of God’s words and some of man’s words have been added, but my Bible is still pure in ‘character’.” Then I would happily yield to God’s word, but nothing of the sort exists, rather David said “Thy word is very pure.”
Brother JayC wrote,
Like I said many moons ago, the Church has been fighting for a long time what you and Brother Blumer have espoused, it just so happens you have taken the side of those who burned us at the stake.
Third, it’s true that only creaturely words are capable of corruption. But think this through. It means that whenever an error occurs in copying, the change is creaturely. God’s actual words are as immutable as He is.I agree once again that the change is creaturely. But that change cannot be the object of faith. Do you agree with my last sentence?
Brother Blumer wrote,
People can only be persuaded to change their views if they are 100% convinced of their views? Really?Yes. Persuasion when dealing with what the Bible says can only come when you can exercise faith in what the Bible says and you must know for certain what the Bible says in a given passage before you can have faith in it. Unless of course you are prepared to say that you are only 99% convinced of the truth in John 3:16.
Brother Blumer wrote,
I am quite certain that we cannot claim the traditional text is 100% word perfect and that this view of the traditional text is Bible doctrine.I agree that you cannot claim the above statements because you can’t claim that David said his Bible was pure in the Bible. Furthermore, we are just trying to see if we can agree on a verse. History, dogmatics, philosophy are so out of the picture right now. I dare say the English Text Debate forums cannot go anywhere until we are able to conclude what the Bible says, and apparently we cannot seeing that something as simple as “Thy word is very pure”.
Brother Blumer wrote,
It’s only a problem if you live in a binary universe, where everything must be 100% certain or 100% useless… I don’t live in a world like that.I don’t live in a world like that either, but when it comes to the Bible as the revelation of Jesus Christ (The Bible does not merely reveal things about Jesus Christ it reveals Jesus Christ), the Bible is either the object of faith and must therefore be 100% certain or it is not certain and has faith unnaturally foisted upon it.
Brother Blumer wrote,
If I was preaching Psalm 119:140, I would preach with certainty that God’s word is as pure as God Himself.Nothing is “as pure as God Himself.” But I am not going to go down that road. I have a feeling that since you Bibilology is messed up so also is your Theology Proper. So let’s make a couple modifications.
Are the words of Ps. 119:140 God’s word? Yes.
Are the words of Ps. 119:140 as pure as when God first gave them? Yes.
Are the words of the whole Bible as pure as when God first gave them? Yes.
Are the words of the whole Bible at present as pure as when God first gave them? Yes.
To believe otherwise is to believe contrary to what the word of God in the present says about the word of God in the present.
See you think you can have divinely pure ideas without divinely pure words, which is fundamentally in error. The only way the revelation of Jesus Christ is revealed to us is through words (i.e. Scripture) and from those words we get an idea. If we begin the discussion with some of “those words” are in error then it follows that parts of the ideas are in error which leads to some of the revelation Jesus Christ is in error which results in some of what we know about Jesus Christ is in error. Then out of some other motivation you assume that the errors you hold concerning Jesus Christ have nothing to do with salvation. Your only basis for this assumtion is a revelation of Jesus Christ that you confess has a host of errors.
So you look to a revelation of truth and errors to show that the salvation in that revelation is only truth, and you are too blind to see how obsurd this is.
Brother JayC,
1.) All I have said is that David’s Bible is not the document on which Moses put pen to paper, therefore it is a copy. That‘s all.
2.) David then says by inspiration that God’s word is very pure. There is no aspectual qualifications as to “character”, grammar, syntax, form (verba), method, or content (res). It simply says God’s word is very pure. The my Bible is without a doubt God’s word, I must therefore submit to the Bible and say that it is very pure in all of its aspects (“character”, grammar, syntax, form, method, and content). You on the other hand, refuse to submit to God’s word because mss evidence tells you to read Ps. 119:140 some other preferred way. In your case, mss evidence trumps a clear reading of Scripture. I don’t factor in scribal error or mss evidence because the Bible does not. Simple as that.
If David said, “Because of copyist errors my Bible is missing some of God’s words and some of man’s words have been added, but my Bible is still pure in ‘character’.” Then I would happily yield to God’s word, but nothing of the sort exists, rather David said “Thy word is very pure.”
Brother JayC wrote,
Furthermore, just because Roman Catholics believe something doesn’t make it wrong.I realize this. I wrote a 50+ page paper on the certainty of sacred doctrine primarily out of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. The fact is that Brother Blumer is arguing the pat lines of Roman Catholics as they fought against our forefathers. I encourage you to examine the debate between Bellarmine & Stapleton (Catholic) and William Whitaker (Protestant) and you will see uncanny similarities between Brother Blumer and the Catholic ascription of error toward the Greek and Hebrew. In addition you will see similarities between myself and Whitaker with regard to the preservation and purity of the words of Scripture. The book to read is Disputations on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (c. 1588).
Like I said many moons ago, the Church has been fighting for a long time what you and Brother Blumer have espoused, it just so happens you have taken the side of those who burned us at the stake.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
To answer the post title question, does prefer to be right mean is right? No. That’s why I’ve supported my claims.
This is a rabbit trail anyway… but there is no reason why a teacher of the Bible cannot say “This passage means A or B. I’m not sure which, but I think A is better. Here’s why…”
In fact a teacher who never says this is denying his hearers the opportunity to learn interpretational skills.
…we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. Translators to the Reader, 1611 KJV
As for the trust issue, there is not a single doctrine of Scripture that is gained or lost based on an uncertain manuscript variant. Not one.
1. God’s people are not able through the leading of the Spirit to make copies that contain no errors
2. God’s people are able through the leading of the Spirit to eliminate all errors when they compile the text
Aside from the fact that the Scriptures do not teach #2 (as I’ve shown elsewhere), why would the Spirit be able to do #2 and not do #1?
(I suspect that #1 is a point that has been conceded—at times—due to the overwhelming evidence of scribal error. The problem is that #2 is equally problematic in light of similar evidence.)
[Peter] In the case of David’s view of Scripture, he by inspiration gives us no hint at all that his Bible contained scribal errors. If David by inspiration did not bring it into the conversation then we should not either.Argument from silence. Sometimes silence is significant. In this case, since humans are both weak and wicked, there is no need to say it. Further, silence on that specific point does not equal denial of the point.
