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
Your questions Brother Jay C
1. How do you know that the KJB is the ‘final product’ or ‘conclusion’ of these works?
The King James Bible is the final product as of now. As for the conclusion, I do not know the movement of the Spirit for the unforeseeable future.
2. By what means do we know that this absolutely the work of God and not the work of Satan, trying to spread lies and deceit about the revelation of one final and authoritative text family.
We know that they are not Satan’s words the same way we know our salvation is not of Satan, by the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit through the words of God.
If you disagree I pose this question. How do you know that the salvation message of the Bible is not just lies from Satan?
3. By what means will we ever know of a new divine act that gives us an updated language for the KJB? Can such a thing ever happen?
Such a thing can happen. The Holy Spirit by the word of God would direct His people to do such a thing. In fact, the English of the 1611 KJB was older than the English read and spoken by English speakers of 1611, so it appears the Holy Spirit lead His people to accept the opposite of “updated language”.
4. How can we know God’s revelation in another 500 years?
While the believing community will change in that dead saints will be replaced with the living saints; the Holy Spirit cannot change nor will His word in the apographa. The translation may receive an update and a new name but the substantia doctrina will be the same and the unchanging substantia verba and doctrina of the standard sacred apographa will be its basis.
In addition to quoting Turretin for the representative quality of the work, I also quote from him because I know him the best of all the systematic theologies I have read. I have more underlines, checks, dog-eared pages, and highlights in Vol. 1 than any of my other books. In fact the print on the spine of Vol. 1 has begun to fade because of use. So I hope you can see that I quote from him because he most readily comes to my mind.
1. How do you know that the KJB is the ‘final product’ or ‘conclusion’ of these works?
The King James Bible is the final product as of now. As for the conclusion, I do not know the movement of the Spirit for the unforeseeable future.
2. By what means do we know that this absolutely the work of God and not the work of Satan, trying to spread lies and deceit about the revelation of one final and authoritative text family.
We know that they are not Satan’s words the same way we know our salvation is not of Satan, by the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit through the words of God.
If you disagree I pose this question. How do you know that the salvation message of the Bible is not just lies from Satan?
3. By what means will we ever know of a new divine act that gives us an updated language for the KJB? Can such a thing ever happen?
Such a thing can happen. The Holy Spirit by the word of God would direct His people to do such a thing. In fact, the English of the 1611 KJB was older than the English read and spoken by English speakers of 1611, so it appears the Holy Spirit lead His people to accept the opposite of “updated language”.
4. How can we know God’s revelation in another 500 years?
While the believing community will change in that dead saints will be replaced with the living saints; the Holy Spirit cannot change nor will His word in the apographa. The translation may receive an update and a new name but the substantia doctrina will be the same and the unchanging substantia verba and doctrina of the standard sacred apographa will be its basis.
Brother Jay C wrote,I will try to make this as clear as possible. To say Turretin is simply a historian is to ignore the historical significance of the work. Turretin’s Institutes are representative of the formulation of Protestant Scholasticism or High Orthodoxy in the late 16th and early 17th century even until the mid-19th century. To say, are there “any kind of church historian (other than Turretin..” is to pretend that his voice is his alone. It is like saying, the Westminster Confession of Faith is only one voice, so I need you to show me more sources before I can believe this was the position of the Church. Turretin’s Institutes were perhaps the first comprehensive systematic theology of Protestant dogma, which he then taught at the Academy of Geneva and remained the mainstay of the theological community through mid-19th century Princeton. Do not take Turretin alone. He represents the theology of the Protestant movement of his time which is not a theory, but sacred doctrine held by God’s people.
…where there is any kind of church historian (other than Turretin and Hoornbeeck, whom you’ve already referenced) that develops this theory.
In addition to quoting Turretin for the representative quality of the work, I also quote from him because I know him the best of all the systematic theologies I have read. I have more underlines, checks, dog-eared pages, and highlights in Vol. 1 than any of my other books. In fact the print on the spine of Vol. 1 has begun to fade because of use. So I hope you can see that I quote from him because he most readily comes to my mind.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
The Westminster Divines, London Confessions, Turretin, etc., used “immediate inspiration” rather than “inspiration” to refer to the “autograph-only” act. They considered copies to be fully inspired (quality) where accurate. Spurgeon made similar statements. Up until Warfield, “inspiration” was either the quality or combined the act and the quality. Inspiration / theopneustos was never only the act.
Warfield / A.A. Hodge made inspiration / theopneustos only the act. They specifically said they were narrowing the usage beyond historical usage, and admitted in not quite so many words that they were narrowing it beyond Biblical usage as well. Thus, since only originals were “immediately inspired,” and Warfield redefined “inspiration” / theopneustos to be equal to “immediately inspired”, for Warfield only the originals were inspired. Warfield would have rejected the statement you made earlier, that you can say the Bible you hold is inspired. Inspiration is something that only applies to the autographs — and many seminaries/theologians today will say the same.
Now that Aaron has clarified, I believe he holds a much better view than Warfield’s. He is willing to talk about inspiration (quality) as extending beyond the originals. He still talks about inspiration (act) as being limited to the originals, which is accurate, but in my opinion a non-optimal use of a Biblical word (inspiration). But I don’t really disagree with his statement, and I think it is pretty close to the Westminster Divines as well, now that he’s clarified. I just think his terminology could use some sharpening, especially because we live in a world where Warfield and many contemporary theologians limit theopneustos / inspiration only to the originals.
Aaron, I would guess, thinks my terminology may be giving “comfort” to a KJVO double inspiration heresy. I think his terminology is lending support, whether he means to or not, to a “dead Bible” error which at least implies that the divine quality is limited to manuscripts that don’t exist any more. I recognise his concern, but my answer is that I’m using the word theopneustos the way Paul did, and the solution is not to reject that usage, but rather to reject second act of inspiration abuses of it.
I’m guessing Aaron likes the term “derived inspiration.” Dr. McCune uses that in his Systematic Theology, and Bahnsen said something similar. I understand why — the divine nature is “derived” from the original act. So I agree with what they are saying, but disagree with the terminology, because it isn’t consistent with the Biblical usage of theopneustos. It obviously implies the act, but it is primarily focused on the nature which resulted from that act. Grammar, context, and connotations point that way, and the history of the interpretation does, too (until 1881, anyway).
Perhaps this approach will help demonstrate.
Westminster Divines/Turretin/Pink (and little old me ;)):
Original act (autographs) is called “immediate inspiration”. (I prefer “inspired inscripturation”, but won’t quibble).
Continuing quality (in successor mss as well) resulting from original act is called “inspiration” / theopneustos.