[Peter]Better chuck all that Turretin then, I guess. Don’t ask me to quote where he does it but I’m pretty sure there are places where he says the equivalent of “I’m not sure.”[Aaron]You cannot do this with the Bible. If you do not know what the Bible says then you cannot say what the Bible says. It is better to be silent.
- Reader evaluates possibilities, decides meaning A is most likely.
- Reader says he prefers meaning A over the other possibilities.
This is a rabbit trail anyway… but there is no reason why a teacher of the Bible cannot say “This passage means A or B. I’m not sure which, but I think A is better. Here’s why…”
In fact a teacher who never says this is denying his hearers the opportunity to learn interpretational skills.
[Peter] You are arguing your preference which is not an object of faith for you because you do not accept you own preference as an object of faith, nor can you because a preference is uncertain and as such you cannot put your faith in the uncertain.Why can’t I?
[Peter]Not in dispute.[Aaron] The word there is אמרה. What must be decided is whether it means written word, utterance or something more comprehensive.What in the text of Ps. 119:140 removes prophecy, Scripture, or the audible voice of God saying “Samuel, Samuel”? Is God’s word spoken through Samuel and more pure than God’s word written by Samuel under inspiration or vice versa? No.
[Peter]Trustworthiness is not binary. We don’t have to trust that every single word is original in order to trust that the whole is God’s word.[Aaron] It does not follow that if scribes made errors in making copies, the copies are therefore not trustworthy and not pure in character.It most certainly does, because the copy is only God’s word insofar as it contains God’s words much like a tract or …
[Peter]…No one has come out and said, “We have found all the errors in the Bible, for certain.” As a result, the possibility of errors creeping around in the text still exist which means that the reading you think is certain may be in fact erroneous making an air of untrustworthiness about the Bible. So, if you believe there are errors in the Bible then you believe the Bible is not pure and if it is not pure then you cannot trust it.Here, you’re confusing how we’d like things to be with how they are. The fact is that the MSS exist in great abundance and all of them differ from one another. We’d all like to be able to say that we have every word as originally inspired, and yes, that would produce a more confident feeling at times, I suppose. But we don’t get to say that just because we’d like to.
As for the trust issue, there is not a single doctrine of Scripture that is gained or lost based on an uncertain manuscript variant. Not one.
[Peter]Answered that in the next sentence. Which you quoted also…[Aaron] It’s not clear what you mean by “bound,” but if you mean “supported by,” then yes.This is momentous. “Supported” is fine. Where in the Bible does Scriptural support exist?
[Peter]Ran into this reasoning when debating with Kent Brandenburg a while back. Note the claims here:[Aaron] The Bible teaches that humans are both weak and wicked and prone to error in all they do. It does not teach that this essential trait of our being is nullified when we’re making copies of the Bible.I agree but what you are apparently unable to accommodate is the leading of the Spirit through His people…
1. God’s people are not able through the leading of the Spirit to make copies that contain no errors
2. God’s people are able through the leading of the Spirit to eliminate all errors when they compile the text
Aside from the fact that the Scriptures do not teach #2 (as I’ve shown elsewhere), why would the Spirit be able to do #2 and not do #1?
(I suspect that #1 is a point that has been conceded—at times—due to the overwhelming evidence of scribal error. The problem is that #2 is equally problematic in light of similar evidence.)
[Peter] I agree with the latter sentence and I was hoping that you would say that. The fact is that David here is treating his copy of the Bible as pure words that came directly from God even though they came from God to Moses generations before David.Not in dispute. What’s in dispute is whether “pure” means “pure in character” or “containing every word originally inspired.”
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] I agree once again that the change is creaturely. But that change cannot be the object of faith. Do you agree with my last sentence?It’s doubtful that a word all by itself can be said to be “believed.” It needs a phrase at the very least. But if I have a paragraph and one word in it is not certain, can the whole paragraph be trusted as true? Certainly. Likewise, for chapters, books and the whole Bible.
[Peter] I dare say the English Text Debate forums cannot go anywhere until we are able to conclude what the Bible says, and apparently we cannot seeing that something as simple as “Thy word is very pure”.I don’t see any reason why we can’t continue to debate and disagree about what this and many other verses mean.
[Peter]…the Bible is either the object of faith and must therefore be 100% certain or it is not certain and has faith unnaturally foisted upon it.Not in dispute. You don’t have to know you’ve got every word to know you can trust the whole entirely.
[Peter] Nothing is “as pure as God Himself.” But I am not going to go down that road. I have a feeling that since you Bibliology is messed up so also is your Theology Proper.Feel as you like. How can anything that emanates from God be less pure than He is? He would have to add impurity to it as it issues forth.
So now you are saying copies of God’s word are textually pure but even the original was corrupt in character? I admit, I didn’t see that coming.
[Peter] See you think you can have divinely pure ideas without divinely pure wordsI don’t think I said that…. though actually, depending on your use of “pure” that might be true. You seem to be going with my definition here: pure in character. It is possible to have a pronoun where a noun belongs and still have “divinely pure ideas,” yes.
[Peter]…a revelation of Jesus Christ that you confess has a host of errors.You’re kind of ignoring the nature of the errors. It’s well known that no doctrine is jeopardized by the uncertain readings.
[Peter] Like I said many moons ago, the Church has been fighting for a long time what you and Brother Blumer have espoused…You really haven’t supported that claim. If your target is “MSTC,” the church could not possibly have been fighting until the 19th century. I guess that’s “long” to some people. But as it turns out, “the church” has not been fighting that, anyway—though a subset has.
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 wrote,If your claims are supported then why are they not right rather than preferred to be right?
To answer the post title question, does prefer to be right mean is right? No. That’s why I’ve supported my claims.
Brother Blumer wrote,Your hermeneutic once again shows itself very flawed. If the Bible does not say a thing then you say the Bible does not say a thing. You do not say “The Bible says X by not saying X.” Or “The Bible speaks of scribal errors by not speaking of scribal errors.” This is ridiculous.
Argument from silence. Sometimes silence is significant.