Warfield / A.A. Hodge / at least two of my BJU professors / many other theologians:
Original act (autographs) is called “inspiration” / theopneustos. (admitted to redefining the word narrowly)
Continuing quality (in successor mss) — “Word of God”, but you can’t use “inspired”, because inspiration refers only to the original act, and applies only to the original autographs
McCune / Bahnsen:
Original act (autographs) is called “inspiration” / theopneustos.
Continuing quality (copies, even to an extent translations) is called “derived inspiration”.
Aaron is mostly in group three, I think. He’ll obviously speak for himself, but I’m going to give my impression because that’s the best way for me to find out if I’m reading him right, and so he can shoot me down if I’m an idiot, which happens more often than I’d like. Here’s Aaron:
Original act (autographs) is “act of inspiration”.
Continuing quality (copies, translations to an extent) is called “quality of inspiration”.
That isn’t exactly group three, and I like it better than group three. I don’t really like “act of inspiration” for original act, because “inspiration” Biblically is focused on quality, not act, so it can confuse people — but “immediate inspiration” has the same problem, so this is a mere quibble. I don’t like “quality of inspiration” for the continuing quality, because “inspiration”/theopneustos IS quality, and it confuses the picture somewhat. But Aaron, as stated in his last post, was closer to the Biblical usage of theopneustos than group two (by far) or group three (slightly better). He didn’t sound like that at all earlier, which is at least part of the reason we went around and around so much. That’s probably at least partly my fault.
Warfield / A.A. Hodge made inspiration / theopneustos only the act. They specifically said they were narrowing the usage beyond historical usage, and admitted in not quite so many words that they were narrowing it beyond Biblical usage as well. Thus, since only originals were “immediately inspired,” and Warfield redefined “inspiration” / theopneustos to be equal to “immediately inspired”, for Warfield only the originals were inspired. Warfield would have rejected the statement you made earlier, that you can say the Bible you hold is inspired. Inspiration is something that only applies to the autographs — and many seminaries/theologians today will say the same.
Now that Aaron has clarified, I believe he holds a much better view than Warfield’s. He is willing to talk about inspiration (quality) as extending beyond the originals. He still talks about inspiration (act) as being limited to the originals, which is accurate, but in my opinion a non-optimal use of a Biblical word (inspiration). But I don’t really disagree with his statement, and I think it is pretty close to the Westminster Divines as well, now that he’s clarified. I just think his terminology could use some sharpening, especially because we live in a world where Warfield and many contemporary theologians limit theopneustos / inspiration only to the originals.
Aaron, I would guess, thinks my terminology may be giving “comfort” to a KJVO double inspiration heresy. I think his terminology is lending support, whether he means to or not, to a “dead Bible” error which at least implies that the divine quality is limited to manuscripts that don’t exist any more. I recognise his concern, but my answer is that I’m using the word theopneustos the way Paul did, and the solution is not to reject that usage, but rather to reject second act of inspiration abuses of it.
I’m guessing Aaron likes the term “derived inspiration.” Dr. McCune uses that in his Systematic Theology, and Bahnsen said something similar. I understand why — the divine nature is “derived” from the original act. So I agree with what they are saying, but disagree with the terminology, because it isn’t consistent with the Biblical usage of theopneustos. It obviously implies the act, but it is primarily focused on the nature which resulted from that act. Grammar, context, and connotations point that way, and the history of the interpretation does, too (until 1881, anyway).
Perhaps this approach will help demonstrate.
Westminster Divines/Turretin/Pink (and little old me ;)):
Original act (autographs) is called “immediate inspiration”. (I prefer “inspired inscripturation”, but won’t quibble).
Continuing quality (in successor mss as well) resulting from original act is called “inspiration” / theopneustos.
Warfield / A.A. Hodge / at least two of my BJU professors / many other theologians:
Original act (autographs) is called “inspiration” / theopneustos. (admitted to redefining the word narrowly)
Continuing quality (in successor mss) — “Word of God”, but you can’t use “inspired”, because inspiration refers only to the original act, and applies only to the original autographs
McCune / Bahnsen:
Original act (autographs) is called “inspiration” / theopneustos.
Continuing quality (copies, even to an extent translations) is called “derived inspiration”.
Aaron is mostly in group three, I think. He’ll obviously speak for himself, but I’m going to give my impression because that’s the best way for me to find out if I’m reading him right, and so he can shoot me down if I’m an idiot, which happens more often than I’d like. Here’s Aaron:
Original act (autographs) is “act of inspiration”.
Continuing quality (copies, translations to an extent) is called “quality of inspiration”.
That isn’t exactly group three, and I like it better than group three. I don’t really like “act of inspiration” for original act, because “inspiration” Biblically is focused on quality, not act, so it can confuse people — but “immediate inspiration” has the same problem, so this is a mere quibble. I don’t like “quality of inspiration” for the continuing quality, because “inspiration”/theopneustos IS quality, and it confuses the picture somewhat. But Aaron, as stated in his last post, was closer to the Biblical usage of theopneustos than group two (by far) or group three (slightly better). He didn’t sound like that at all earlier, which is at least part of the reason we went around and around so much. That’s probably at least partly my fault.
First a minor quibble:
Second, from my post 281 I would be interested if you could find the time to address the following paragraph:
If this is so, then if the combined popularity of the critical text and its translations among the believing community surpasses the popularity of the TR and its translations, would you then affirm the critical text? I don’t think I’m quite following you on this point. Nor do I think you’ve at all answered my question about “10 of 12 changes”.
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] II Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture”, but in the historic context of the verse Paul’s direct referent is the O.T. of which only copies existed.It doesn’t really change your point, but I believe the direct referent was not merely the OT. In the prior verse, Paul used a hapax legomenon for “holy Scriptures” — nowhere else used in the NT, but it was in common usage in Jewish writings referring to the OT. Then, in verse 16 he returns to the normal graphe. The contrast seems rather pointed — we’re moving away from just the OT to “all graphe”.
Second, from my post 281 I would be interested if you could find the time to address the following paragraph:
[JG] What Peter hasn’t engaged with as well as I would like is the difficulty, at times, of determining in some few cases exactly what the believing community has attested. There are TR differences. How are you going to decide which is the reading which the believing community has attested? Which TR is right? What if the newest TR was accepted by the believing community because it got 10 out of 12 changes right, rather than all 12? There are differences between the majority text and the TR. Why do we decide for the TR when the believing community, before the TR, appeared to be attesting the majority text? There are some cases where the “majority” is hard to determine. What is the attestation of the believing community in such a case? Etc.Now, in light of that, I’ve read this post you’ve just written, and you seem to be suggesting that the believing community’s attestation can change, and therefore we must assume that the latest attestation is the right one. So, a newer TR is the right TR.
If this is so, then if the combined popularity of the critical text and its translations among the believing community surpasses the popularity of the TR and its translations, would you then affirm the critical text? I don’t think I’m quite following you on this point. Nor do I think you’ve at all answered my question about “10 of 12 changes”.
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] 2. By what means do we know that this absolutely the work of God and not the work of Satan, trying to spread lies and deceit about the revelation of one final and authoritative text family.Peter,
We know that they are not Satan’s words the same way we know our salvation is not of Satan, by the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit through the words of God.
I think this is the closest you have come anywhere in this thread, at least that I can remember seeing, to explaining in what way you see the Spirit communicating with believers. First, to the verse you cite. I assume you are referencing Romans 8:16. I believe the context and grammar there describe the Spirit acting along side us, not toward us. Second, this is also better aligned with the rest of Scripture, where there is never any indication anywhere of some kind of mystical impulse used to give direction to the believer. God speaks to us through His word. Period. This has been part of the reason for this vein of questioning being repeated throughout the thread.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[JG] You are advocating that it means ex-spiration, that the Scriptures are special because they were breathed out by God, but that action of God really finished when He completed the act of giving them. My view is that God breathed into the Scriptures and they still breathe the breath of God, living and life-giving, and that this is the force of the word as it describes the divine nature/quality of the Scriptures.It’s true that I am saying what we call “inspiration” is really ex-spiration, or perhaps just spiration. Several theologies discuss this point specifically.
What I can’t figure out is why anyone would want to introduce confusion between what God does when He breathes life into creatures made of dust, etc., and what the Spirit did when He moved men of old to communicate God’s word. These are not the same thing.
In the sense you are talking about “inspiration” (God breathing life into things), I’m inspired every day of my life.
Whatever term we use for the unique miracle of God transmitting His word to us through human writers, it needs to be a term we use exclusively for that activity. Since we’ve got centuries worth of theology using “inspiration” for that, I can’t see an advantage to tampering with 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.
I’m just going back to what was believed before him. Theopneustos/inspiration was never, as far as I can find, used exclusively for God transmitting His Word to us through human writers until 1881.
Warfield and A.A. Hodge, Tractate on Inspiration, 1881:
Who used that narrow definition before Warfield and Hodge? Find one for me, because I can’t find even one person before them who said things like that last sentence I quoted. They admitted they were narrowing it, more narrowly than Scriptural usage. I wonder what they thought the Scriptural usage was, don’t you?
For centuries, in multiple languages, it has been “inspiration” and you acknowledge that your view is ex-spiration or spiration. On whose side is history? Though Pink came after Warfield, he still held the historic view. Goodrick has tried to go back to it.
And I’m not “introducing confusion” between Genesis 2:7 and the giving of the Word, I’m saying that Genesis 2:7 and many other passages show that the breath of God has life-giving connotations, physically and/or spiritually. Not denotations, connotations — but connotations are a vital part of the meaning of a word.
The only reason I’m “introducing confusion” is because it is a paradigm shift, because we’ve let Warfield’s “narrower than Scriptural usage” redefinition set the paradigm and I’m no longer accepting his paradigm. Paradigm shifts are always confusing at first.
Don’t like my exegesis? Try Goodrick in http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/25/25-4/25-4-pp479-487_JETS.pdf] JETS . I don’t think he gets everything right, but he’s mostly right.
Warfield and A.A. Hodge, Tractate on Inspiration, 1881:
The history of theology is full of parallel instances, in which terms of the highest import have come to be accepted in a more fixed and narrow sense than they bore at first either in scriptural or early ecclesiastical usage (emphasis mine).
We have restricted the word “Inspiration” to a narrower sphere than that in which it has been used by many in the past.
We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text, was inspired (emphasis mine).I’m not making this up, those are their words (did you read it when I linked to their redefinition before? If not, why are you talking about tampering at all? Do you not care about tampering when Warfield does it?)
Who used that narrow definition before Warfield and Hodge? Find one for me, because I can’t find even one person before them who said things like that last sentence I quoted. They admitted they were narrowing it, more narrowly than Scriptural usage. I wonder what they thought the Scriptural usage was, don’t you?
For centuries, in multiple languages, it has been “inspiration” and you acknowledge that your view is ex-spiration or spiration. On whose side is history? Though Pink came after Warfield, he still held the historic view. Goodrick has tried to go back to it.
And I’m not “introducing confusion” between Genesis 2:7 and the giving of the Word, I’m saying that Genesis 2:7 and many other passages show that the breath of God has life-giving connotations, physically and/or spiritually. Not denotations, connotations — but connotations are a vital part of the meaning of a word.
The only reason I’m “introducing confusion” is because it is a paradigm shift, because we’ve let Warfield’s “narrower than Scriptural usage” redefinition set the paradigm and I’m no longer accepting his paradigm. Paradigm shifts are always confusing at first.
Don’t like my exegesis? Try Goodrick in http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/25/25-4/25-4-pp479-487_JETS.pdf] JETS . I don’t think he gets everything right, but he’s mostly right.
Because of the way in which graphe is used to identify fallible copies and fallible translations, because of the vague edges of the meanings of theopneustos, and especially because of the purpose of the sentence and paragraph in which it is found, one should hardly enlist 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support the pristine character of the autographs. Rather, he should exploit it to the full to demonstrate how valuable the God-breathed Scriptures are.Theopneustos is first and foremost a description of the quality, not the act. The act is only implicit. Iit is inspired, not ex-spired. The whole history of interpretation, as far as I can see, was that the breath of God was and continues to be in the Scriptures, and imparted by them. That is their nature / quality, and that is what theopneustos clearly means in context — what they are for us today as a result of the original act.
I don’t have a lot of time, but let me respond to this:
I’ll get to your other post later - maybe this weekend - but how do you not see the illogic of your position? You’ve basically said that God reveals a word perfect text - and argue for that - and then admit that God may re-introduce a better version of that text for Christians to use.. If the SST is word perfect and without error, then how could God introduce or lead people to a ‘more perfect’ text?
You have said the following:
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.]Actually, since you’re the one that is arguing for the SST position - a position that is ‘new’ to SI and is without a shred of Scriptural evidence or historical support - it’s incumbent upon you to provide proof for a (relatively) very new idea that God has preserved His word in one specific text type or family (that underlies the translation you want us to use). That goes doubly so since you’re the one that came to SI with the intent of teaching us all that we are wrong and that we need to believe in and defend the SST position.[Jay] But HOW do you know that the KJB tradition is the one that God wants us to follow?My first reply is, How do you know it is not? If it is the undisputed traditional text of the believing community of the English speaking world for nearly 400 years, why do I have to prove that it is. I’ll let history speak for itself. It seems the burden of proof for why we need to abandon that tradition rest with you.