The Bible says nothing about alien invasion so is the Bible telling us about alien invasion?
Why can’t you put your faith in something that is uncertain? Because the gift of faith can only be exercised in the true God and what He has revealed. This is a fundamental reason why “faith” in the gods of other religions is not faith. There is only one faith, it is the faith given from the triune God, and there is only one object of that faith, the triune God. The only way to know Jesus Christ who is the revelation of the Father is through the leading of the Holy Spirit in God’s words. Furthermore, faith is both substance and evidence and as such is not merely a possibility. So the object of faith (the triune God), the exercise of faith (belief in divine revelation), and faith itself are real, substantial, and certain.
Brother Blumer wrote,Now what immediately follows in not my idea. It is simply the historical approach to authoritas Scriputrae (the authority of Scripture), which is all in regards to things of the Spirit and therefore transcendent things. The authority of Scripture is based on/derived from the fact that Scripture is inspired. The fact that Scripture is authoritative allows for the notion that Scripture is “trustworthy” (axiopistos) and “trustworthy in itself” (autopistos). So it is the historical approach to have trustworthiness dependent upon authority and authority dependent upon inspiration.
Trustworthiness is not binary. We don’t have to trust that every single word is original in order to trust that the whole is God’s word.
Therefore when dealing with “trustworthy” as an aspect of written divine revelation one must begin with the fact that what is under examination is inspired. If the word(s) is/are inspired then authority follows resulting in trustworthiness. Conversely, if the word(s) is/are not inspired then authority does not follow and as a result neither does trustworthiness. So trustworthiness is binary just as inspiration is binary. A word of Scripture is either inspired or not so also a word of Scripture is trustworthy or not. In sum, a Bible which is admittedly a mixture of inspired words and uninspired words is a mixture of trustworthy and untrustworthy, and is therefore only inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy in part, and to say it is wholly trustworthy while holding that there are untrustworthy parts is literally insane.
I have seen this quote many times from the KJV preface. Enlighten us. What does “meanest” mean pre-1611 in its historical context seeing the English used in the 1611 KJB was older English then the English used by the people of 1611? I would venture a guess you have no idea, still you throw that word around like you know what you are talking about. Of course I could be wrong. I eagerly await your reply.
Brother Blumer wrote,Let us look at it from this perspective. You believe in a God that did not give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration in history. I believe in a God that did give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration in history. If we were both to write a history book on the acts of God you would come to the place where your God did not give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration and I would write one of a God that did give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration. Now our positions on God’s work in history would be very similar but they are not the same. It is in this sense that it becomes evident that we believe in the same God in the 99% and in a different God in the 1%. The question is, Do we believe in the same God? You see, doctrine is at stake when you doubt even a word of Scripture.
As for the trust issue, there is not a single doctrine of Scripture that is gained or lost based on an uncertain manuscript variant. Not one.
God gave by inspiration 1 John 5:7.
God did not give by inspiration 1 John 5:7.
These sentences do not mean the same therefore the same God is not being spoken of in these two sentences. And there is much more. How about the God who gave by inspiration the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark vs. the God who did not give by inspiration the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark.
So there’s 13 verses that my God gave by inspiration that your God did not. Now you are going to say we serve the same God. Laughable.
If you mess with God’s revelation then you mess with your understanding of the nature of that God, and still you say no doctrine is at stake.
Brother Blumer wrote,The fundamental problem between 1 and 2 is the process. In #1 the process of avoiding errors is empirical. Look at the ms or have it read to you and copy what you (1 person) read/hear to the new ms. It is that simple. In #2 the process is much different. God through the preacher preaching, and the lay person reading are lead by the Holy Spirit to accept the self-authenticating words of God because they are inspired and therefore authoritative, two things that can only come to a soul by the leading of the Spirit. Other words pastors preach and lay people read are not self-authenticating which demonstrates they are not inspired and authoritative and the Spirit does not lead concerning them. Such words fall out of use in the text. When new “evidence” arises the “scribes” do their job and then the pastors and lay people look at the Bible with the “changes” and by the Spirit working in His people concerning the self-authenticating words accept the changes if they are inspired and authoritative self-authenticating words/changes.
1. God’s people are not able through the leading of the Spirit to make copies that contain no errors
2. God’s people are able through the leading of the Spirit to eliminate all errors when they compile the text
Aside from the fact that the Scriptures do not teach #2 (as I’ve shown elsewhere), why would the Spirit be able to do #2 and not do #1?
(I suspect that #1 is a point that has been conceded—at times—due to the overwhelming evidence of scribal error. The problem is that #2 is equally problematic in light of similar evidence.)
Brother Blumer we would make it so much further as a Church if you would just say that the NKJV (whatever Bible and Greek and Hebrew you read) is the best English Bible and that all others are inferior and should be rejected. But you won’t, because you are not certain that the NKJV is the best English Bible and that perhaps there is a better one, and as a result you doubt the certainty of your Bible and then pretend to be certain about what it says.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Once again, may I have a definition of “character”?
“Pure” in Ps. 119:140 has to do with the purity of a refined metal. Take gold for instance, the purity of gold is not spoken of as very pure in character but rather is very pure in substance as gold both in its parts (ounces) and as a whole (bar of gold). How is it that purity in this sense, the sense used by David, merely means in character? No metallurgist would call gold pure in character. If it were impure in its parts or as a whole it would be assigned a level of approximat purity as to gold as being gold with mixture of something non-gold. Furthermore, gold is not simply called pure unless it were so. That is why gold is stamped with its purity which is enumerated as something like .999 Pure. This is approximately pure gold because 1/1000th of the stamped ounce or bar is not gold substantively because some other non-gold additive is present. To say this is 100% gold is a lie. It is this sense that David means pure given the word he offers by inspiration.
Be careful using “emanate” outside of these forums because it is a philosophical buzz word of Plotinus and the Gnostics which leads to pantheism or panentheism. God did not emanate. Without necessity God spoke into existence things out of nothing into created space (ad extra) and continues to providentially preserve and govern all of those things by being in their presence while remaining ase. “Emanation” in theological discourse demands necessity, largely ignores speaking, and often denies aseity. “Emanation” is an extremely poor choice of wording, but given that your Bibliology is shot I expect no less from someone whose Theology Proper seems to follow suit.
“For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic (Mine: authoritative) and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith (Mine: You, Brother Blumer, would insert “doctrine” here)…if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater?” Vol. 1 p. 71
It is not well known. The above was the position of the believing community until the mid-1800’s. You simply do not know what you are talking about when you say “It’s well known that no doctrine is jeopardized…”
“Pure” in Ps. 119:140 has to do with the purity of a refined metal. Take gold for instance, the purity of gold is not spoken of as very pure in character but rather is very pure in substance as gold both in its parts (ounces) and as a whole (bar of gold). How is it that purity in this sense, the sense used by David, merely means in character? No metallurgist would call gold pure in character. If it were impure in its parts or as a whole it would be assigned a level of approximat purity as to gold as being gold with mixture of something non-gold. Furthermore, gold is not simply called pure unless it were so. That is why gold is stamped with its purity which is enumerated as something like .999 Pure. This is approximately pure gold because 1/1000th of the stamped ounce or bar is not gold substantively because some other non-gold additive is present. To say this is 100% gold is a lie. It is this sense that David means pure given the word he offers by inspiration.
Brother Blumer wrote,Only to someone who thinks the words of Scripture are of the same power and substance of the words of men, and therefore either both or neither are self-authenticating.
It’s doubtful that a word all by itself can be said to be “believed.”
Brother Blumer wrote,Scripture is the foundation of the argument. Of course we can continue to debate, but no agreement on the meaning of the foundation of faith and theology (Holy Scripture) ensures that there will be no resolution to any discussion now or hereafter.
I don’t see any reason why we can’t continue to debate and disagree about what this and many other verses mean.
I wrote,You cannot trust the whole if the whole is not trustworthy (i.e. not inspired therefore not authoritative).
…the Bible is either the object of faith and must therefore be 100% certain or it is not certain and has faith unnaturally foisted upon it.
Brother Blumer responded,
Not in dispute. You don’t have to know you’ve got every word to know you can trust the whole entirely.
Brother Blumer wrote,Was Adam or Lucifer as pure as God Himself seeing they “emanated” from God as all created things were in the beginning of time? The necessity to ask this question shows your Theology Proper is severely broken.
How can anything that emanates from God be less pure than He is?
Be careful using “emanate” outside of these forums because it is a philosophical buzz word of Plotinus and the Gnostics which leads to pantheism or panentheism. God did not emanate. Without necessity God spoke into existence things out of nothing into created space (ad extra) and continues to providentially preserve and govern all of those things by being in their presence while remaining ase. “Emanation” in theological discourse demands necessity, largely ignores speaking, and often denies aseity. “Emanation” is an extremely poor choice of wording, but given that your Bibliology is shot I expect no less from someone whose Theology Proper seems to follow suit.
Continuing in his poor understanding of Theology Proper Brother Blumer wrote,God’s word in the autograph and apographa are pure in content, substance, form, grammar, syntax, and meaning, but that does not make them “as pure as God Himself”. God is Pure, the Source and Norm of purity. Holy Scripture is not the Source and Norm of purity. It is the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of God who is the Source and Norm of purity for He is Pure. Huge difference. To say everything that emanates for God is “as pure as God Himself” it to say all things created are the Source and Norm of purity which God is. Still, this languages does ties in with your use of emanation that leads to panthesim. Do I think you are pantheist, No, but if someone were to read this 1,000 years from now they would know there was one guy who held that his Bible has no errors and that there was a guy who at least sounded like pantheist while being a Baptist at the same time. You are simply not careful, so to say your Theology Proper is broken is by no means a stretch.
So now you are saying copies of God’s word are textually pure but even the original was corrupt in character?
Brother Blumer wrote,No, because “I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they, us, you, them” is not the same word as nor does it communicate the same idea as “Moses, prophet, or Brother Blumer”. Furthermore to say that it is ok to read “he” instead of “Moses” when God said “Moses” is wrong and to tell God what He said, rather than God telling you is a perversion.
It is possible to have a pronoun where a noun belongs and still have “divinely pure ideas,” yes.
Brother Blumer wrote,Not historically, Turretin wrote,
It’s well known that no doctrine is jeopardized by the uncertain readings.
“For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic (Mine: authoritative) and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith (Mine: You, Brother Blumer, would insert “doctrine” here)…if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater?” Vol. 1 p. 71
It is not well known. The above was the position of the believing community until the mid-1800’s. You simply do not know what you are talking about when you say “It’s well known that no doctrine is jeopardized…”
Brother Blumer wrote,My point in saying this was that in 1588 Whitaker was fighting against the Roman Catholic Church on issues of the perfection, perspicuity, and authority of the Greek and Hebrew apographa. Whitaker maintained that the Greek and Hebrew apographa was indeed exactly the word of God given to the original writers. Bellarmine and Stapleton argued that the Greek and Hebrew apographa was not the word of God of the original writers, which is in essence what you have been arguing. So the Church has been fighting what you and others have been proposing for centuries and longer.
You really haven’t supported that claim. If your target is “MSTC,” the church could not possibly have been fighting until the 19th century.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter]By support I mean “reasons to believe X is true.” The result does not have to be 100% certain.[Aaron]…does prefer to be right mean is right? No. That’s why I’ve supported my claims.If your claims are supported then why are they not right rather than preferred to be right?
[Peter] “The Bible speaks of scribal errors by not speaking of scribal errors.” This is ridiculous.That’s actually your position… that the Bible speaks of scribal/”believing community’ perfection by not speaking of scribal/”believing community” perfection. On the other hand, the Bible does teach that human beings are both weak and wicked and prone to error in all they do. I am not arguing from silence.