You keep going back to “the believing community says so”. That’s not a good enough reason if you are going to posit that God is divinely preserving the texts that underlie one translation.
I’ll get to your other post later - maybe this weekend - but how do you not see the illogic of your position? You’ve basically said that God reveals a word perfect text - and argue for that - and then admit that God may re-introduce a better version of that text for Christians to use.. If the SST is word perfect and without error, then how could God introduce or lead people to a ‘more perfect’ text?
You have said the following:
The King James Bible is the final product as of now. As for the conclusion, I do not know the movement of the Spirit for the unforeseeable future.
3. By what means will we ever know of a new divine act that gives us an updated language for the KJB? Can such a thing ever happen?
Such a thing can happen. The Holy Spirit by the word of God would direct His people to do such a thing. In fact, the English of the 1611 KJB was older than the English read and spoken by English speakers of 1611, so it appears the Holy Spirit lead His people to accept the opposite of “updated language”.
While the believing community will change in that dead saints will be replaced with the living saints; the Holy Spirit cannot change nor will His word in the apographa. The translation may receive an update and a new name but the substantia doctrina will be the same and the unchanging substantia verba and doctrina of the standard sacred apographa will be its basis.The really ironic part is that you’ve defeated your own argument when you said:
[Post #24] The common response from the Multiple Version Only (MVO) position is that all of the hundreds of versions are equal or the same. This reasoning ignores a fundamental of logical reasoning, Two things that are different cannot be equal/the same. To make this principle more appropriate to the discussion, Hundreds of things that are different cannot be the same and as such do not bear equal/the same authority.It seems to me that what you basically have to wind up arguing for is continuing re-inspiration (or at best, new revelation from the Spirit) whenever we need a new translation. That’s a road I will not go down, but maybe you can clarify for us if I misunderstand.
"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
JG,
The point isn’t really what word is the right one. The point is that Scripture nowhere equates or confuses the act of the Spirit moving men to write His words vs. the breathing of life into people.
It isn’t wise to confuse those things. Personally, I think it’s obvious that at this point in time, “inspiration” is the right word for the unique work of theopneustos.
(By the way, I know you’re aware of this, but some readers might not be: theopneustos occurs only once in Scripture and only in reference to Scripture).
On an earlier point… words vs. documents
“it isn’t the words that matter” means the same thing as “the words don’t matter”
And I made neither of these statements.
Quite the contrary. My argument was that the words and the documents cannot be separated because we do not have Scripture until we have autographs.
Your thinking on the words vs. documents question is built on a false disjunction: that either the words must matter or the documents must matter. The reality is that the documents only matter if the words do… and they matter in direct proportion to how much the words do.
It isn’t valid to construe concern about the documents into lack of concern about the words.
Another clarification on an earlier point: Paul did not apply theopneustos specifically to a translation. He applied it to “Scripture.” This is just the grammar of the sentence. But he also made no distinction between “Scripture” and “translation of Scripture” in the passage, because there was no need to do that.
The difference is important because, given the errors of our age, we need to make sure people understand that “inspiredness” is a quality translations have only contingently: that is, they have it in relation to something that God inspired. God has not inspired any translations and the Bible does not claim that God inspired any translations. Rather, translations have that quality in degrees because they are more or less closely related to what God did inspire.
In the end, I suppose whether it’s a good idea to be clear on these points or use terms that obscure them is a matter of judgment. So, I realize that “it’s right to be clear because it’s obviously right to be clear” is not an argument. Nonetheless it’s how I see that point.
I guess I’ve already made some actual arguments from the purpose of theology, the purpose of doctrinal statements, the relationship between what we say on a doctrine to the errors of our own day, etc.
I don’t think I can be any more clear than I already have on those points.
The point isn’t really what word is the right one. The point is that Scripture nowhere equates or confuses the act of the Spirit moving men to write His words vs. the breathing of life into people.
It isn’t wise to confuse those things. Personally, I think it’s obvious that at this point in time, “inspiration” is the right word for the unique work of theopneustos.
(By the way, I know you’re aware of this, but some readers might not be: theopneustos occurs only once in Scripture and only in reference to Scripture).
On an earlier point… words vs. documents
“it isn’t the words that matter” means the same thing as “the words don’t matter”
And I made neither of these statements.
Quite the contrary. My argument was that the words and the documents cannot be separated because we do not have Scripture until we have autographs.
Your thinking on the words vs. documents question is built on a false disjunction: that either the words must matter or the documents must matter. The reality is that the documents only matter if the words do… and they matter in direct proportion to how much the words do.
It isn’t valid to construe concern about the documents into lack of concern about the words.
Another clarification on an earlier point: Paul did not apply theopneustos specifically to a translation. He applied it to “Scripture.” This is just the grammar of the sentence. But he also made no distinction between “Scripture” and “translation of Scripture” in the passage, because there was no need to do that.
The difference is important because, given the errors of our age, we need to make sure people understand that “inspiredness” is a quality translations have only contingently: that is, they have it in relation to something that God inspired. God has not inspired any translations and the Bible does not claim that God inspired any translations. Rather, translations have that quality in degrees because they are more or less closely related to what God did inspire.
In the end, I suppose whether it’s a good idea to be clear on these points or use terms that obscure them is a matter of judgment. So, I realize that “it’s right to be clear because it’s obviously right to be clear” is not an argument. Nonetheless it’s how I see that point.
I guess I’ve already made some actual arguments from the purpose of theology, the purpose of doctrinal statements, the relationship between what we say on a doctrine to the errors of our own day, etc.
I don’t think I can be any more clear than I already have on those points.
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.
[Aaron Blumer] The point is that Scripture nowhere equates or confuses the act of the Spirit moving men to write His words vs. the breathing of life into people.Nor do I confuse them, but the first, the act (inspired inscripturation) results in the second — the words are life and give life. We can discard the “confusion” argument — one results in the other. That is connection, not confusion.
[Aaron Blumer] theopneustos occurs only once in Scripture and only in reference to Scripture).Yes. Pneo (“breathe”) from which it is derived IS used extensively, along with its derivative pneuma (“spirit”/”breath”). How does the Scripture refer to the pneuma/breath of God? Life-giving (Genesis, Job, John 3, etc, etc).