[Peter] Why can’t you put your faith in something that is uncertain? Because the gift of faith can only be exercised in the true God and what He has revealed. This is a fundamental reason why “faith” in the gods of other religions is not faith. There is only one faith, it is the faith given from the triune God…I don’t think this is in dispute. That is, my view is that “faith” in the Christian sense is a response to what God has said. But when it is not entirely clear what God has said, we have a less confident faith. Again, I don’t see where the Bible teaches that faith can only exist in two values: 100% or 0%. Many passages speak of increasing faith, which requires something more than 0% but less than 100%. (Luke 17.5, 2Cor.10.15)
[Peter] The authority of Scripture is based on/derived from the fact that Scripture is inspired. The fact that Scripture is authoritative allows for the notion that Scripture is “trustworthy” (axiopistos) and “trustworthy in itself” (autopistos)….On a word by word level, of course, each word is either the one God inspired or it isn’t. Binary. And it’s authority likewise. My point was that you do not have to know you have every word right to know that the whole is trustworthy.
if the word(s) is/are not inspired then authority does not follow and as a result neither does trustworthiness. So trustworthiness is binary just as inspiration is binary. A word of Scripture is either inspired or not so also a word of Scripture is trustworthy or not.
As an analogy, I do not have to believe my office chair is in perfect condition to know I can rest my weight on it. It once was in perfect condition—and the design of the chair is perfect, but my version isn’t anymore, due to its exposure to… me. Still, it holds me up extremely well and I don’t worry at all about its trustworthiness to do that.
[Peter] I have seen this quote many times from the KJV preface. Enlighten us. What does “meanest” mean pre-1611 in its historical context seeing the English used in the 1611 KJB was older English then the English used by the people of 1611? I would venture a guess you have no idea, still you throw that word around like you know what you are talking about. Of course I could be wrong. I eagerly await your reply.“Mean” means common, ordinary or in some cases, of low quality.
[Peter] Let us look at it from this perspective. You believe in a God that did not give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration in history…Actually, I’m not yet certain one way or the other on that passage.
[Peter]… I believe in a God that did give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration in history. If we were both to write a history book on the acts of God you would come to the place where your God did not give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration and I would write one of a God that did give 1 John 5:7 by inspiration. Now our positions on God’s work in history would be very similar but they are not the same. It is in this sense that it becomes evident that we believe in the same God in the 99% and in a different God in the 1%. The question is, Do we believe in the same God? You see, doctrine is at stake when you doubt even a word of Scripture.So, just so I’m clear, your argument here is that if two people have any difference in belief about what God has revealed, they believe in two different Gods?
[Peter]Tell you what, show me a major creed of the church that identifies a “doctrine of God giving 1 John 5:7” and a “doctrine God giving the last 12 verses of Mark” and I’ll concede the point.
God gave by inspiration 1 John 5:7.
God did not give by inspiration 1 John 5:7.
These sentences do not mean the same therefore the same God is not being spoken of in these two sentences. And there is much more. How about the God who gave by inspiration the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark vs. the God who did not give by inspiration the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark.
[Peter] If you mess with God’s revelation then you mess with your understanding of the nature of that God, and still you say no doctrine is at stake.You’ve failed to show how any doctrine of the Christian faith is lost or jeopardized by the passages in question. And the arguments you’ve used really don’t help the traditional text position either. The fact remains that the manuscripts differ and there is no biblical evidence that any group of people has the ability to produce an error free text from them.
[Peter] God through the preacher preaching, and the lay person reading are lead by the Holy Spirit to accept the self-authenticating words of God because they are inspired and therefore authoritative, two things that can only come to a soul by the leading of the Spirit. Other words pastors preach and lay people read are not self-authenticating which demonstrates they are not inspired and authoritative and the Spirit does not lead concerning them.How exactly would a preacher preaching etc. result in a human being—or group—looking at two MSS, knowing whether a phrase should read “Christ gave” or “he gave”? How would “He” or “Christ” “self authenticate”?
[Peter] Such words fall out of use in the text. When new “evidence” arises the “scribes” do their job and then the pastors and lay people look at the Bible with the “changes” and by the Spirit working in His people concerning the self-authenticating words accept the changes if they are inspired and authoritative self-authenticating words/changes.Two things: (a) the Bible does not teach anywhere that this happens and (b) it doesn’t make sense. While this process is going on, even if it only takes days, the people would not have a text they are not certain is word perfect… and all your arguments on the necessity of total certainty for every word defeat your own position.
[Peter]…. and as a result you doubt the certainty of your Bible and then pretend to be certain about what it says.I do not have to believe I have a perfect translation to believe I know what the Bible teaches.
Of course, not all teachings are equally clear, and this is the case in any translation—including the KJV. It doesn’t follow that if I’m less than 100% certain of any particular teaching, then I’m 0% certain I have the word of God and know what it teaches.
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] Once again, may I have a definition of “character”?An ordinary dictionary definition should do… here’s one:
“the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing”
[Peter] How is it that purity in this sense, the sense used by David, merely means in character? No metallurgist would call gold pure in character.The Scriptures are not metal. The term is used figuratively. But a better question is “How is it that purity in this sense… merely means ‘a copy containing every word originally inspired’ ”?
[Peter]OK… I’ll bite. Do you believe this word? The.[Aaron] It’s doubtful that a word all by itself can be said to be “believed.”Only to someone who thinks the words of Scripture are of the same power and substance of the words of men, and therefore either both or neither are self-authenticating.
[Peter] You cannot trust the whole if the whole is not trustworthy (i.e. not inspired therefore not authoritative).Already answered.
[Peter]To answer the question yes, they were. Then they fell.[Aaron] How can anything that emanates from God be less pure than He is?Was Adam or Lucifer as pure as God Himself seeing they “emanated” from God as all created things were in the beginning of time? The necessity to ask this question shows your Theology Proper is severely broken.
Now if we’re talking about holiness, it’s probably accurate to say that anything that is not God is less holy than God… because His holiness is His “apartness.” Whether that applies to His word, I’m not so sure. Because the word exists in His mind. It is, arguably “part of” Him.
I’d be interested in seeing what the theologies say on the point… though it’s a huge rabbit trail as far as this debate goes.
But if we’re talking about righteousness, yes, Adam and Lucifer were created righteous.
So tell me, how would word coming from God become less pure than He is? Where would its impurity come from?
It’s surreal that I’m defending the purity of the Word in a debate with a guy who believes there’s a perfect text. How can there be a perfect text if the word inspires is not as pure as He is? If it is less pure than He is, it is not 100% pure… and, in your reasoning, that makes it 0% trustworthy.