The evidence for the ex-spired view is etymology alone, a lousy way to determine a word’s meaning. Connotations, context, grammatical structure, interpretive history, it all points away from that view. God didn’t put “was” before theopneustos, or use an aorist passive indicative of pneo, or perfect passive for that matter. Verbs are so good for actions, but Paul had to go and use a pesky adjective. It would be so easy to shoot me down if he’d written it the way you or Warfield would have. :)
[Aaron Blumer] “it isn’t the words that matter” means the same thing as “the words don’t matter”You attributed the latter to me when I didn’t say it. I asserted that only the words matter, not the paper. You denied it, and I was referring to your denial. I wasn’t accusing you of saying the words don’t matter, I was speaking of your denial that the words are the only thing that matters. In isolation, those two statements are very similar. In context, they are far different. Miscommunication. It matters little, I think what we are each saying is much clearer now.
And I made neither of these statements.
[Aaron Blumer] My argument was that the words and the documents cannot be separated because we do not have Scripture until we have autographs.In the entire process of dictation, writing, destruction of mss, re-dictation, re-inscripturation, in Jer. 36, when were (and weren’t) those words inspired “prophecy of Scripture”? Ten Commandments. Writing, destruction, re-writing, inscribing by Moses in Exodus. When were they and were they not Scripture? What is the original autograph of the Ten Commandments, if it is the document that matters? If it is the stone tablets, was Moses’ writing in Exodus 20 “inspired”? When did the Proverbs of Solomon become “prophecy of Scripture”, when he wrote them or when Hezekiah’s men copied them? Or if Solomon dictated them to a scribe, when he spoke them or when the scribe wrote them? Of course the words and documents can be separated. When the autographs perished, they were separated for all time.
The pieces of paper are the means by which God began conveying those words to all generations. Inscripturation did not imbue the words with any quality that they lacked when they were placed by God in the mind/mouth of the writer/prophet with the sovereign intent that they would eventually be preserved by inscripturation. Once given, whether yet written or not, they were inspired prophecy of Scripture.
[Aaron Blumer] Your thinking on the words vs. documents question is built on a false disjunction: that either the words must matter or the documents must matter. The reality is that the documents only matter if the words do… and they matter in direct proportion to how much the words do.No, my thinking is built on Scripture — A) the use of “spake” in II Peter 1:21 referring to “prophecy of Scripture”, which means when spoken they were already “prophecy of Scripture” even if not yet inscripturated B) the difficulty of even identifying the autograph in cases like Jer. 36 C) God’s Word is settled in heaven where there are no autographs, and undoubtedly was before autographs existed D) my certainty that the words of Jeremiah were Scripture in the interlude when they weren’t written anywhere E) the Scriptural emphasis on words F) the complete absence of statements that even mention autographs.
Yes, documents only matter if words do.
No, documents don’t matter in direct proportion to the words. I understand, even agree a little, but you can’t say that. Words are eternal, documents perish.
Yet, you are right in one respect. Not the document, but the act of writing matters. Inscripturation, the act of writing, was the earnest of God’s commitment to provide the words to believers of all generations. That certainly matters.
[Aaron Blumer] It isn’t valid to construe concern about the documents into lack of concern about the words.I never said you didn’t care about the words. All I construed was that you didn’t believe it is only the words that matter. I could have been clearer, though.
[Aaron Blumer] Another clarification on an earlier point: Paul did not apply theopneustos specifically to a translation. He applied it to “Scripture.” This is just the grammar of the sentence. But he also made no distinction between “Scripture” and “translation of Scripture” in the passage, because there was no need to do that.I think we’re close. I’ll suggest small modifications. Paul did not apply theopneustos exclusively to a translation. He applied it to Scripture generally. The context clearly has Timothy’s translation-in-hand in view, and he makes no distinction between it and Scripture generally, so translated Scripture is manifestly included in theopneustos.
Is that better?
[Aaron Blumer]Sigh. :) I agree with what you are saying, and object to using “inspired” to say it, because you are expiring inspired — turning it into the historical act again.
The difference is important because, given the errors of our age, we need to make sure people understand that “inspiredness” is a quality translations have only contingently: that is, they have it in relation to something that God inspired. God has not inspired any translations and the Bible does not claim that God inspired any translations. Rather, translations have that quality in degrees because they are more or less closely related to what God did inspire.
Ruckman does not present a serious Bibliology, and while I’ll refute it as needed, I’m not going to let his error frame the terms of how I express mine.
BTW, your argument that the “ex-spired” view is needed to oppose second act inspiration falls flat. That’s not where it came from. Warfield taught it before Ruckman’s second act inspiration was on the scene. It had nothing to do with Ruckmanism.
[Aaron Blumer] In the end, I suppose whether it’s a good idea to be clear on these points or use terms that obscure them is a matter of judgment. So, I realize that “it’s right to be clear because it’s obviously right to be clear” is not an argument. Nonetheless it’s how I see that point.Usage should match Biblical usage. Theopneustos is not a technical term, it’s a practical one. Context demands we see it as practical, not technical. If we need a technical term, we should use extra-Biblical terms like inscripturation, rather than the Biblical “inspiration”.
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] I will try to make this as clear as possible. To say Turretin is simply a historian is to ignore the historical significance of the work. Turretin’s Institutes are representative of the formulation of Protestant Scholasticism or High Orthodoxy in the late 16th and early 17th century even until the mid-19th century. To say, are there “any kind of church historian (other than Turretin..” is to pretend that his voice is his alone. It is like saying, the Westminster Confession of Faith is only one voice, so I need you to show me more sources before I can believe this was the position of the Church. Turretin’s Institutes were perhaps the first comprehensive systematic theology of Protestant dogma, which he then taught at the Academy of Geneva and remained the mainstay of the theological community through mid-19th century Princeton. Do not take Turretin alone. He represents the theology of the Protestant movement of his time which is not a theory, but sacred doctrine held by God’s people.Peter-
In addition to quoting Turretin for the representative quality of the work, I also quote from him because I know him the best of all the systematic theologies I have read. I have more underlines, checks, dog-eared pages, and highlights in Vol. 1 than any of my other books. In fact the print on the spine of Vol. 1 has begun to fade because of use. So I hope you can see that I quote from him because he most readily comes to my mind.
I don’t care how much of Turretin you know. Both of us know (since we’re both read him) that Turretin does not say what you want him to say and does not support your SST theory. Furthermore, Turretin is one of many theologians - Luther and Calvin among others - and neither Luther nor Calvin espouse your ideas. No serious theologian out there does - that’s why you keep trying to make Turretin say what you want him to instead of going to other wells.
As a matter of fact, this is what Calvin http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html says about Scripture :
5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. For though in its own majesty it has enough to command reverence, nevertheless, it then begins truly to touch us when it is sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa. 43:10).We should note that Calvin doesn’t mention that Scripture’s ability or power depends on what text - it’s trustworthy because God gave it and it is therefore sufficient for any believers to use, study, and wield. Unlike, say, the King James version, which you say is trustworthy and true only because it is supported by the best texts.
To sum up, your position is this:
1. God has revealed the truth of Scripture in one text type or family.
2. God bases the immediate translations on that one particular text type or family.
3. God blesses and uses that one translation above all others.
4. God may, from time to time, give a new translation that all Christians will recognize as the true one.
The problem with all of that is that there is no way to quantify or realize God’s action in all of this other than people believing what you say because you say it OR the nebulous ‘leading of the Holy Spirit’ that you keep falling back on as a defense. That leading of the Holy Spirit might be useful if you could demonstrate that the Spirit leads like this uniformly and clearly to all believers. Instead, what we get from your keyboard is that there is some act, decided upon by some people, that claims to be from God but isn’t actually verifiable against the Word itself. So your total argumentation is essentially nothing more than “the King James is best because I say it is”.
Your position also creates so many ancillary theological problems that it’s hard to keep them all straight, but it’s worth noting a few of them:
1. The subjective ‘leading of the Holy Spirit’ that you need to defend your text type is based on nothing more than your opinion.
2. Your position is predicated on the inability of God to preserve His Word for all mankind, despite His promise to preserve it.
3. The ongoing and continuing re-revelation of the right manuscript/text type/translation is problematic, since Revelation is pretty clear that God’s direct revelation is ceased.
4. The idea that this textual theory of yours is on the same revealed basis as Salvation by faith alone through grace alone - Oh, and by the way, your answer to http://sharperiron.org/comment/36592#comment-36592] Larry’s question is “Yes, I do hold this doctrine on the same level with the revelation of Hell in Scripture” even though you can’t actually bring yourself to say it that way. When you started putting this theory on the same level as salvation by faith alone ( http://sharperiron.org/comment/38997#comment-38997] Post #288 , answer to #2), it made the answer really clear to those of us who were reading.
I think that’s enough to say for now.
"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 JG,
I agree that “All Scripture” is in reference to the whole canon with regard to the doctrine of Canonicity in that it is the nature of all Scripture New and Old to be inspired.
The reason why this is impossible at present it because the Spirit is not part of the process. God’s people are treated as no more than consumers. Finally, there is no unifying text. We have one Lord, one faith and one baptism but we don’t have one Bible in the original languages or the English language.
What English tradition had the Church held to before 1881? The one that underlies the KJB.
Brother JayC there was only one English Bible tradition and one Greek NT tradition until 1881 - the KJB/TR tradition.
This have never been about text types. The discussion at hand is about the self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting words of Scripture which the believing community had long before 1881 and not by accident or force of will but by the leading of the Spirit concerning the words of God.
I agree that “All Scripture” is in reference to the whole canon with regard to the doctrine of Canonicity in that it is the nature of all Scripture New and Old to be inspired.
Brother JG wrote,“Change” is not the best word to characterize the Church’s movement from one iteration of the text to the next, but rather mature. God’s people at the time of Tyndale’s NT were growing with the Bible. So many of God’s people did not have the Bible in their own language, so their knowledge of the content of the Bible was very small. As each iteration of the English Bible came into the possession of God’s people the iteration before pointed to the iteration that followed, resulting in the further maturation of God’s people both in knowledge of the words of God and the content/meaning of the words of God by the leading of the Spirit. This process ceased at the formulation of the KJB in that the modern text critical theory that arose out of the Enlightenment and after regarded the Bible of the Church to be contemptible and the new ahistorical methods of oldest, shortest, and hardest became the norm. I love Brother JayC’s quote of Calvin in Post # 295 in that Griesbach, Wescott, Hort, Aland, Metzger, and Wallace would never dream of incorporating such language concerning the Spirit in their several enterprises.
Now, in light of that, I’ve read this post you’ve just written, and you seem to be suggesting that the believing community’s attestation can change, and therefore we must assume that the latest attestation is the right one. So, a newer TR is the right TR.
Brother JG wroteIf the believing community held to the latest critical Greek NT as the standard inspired apographa and formulated an English translation that was the standard inspired English translation of that standard apographa by the leading of the Spirit through submitting to the teachings of Scripture about itself, then I think a good case could be made for the next iteration of the KJB being this hypothetical text. Then once this text was produced the next step would be to see if the KJB pointed to this New Text, thus leading God’s people to submit to it.
If this is so, then if the combined popularity of the critical text and its translations among the believing community surpasses the popularity of the TR and its translations, would you then affirm the critical text?
The reason why this is impossible at present it because the Spirit is not part of the process. God’s people are treated as no more than consumers. Finally, there is no unifying text. We have one Lord, one faith and one baptism but we don’t have one Bible in the original languages or the English language.
Brother Van Emmerick wrote,The leading of the Spirit contains pointing, guiding, directing, and teaching so along side and toward are not mutually exclusive.
I believe the context and grammar there describe the Spirit acting along side us, not toward us.
Brother Van Emmerick wrote,I have never used “mystical impulse” or any such language. God’s word leads God’s people by the Holy Spirit in everything they do which includes the accepting of God’s words as indeed being God’s words.
Second, this is also better aligned with the rest of Scripture, where there is never any indication anywhere of some kind of mystical impulse used to give direction to the believer. God speaks to us through His word. Period.
Brother JayC wrote,What Greek tradition had the Church held to before 1881? The one that underlies the TR.
Actually, since you’re the one that is arguing for the SST position - a position that is ‘new’ to SI and is without a shred of Scriptural evidence or historical support - it’s incumbent upon you to provide proof for a (relatively) very new idea that God has preserved His word in one specific text type or family (that underlies the translation you want us to use).
What English tradition had the Church held to before 1881? The one that underlies the KJB.
Brother JayC there was only one English Bible tradition and one Greek NT tradition until 1881 - the KJB/TR tradition.
This have never been about text types. The discussion at hand is about the self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting words of Scripture which the believing community had long before 1881 and not by accident or force of will but by the leading of the Spirit concerning the words of God.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Brother JayC wrote,I did not come here to “teach you all”. I am not convinced that you are teachable, for one. Second, I have done this to get myself back into the groove of the discussion and I end up hearing things that I have never heard in my 20 years of doing this. Third, I write for those who do want to know, not for you. You have served as a foil from which I am able to articulate the truth of the situation.