[Peter] “Emanation” is an extremely poor choice of wording, but given that your Bibliology is shot I expect no less from someone whose Theology Proper seems to follow suit.:D I’m pretty sure the Gnostics used the word “spirit” quite a lot, too!
[Peter]…one were to read this 1,000 years from now they would know there was one guy who held that his Bible has no errors and that there was a guy who at least sounded like pantheist while being a Baptist at the same time. You are simply not careful, so to say your Theology Proper is broken is by no means a stretch.If you say so.
[Peter]Actually, a pronoun stands in for its antecedent and there is no essential difference in meaning. There is a slight difference in effect when it’s read. If you replace “Christ” with “He” and “Him” enough times, you have a bit of a different impact. But the meaning is identical.[Aaron] It is possible to have a pronoun where a noun belongs and still have “divinely pure ideas,” yes.No, because “I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they, us, you, them” is not the same word as nor does it communicate the same idea as “Moses, prophet, or Brother Blumer”. Furthermore to say that it is ok to read “he” instead of “Moses” when God said “Moses” is wrong and to tell God what He said, rather than God telling you is a perversion.
Consider a less emotionally loaded example:
- My dog is black. My dog is friendly.
- My dog is black. It is friendly.
But I think we’re losing sight of the point here. The point is that it is possible to understand what is being taught without being completely certain of every word.
[Peter]Well, we need to do a little interpretation of Turretin here, I think.[Aaron] It’s well known that no doctrine is jeopardized by the uncertain readings.Not historically, Turretin wrote,
“For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic (Mine: authoritative) and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith (Mine: You, Brother Blumer, would insert “doctrine” here)…if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater?” Vol. 1 p. 71
- Is he saying it’s impossible to corrupt the Scriptures in how we handle them? Peter would disagree 2 Pet.3:16.
- Or is he saying the Scriptures themselves (in contrast to what people do with them) are immutable and therefore worthy of faith?
It is certainly not clear that he is saying “The differences in MS jeopardize whole doctrines.”
[Peter] My point in saying this was that in 1588 Whitaker was fighting against the Roman Catholic Church on issues of the perfection, perspicuity, and authority of the Greek and Hebrew apographa. Whitaker maintained that the Greek and Hebrew apographa was indeed exactly the word of God given to the original writers. Bellarmine and Stapleton argued that the Greek and Hebrew apographa was not the word of God of the original writers, which is in essence what you have been arguing. So the Church has been fighting what you and others have been proposing for centuries and longer.Well, that’s interesting I guess… but I don’t think anybody is saying the apographa are not the word of God etc. We’re just saying that the copies have some errors in them… which you yourself have acknowledged, so I’m not sure what the point is.
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.
A couple months ago my Dad was benching 370 lbs and tore his rotator cuff. Just yesterday he had it repaired. As a result I will be helping him get around for the next few days. I hope to respond Thursday or Friday.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Take your time. Sorry to hear about your dad. Benching 370 pounds would kill me!
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.
“For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the Scriptures be held as authentic (Mine: authoritative) and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith (Mine: You, Brother Blumer, would insert “doctrine” here)…if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater?” Vol. 1 p. 71
This quote from Turretin is found under the Fifth Question of the Second Topic. The question reads, “Do real contradictions occur in Scripture? Or are there any inexplicable (alyta) passages which cannot be explained and made to harmonize? We deny.” (p. 70)
On the following page Turretin offers the “Statement of the question.” It reads is this manner, “[T] he question is whether they [Mine: mss] so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as the rule of faith and practice.” (p. 71)
Turretin goes on to admit the “negligence of copyists or printers” and that “all acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions.” He then goes on to say, “The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both mss and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages.” (p. 71)
Now Turretin is going to transition from “small corruptions” to a treatment of unimpaired integrity of the words of Scripture. He is able to do this because there is no corruption in mss evidence that cannot be restored and corrected. Three things here: First, W&H clearly stated that all we have ever had was an approximately pure text and that is all we will ever have for the foreseeable future, therefore Scripture will not be restored. Second, MSTC of the last 100 or so years has already yielded that Scripture cannot be restored beyond an approximation to the autographa given the methods used. Third, historic Bibliology held that Scripture had been restored not approximately but completely. It is from this foundation that a discussion of purity and unimpaired integrity spring from. So then Turretin concludes, “Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault by men but in the providence of God…which always diligently took care to correct them.” (Turretin, p. 73)
Now two paragraphs down from this point you encounter the quote at the top of this post. Said paragraph begins with these words, “Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice.” (p. 71)
1.) The above quote concerns Scripture not the treatment of Scripture by people.
2.) Unimpaired integrity characterizes the Scriptures and if not then it cannot be the sole rule of faith.
3.) Integrity (integritas) as used by Turretin in the Latin means, “integrity, soundness of health in body and soul, purity, uprightness.” (Muller, Dictionary, p. 156)
4.) You have said on at least two occasions that we need to separated what you call “the way we would like it to be vs. the way it is” and in both instances you have admitted that the integrity of Scripture is impaired.
Using your definition of character, “the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing” we should conclude that Scripture cannot be the rule of faith unless it is characterized by unimpaired integrity/purity.
Now on to the historical understanding of purity of God’s words, as a fire-tried metal. Consider for a moment Psalm 12:6 which reads, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Note the metallurgical reference again with “silver tried in a furnace of earth.”
Concerning this particular verse Hoornbeeck as part of response to the Arminians, Episcopius and Grotius as well as to the Socinus who “argue levels of truth and authority in the text of Scripture,” writes concerning Ps 12:6 that “ ‘For the whole of Scripture to be pure, perfect, and divine, it is necessary that it be without error.’” then adds that “the purity of Scripture is affirmed throughout [the Scriptures].” (Muller, Post-Reformed, p. 307) So it is the historical position to hold that the purity of Scripture derived from using a metallurgical analogy is in reference to the whole of Scripture being free from error even in “trifling” matters as you will see in the next paragraph.