That goes doubly so since you’re the one that came to SI with the intent of teaching us all that we are wrong and that we need to believe in and defend the SST position.
For me to say,
“This reasoning ignores a fundamental of logical reasoning, Two things that are different cannot be equal/the same. To make this principle more appropriate to the discussion, Hundreds of things that are different cannot be the same and as such do not bear equal/the same authority.”
Does not contradict itself because the believing community that held to iteration #1 at one point and then to iteration #2 at another did not hold to both simultaneously as you do when you claim the ESV and NIV are both the word of God equally. History does not bear out, and I am open to evidence to the contrary, that the believing community held Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, and Coverdale’s at the same time as the KJB and in the same way.
Brother JayC wrote,It is not re-inspiration, rather it is preservation in the way the Bible depicts it.
It seems to me that what you basically have to wind up arguing for is continuing re-inspiration (or at best, new revelation from the Spirit) whenever we need a new translation.
Brother JayC wrote,It has never been how much I know about anything. I am merely expressing my education in the discipline. I told you of my experience with Turretin only to demonstrate that he is most familiar to me to my help or hurt I’ll let you decide.
I don’t care how much of Turretin you know.
Brother JayC wrote,Turretin is certainly speaking of a standard authoritative apographa. I have demonstrated this over and over. I don’t go to more sources because you don’t read it nor do you care. When I typed nearly 20 single-spaced pages of research for this thread I was accused of clouding the issue and now I am being told that I have offered nothing at all in the way of Scripture or history. That is simply not true.
Both of us know (since we’re both read him) that Turretin does not say what you want him to say and does not support your SST theory.
Then you quote this beautiful quote from Calvin and all it can talk about is how the Scripture speaks for itself, its relationship to the believer and the power of the Holy Spirit in this matter and still you deny me the point that the Spirit, word, and saint are at the center of text issue and that it is not supported by Scripture. You read Calvin and you miss the whole point, it is no wonder you have read Turretin and have missed the point. Furthermore, it is no wonder you have missed and would miss the point with Hoornbeeck, Muller, Owen, Willet, et al.
You think I am making all this up when I got so much from Dr. Muller who wrote, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition; who also read Calvin to us out of the original French. I studied at Calvin Theological Seminary where the largest collection of works by and about Calvin are contained in the Meter Center. If there is any theologian to go to that most clearly articulates the relationship of word, Spirit, and saint it is John Calvin which I learned from guys who know Calvin better then you could ever dream. Frankly, sir you simply have no idea what you are talking about when it come to the enduring worth of pre-critical thought and exegesis.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Here is a perfect example of failure in this regard. You wrote,
We should note that Calvin doesn’t mention that Scripture’s ability or power depends on what text
That is because there is only one text tradition to mention the TR/KJB tradition. Furthermore, he is not even talking about a specific text type, but rather the words of God as the image of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, if you read more, Calvin actually calls the word of God (the Bible) in his hand the image of the Holy Spirit. If you knew this I think you would have refrained form your diatribe. It is as simple as that, but you are too blind because of your position to read Calvin, Turretin, or any other pre-critical theologian in his historical context.
#2 is a pure mischaracterization of the hundreds of typed pages I have posted on this thread.
#3 is simply a lie. I have maintained that God uses His words wherever they occur but that does not make that occurrence the standard sacred rule of faith and practice.
#4 I have never said all Christians. I have said the believing community which is different than all Christians. All Christian would not receive the KJB as the standard rule of faith and practice because some do not read English. Some Christians do not receive the KJB because they have no knowledge of it even though they may know English as a second language. There are a host of reasons why I have never said “All Christians”. You simply are not listening.
On another note, here again you are out of touch with the believing community of the past. The belief in a standard sacred apographa was not some act by some people nor have I reported it as such. The facts remain which you ignore, that the believing community has held to a belief in a standard sacred apographa (Masoretic Hebrew/TR) from which an English translation tradition (KJB tradition) emerged which is now vehemently fought against by those for whom that tradition existed and exists.
I have loaded this thread with so much material both Scriptural and historical and you have demonstrated yourself to be either ignorant or negligent in the study of this topic by simply discarding the truth of historical exegesis and theological formulation which is compounded by your appeal to Calvin on the Scripture/Spirit/Saint paradigm without realizing it because of your blindness or ineptitude on the topic. Say all you like that you know, but your mastery of the topic demonstrates otherwise to your own shame.
I have not come to SI to instruct but to discuss. Socrates was right when he said the only way one can learn is for that person to first understand that they do not know. You, Brother JayC, believe that you know and for that reason you will not learn or be instructed in what I have to say, so I do not pretend to do so.
Your pretension that what I have proposed in this thread is new, further demonstrates your abject failure to understand the content and grasp the force of pre-critical exegesis and theological formulation. You mock the tradition with your silly adolescent analysis of pre-critical thought in that your grasp of the material is decidedly tertiary in substance at best.
I predict, when all is said and done you are so self-absorbed that you will consider the above four paragraphs as a personal assault rather than legitimate criticism of your knowledge of the topic thus far. Then of course your cohorts will come to your aid like Brother Blumer who brings only to the table what he think and what he thinks the Bible says, and it is your hope that he like the Lone Ranger will come save the day by admitting that he has no idea of the tradition either.
I admit that I am not the most articulate on the topic, and I confess that blogging is not the medium I am most comfortable with, which in turn may reduce the quality of foil I offer to those who oppose the Standard Sacred Text position. Still, this will be my 36th reply to this thread and you act as if I have offered nothing and what you do read you brutishly summarize language I have used over and over with words I have never used. In short, my lack of more concise articulation cannot supply for your gross misrepresentation of 35 posts, rather there is something going on in your own head which leads you to form my position so inaccurately in your mind. By all means I hope you continue in the discussion, but I hope you try harder to grasp the substance of what is going on here.
We should note that Calvin doesn’t mention that Scripture’s ability or power depends on what text
That is because there is only one text tradition to mention the TR/KJB tradition. Furthermore, he is not even talking about a specific text type, but rather the words of God as the image of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, if you read more, Calvin actually calls the word of God (the Bible) in his hand the image of the Holy Spirit. If you knew this I think you would have refrained form your diatribe. It is as simple as that, but you are too blind because of your position to read Calvin, Turretin, or any other pre-critical theologian in his historical context.
Brother JayC wrote,#1 is patently false. I have never ascribed to a text type. I have ascribed to the self-attesting words of God and on that point Turretin defends the uncorrupted character on the basis of “the number and multitude of copies” not the weight of a ms. Hopefully that should ring a bell for you.