Hoornbeeck goes on to say “there is nothing in Scripture that is ‘trifling and of not importance,’ as Socinus claimed.”(Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307) My point here is, to argue the line that “there is no doctrine (i.e. important stuff as oppose to not so important or trifling stuff) at stake” while you allow for the impaired integrity of Scripture is a line straight from the playbook of Socinus the “founder” of the Socinians who were heretic opponents of orthodoxy.
This quote from Turretin is found under the Fifth Question of the Second Topic. The question reads, “Do real contradictions occur in Scripture? Or are there any inexplicable (alyta) passages which cannot be explained and made to harmonize? We deny.” (p. 70)
On the following page Turretin offers the “Statement of the question.” It reads is this manner, “[T] he question is whether they [Mine: mss] so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as the rule of faith and practice.” (p. 71)
Turretin goes on to admit the “negligence of copyists or printers” and that “all acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions.” He then goes on to say, “The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both mss and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages.” (p. 71)
Now Turretin is going to transition from “small corruptions” to a treatment of unimpaired integrity of the words of Scripture. He is able to do this because there is no corruption in mss evidence that cannot be restored and corrected. Three things here: First, W&H clearly stated that all we have ever had was an approximately pure text and that is all we will ever have for the foreseeable future, therefore Scripture will not be restored. Second, MSTC of the last 100 or so years has already yielded that Scripture cannot be restored beyond an approximation to the autographa given the methods used. Third, historic Bibliology held that Scripture had been restored not approximately but completely. It is from this foundation that a discussion of purity and unimpaired integrity spring from. So then Turretin concludes, “Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault by men but in the providence of God…which always diligently took care to correct them.” (Turretin, p. 73)
Now two paragraphs down from this point you encounter the quote at the top of this post. Said paragraph begins with these words, “Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice.” (p. 71)
1.) The above quote concerns Scripture not the treatment of Scripture by people.
2.) Unimpaired integrity characterizes the Scriptures and if not then it cannot be the sole rule of faith.
3.) Integrity (integritas) as used by Turretin in the Latin means, “integrity, soundness of health in body and soul, purity, uprightness.” (Muller, Dictionary, p. 156)
4.) You have said on at least two occasions that we need to separated what you call “the way we would like it to be vs. the way it is” and in both instances you have admitted that the integrity of Scripture is impaired.
Using your definition of character, “the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing” we should conclude that Scripture cannot be the rule of faith unless it is characterized by unimpaired integrity/purity.
Now on to the historical understanding of purity of God’s words, as a fire-tried metal. Consider for a moment Psalm 12:6 which reads, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Note the metallurgical reference again with “silver tried in a furnace of earth.”
Concerning this particular verse Hoornbeeck as part of response to the Arminians, Episcopius and Grotius as well as to the Socinus who “argue levels of truth and authority in the text of Scripture,” writes concerning Ps 12:6 that “ ‘For the whole of Scripture to be pure, perfect, and divine, it is necessary that it be without error.’” then adds that “the purity of Scripture is affirmed throughout [the Scriptures].” (Muller, Post-Reformed, p. 307) So it is the historical position to hold that the purity of Scripture derived from using a metallurgical analogy is in reference to the whole of Scripture being free from error even in “trifling” matters as you will see in the next paragraph.
Hoornbeeck goes on to say “there is nothing in Scripture that is ‘trifling and of not importance,’ as Socinus claimed.”(Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307) My point here is, to argue the line that “there is no doctrine (i.e. important stuff as oppose to not so important or trifling stuff) at stake” while you allow for the impaired integrity of Scripture is a line straight from the playbook of Socinus the “founder” of the Socinians who were heretic opponents of orthodoxy.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter]On Turretin’s view… (1) I don’t have a copy, so I can’t really verify that you’ve correctly described his claims and arguments
1.) The above quote concerns Scripture not the treatment of Scripture by people.
2.) Unimpaired integrity characterizes the Scriptures and if not then it cannot be the sole rule of faith.
3.) Integrity (integritas) as used by Turretin in the Latin means, “integrity, soundness of health in body and soul, purity, uprightness.” (Muller, Dictionary, p. 156)
4.) You have said on at least two occasions that we need to separated what you call “the way we would like it to be vs. the way it is” and in both instances you have admitted that the integrity of Scripture is impaired.
(2) I don’t really care all that much. It’s not like we can reduce the whole debate to “Turretin says so, therefore it must be true.” Consequently, it’s probably easiest to just grant for the sake of argument that Turretin believed the text he had was word-for-word identical to what God originally inspired.
The counterargument then is this:
(1) The Bible itself does not promise that any group of human beings will be able to maintain a word-perfect text from the conflicting MSS.
(2) If this view (allegedly Turretin’s) is not revealed, it is arrived at by observation and reasoning.
(3) If it is arrived at by observation and reasoning, it may be refuted by observation and reasoning.
(4) Observation and reasoning tell us that even the traditional text has undergone revision and that—absent of any assurance from God that He will ensure preservation of a word perfect text—we cannot be sure any text we’ve put together is 100% accurate.
Regarding “you have admitted that the integrity of Scripture is impaired”, I believe that would be your language, not mine. The Scriptures are settled forever in heaven. That’s my view. Their integrity cannot be impaired. As for the copies, I would not characterize them as having impaired integrity either, uncertain readings notwithstanding.
[Peter]None of this is in dispute. You’re overworking the metallurgical angle, but regardless, all of us here believe in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
Now on to the historical understanding of purity of God’s words, as a fire-tried metal. Consider for a moment Psalm 12:6 which reads, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Note the metallurgical reference again with “silver tried in a furnace of earth.”
Concerning this particular verse Hoornbeeck as part of response to the Arminians, Episcopius and Grotius as well as to the Socinus who “argue levels of truth and authority in the text of Scripture,” writes concerning Ps 12:6 that “ ‘For the whole of Scripture to be pure, perfect, and divine, it is necessary that it be without error.’” then adds that “the purity of Scripture is affirmed throughout [the Scriptures].” (Muller, Post-Reformed, p. 307) So it is the historical position to hold that the purity of Scripture derived from using a metallurgical analogy is in reference to the whole of Scripture being free from error even in “trifling” matters as you will see in the next paragraph.
[Peter] Hoornbeeck goes on to say “there is nothing in Scripture that is ‘trifling and of not importance,’ as Socinus claimed.”(Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307) My point here is, to argue the line that “there is no doctrine (i.e. important stuff as oppose to not so important or trifling stuff) at stake” while you allow for the impaired integrity of Scripture is a line straight from the playbook of Socinus the “founder” of the Socinians who were heretic opponents of orthodoxy.Note the difference between these two statements:
- Everything the Scriptures reveal is important
- Everything the Scriptures reveal is equally important
The latter is not the historical position of Christians in any age. So, when we say that no doctrine is at stake in the conflicting manuscripts, we mean that nothing is taught in any of the disputed passages that is not taught elsewhere. One could argue that the woman caught in adultery (John 8.1-11) reveals an event that is not revealed elsewhere. This is true, but what the event teaches us is elsewhere.
Even with the manuscripts differing on this and other passages, the Scriptures as we have them remain authoritative, inerrant, true Word of God. As such, they are completely trustworthy in what they teach.
But let’s remember something here: you’re basically arguing that if we don’t have every word with certainty, that means the Bible has no integrity and we’re here in the dark with no reliable revelation. This is basically a results argument: “If you’re right, that would be terrible, therefore you’re wrong.” The argument is obviously faulty if you break it down:
- Premise: Terrible things don’t happen.
- Premise: If your view is true, that would be terrible.
- Conclusion: Your view is false.
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]…For good measure let me quote from Hoornbeeck again, “ ‘If the Holy Scriptures err in some things…our faith in Scripture can be neither certain nor divine.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307)Again, nobody here believes the Scriptures err anywhere.
[Peter] In sum, yes we know that no two MSS agree perfectly, but the Scripture itself and the collation of those MSS which resulted in the Masoretic Hebrew and TR has yielded a pure text, possessing unimpaired integrity.You still haven’t really explained how it’s possible that the mere humans who are not able to make copies without errors are able to make texts without errors. Tossing around the word “self authenticating” doesn’t magically solve the problem. If the words don’t self authenticate when copies are being made, how do they self authenticate when texts are being made?
[Peter]Yes… except maybe for the “pericoretic” part. That’s not a term I use.[Aaron] But when it is not entirely clear what God has said, we have a less confident faith.Funny that you should say this. So are you “entirely clear” on the hypostatic union, that Jesus is all God and all man or that the He is one of three persons in the pericoretic nature of the Triune God?
[Peter]Nice dodge, but Peter, there is no escaping the fact that in your view the believing community perfectly recognizes the self authenticating words. You may not be ascribing the quality of perfection to this community but you are attributing a perfectly executed activity to them.[Aaron] That’s actually your position… that the Bible speaks of scribal/”believing community’ perfection…On the contrary, I speak of the believing community merely recognizing the perfect self-authenticating words of God by the leading of the perfect Holy Spirit. “Perfect” is not ascribed to the believing community but to the perfect words of God by the perfect leading of the Holy Spirit both are taught in Scripture.
The Bible does not teach that this community has this ability.
[Peter] Brother Blumer’s definition of “meanest”:Not relevant. The KJV translators’ point is clear: translations with different words are still rightly called the Word of God and, as such, are trustworthy.
“Mean” means common, ordinary or in some cases, of low quality.
In the historical context, what English “translations“ were in view?
[Peter]… Some people believe God did not give by inspiration 1 John 5:7. I believe in a God that did. So one God did and another did not…So the person who believes Jesus gave an exception to the adulterous nature of divorce in Matt.19 and the person who believes Jesus did not, believe in two different Jesuses. I don’t think many will buy your reasoning in this argument.
[Peter]This does not solve the problem. You’ve take this self authenticating “state of being” and isolated it. Then added an unrelated task of the Spirit guiding the people to know which words are right. This view lacks coherence. But in any case, it begs the question. How does the Spirit lead people to know whether “He” or “Christ” is correct? Do they get a warm feeling when they look at the right reading? Do they evaluate the readings by some criteria?[Aaron] How would “He” or “Christ” “self authenticate”?No, it is self-authenticating. It is not an action it is a state of being. The action is done by the Holy Spirit leading God’s people …
[Peter] When a saint reads the word of God they are called by the Holy Spirit to receive it by faith without doubting any of it. So the believing community got to a point where they were reading the Geneva Bible and then the Bishops Bible came along. They held the Geneva to be the perfect word of God and gave the new comer a shot.Why would they do that if they thought the Geneva was word perfect “by faith without doubting any of it”?
[Peter]This is rabbit trail, but the silliness intrigues me. The word “the” does not affirm anything. The smallest unit of linguistic information that can be believed is a clause: something with a truth value. Have to have a subject and a predicate.[Aaron] Do you believe this word? The.As it appears in God’s word, Yes. Which one, you might say. My answer, all of them.
[Peter] No you don’t get it. Emanation in theology and philosophy is…I get that lots of words have technical meanings in various places. It’s pretty obvious that I was not using the word technically.
I also get that this has nothing at all to do with the traditional text question.
[Peter] An idea can only be divinely pure as it is divinely given. If God did not give “He” then the idea drawn from it is not divine. To say the Bible reads “He” instead of “Christ” when the inspired word is “Christ” is to ascribe God’s name to something God did not say which is a form of blasphemy.You’re mixing different things here. The question was whether it’s possible to have conflicting readings in a couple of MSS and both give us the same meaning. It is possible.
As for attributing words to God that are not His… this is another reason why it isn’t wise to claim that the traditional text is word perfect.
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,
I accidentally edited your post #244 instead of replying. I’ve moved my edit into a reply now, but there doesn’t seem to be any way to put your post back the way it was.
You didn’t save a copy in a text editor by any chance, did you?
Sorry about that. I’m going to blame it on the dog whining at me… (closest I can get to “my dog ate it”)
I accidentally edited your post #244 instead of replying. I’ve moved my edit into a reply now, but there doesn’t seem to be any way to put your post back the way it was.
You didn’t save a copy in a text editor by any chance, did you?
Sorry about that. I’m going to blame it on the dog whining at me… (closest I can get to “my dog ate 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.
Discussion