To sum up, your position is this:
1. God has revealed the truth of Scripture in one text type or family.
2. God bases the immediate translations on that one particular text type or family.
3. God blesses and uses that one translation above all others.
4. God may, from time to time, give a new translation that all Christians will recognize as the true one.
#2 is a pure mischaracterization of the hundreds of typed pages I have posted on this thread.
#3 is simply a lie. I have maintained that God uses His words wherever they occur but that does not make that occurrence the standard sacred rule of faith and practice.
#4 I have never said all Christians. I have said the believing community which is different than all Christians. All Christian would not receive the KJB as the standard rule of faith and practice because some do not read English. Some Christians do not receive the KJB because they have no knowledge of it even though they may know English as a second language. There are a host of reasons why I have never said “All Christians”. You simply are not listening.
Brother JayC wrote,Again I have never claimed a “nebulous leading of the Spirit” rather I have advocated the leading of the Spirit through the living words of God in Scripture.
The problem with all of that is that there is no way to quantify or realize God’s action in all of this other than people believing what you say because you say it OR the nebulous ‘leading of the Holy Spirit’ that you keep falling back on as a defense.
Brother JayC again,A mother and a daughter received Christ as Savior in the past two weeks at my church. I cannot verify against the word of God because the Bible does not say specifically, Allison is saved, so does that mean I doubt her salvation when she comes to me so excitedly to tell me they received Christ. No I give her a hug and praise God. Why? Because I believe God saves souls. So the Bible does not say “TR” but it does demand that I by faith trust that every word in the text is God’s word because I am not exempt from one word of Scripture either in knowledge and/or in practise. If you believe that there are words in Scripture that you are exempt from according to knowledge, i.e. I don’t really need to know those words (e.g. temple observances) or in practise i.e. I don’t really need to do that (e.g. give to the poor) then you can maintain that some words don’t matter as much as others so it is ok to be without some.
Instead, what we get from your keyboard is that there is some act, decided upon by some people, that claims to be from God but isn’t actually verifiable against the Word itself.
On another note, here again you are out of touch with the believing community of the past. The belief in a standard sacred apographa was not some act by some people nor have I reported it as such. The facts remain which you ignore, that the believing community has held to a belief in a standard sacred apographa (Masoretic Hebrew/TR) from which an English translation tradition (KJB tradition) emerged which is now vehemently fought against by those for whom that tradition existed and exists.
I have loaded this thread with so much material both Scriptural and historical and you have demonstrated yourself to be either ignorant or negligent in the study of this topic by simply discarding the truth of historical exegesis and theological formulation which is compounded by your appeal to Calvin on the Scripture/Spirit/Saint paradigm without realizing it because of your blindness or ineptitude on the topic. Say all you like that you know, but your mastery of the topic demonstrates otherwise to your own shame.
I have not come to SI to instruct but to discuss. Socrates was right when he said the only way one can learn is for that person to first understand that they do not know. You, Brother JayC, believe that you know and for that reason you will not learn or be instructed in what I have to say, so I do not pretend to do so.
Your pretension that what I have proposed in this thread is new, further demonstrates your abject failure to understand the content and grasp the force of pre-critical exegesis and theological formulation. You mock the tradition with your silly adolescent analysis of pre-critical thought in that your grasp of the material is decidedly tertiary in substance at best.
I predict, when all is said and done you are so self-absorbed that you will consider the above four paragraphs as a personal assault rather than legitimate criticism of your knowledge of the topic thus far. Then of course your cohorts will come to your aid like Brother Blumer who brings only to the table what he think and what he thinks the Bible says, and it is your hope that he like the Lone Ranger will come save the day by admitting that he has no idea of the tradition either.
I admit that I am not the most articulate on the topic, and I confess that blogging is not the medium I am most comfortable with, which in turn may reduce the quality of foil I offer to those who oppose the Standard Sacred Text position. Still, this will be my 36th reply to this thread and you act as if I have offered nothing and what you do read you brutishly summarize language I have used over and over with words I have never used. In short, my lack of more concise articulation cannot supply for your gross misrepresentation of 35 posts, rather there is something going on in your own head which leads you to form my position so inaccurately in your mind. By all means I hope you continue in the discussion, but I hope you try harder to grasp the substance of what is going on here.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] For me to say,Actually, it does contradict itself. You claim the NIV and the NASB cannot both be the Word of God because they are not the same. Yet you claim iteration #1 and iteration #2 are both the perfect, eternal, unalterable Word of God because they are accepted as the Word of God at different times in History. You can’t have it both ways. Either things cannot be the same without being identical, or they can be. Your position claims a perfect, eternal, unalterable Word of God on one hand, then argues for a “maturing” (i.e. different, not identical) Word of God on the other hand.“This reasoning ignores a fundamental of logical reasoning, Two things that are different cannot be equal/the same. To make this principle more appropriate to the discussion, Hundreds of things that are different cannot be the same and as such do not bear equal/the same authority.”Does not contradict itself because the believing community that held to iteration #1 at one point and then to iteration #2 at another did not hold to both simultaneously as you do when you claim the ESV and NIV are both the word of God equally. History does not bear out, and I am open to evidence to the contrary, that the believing community held Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, and Coverdale’s at the same time as the KJB and in the same way.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
First off I would like to say I have thoroughly enjoyed the give and take these past months. Thanks to all for taking time out of your busy schedules to have this conversation. I will be leaving on a extended vacation for the Christmas and New Years holidays and as a result this will be at most 1 of 3 posts, the 3rd of which I will do my best to index those things I have said and post that index. The 3rd post will not be a polemic against any of those who have taken a contrary opinion to my position, but will simply aid those who come after in locating the elements of the Standard Sacred Text position offered over the past months. Once that is complete I will go on vacation and then return to engage in a topic in some other forum here on SI, so these 3 [at most] will be my last posts on this thread. Once again thank you all.
Then of course there is the spiritual factors: the Bible says it is perfect, eternal, and immutable and therefore it is incumbent upon saints to believe that. Furthermore, given the fact that so many in the Western Church had been without the Bible in their own language and as a result being oppressed by the boot of Rome there was a maturation process where the people of God grew as the words of the N.T. canon were be canonized. God’s people grew as their knowledge of God’s words grew as well as their knowledge grew of the connotation and denotation of God’s words.
So then you might say, to believe in iteration #1 is based on a false faith if iteration #2 proves to be the better iteration.
So I offer this example:
I am not sure of your eschatological view of the future Brother Van Emmerik but I believe the Lord could come today. With true God given faith I believe the Lord could come this very moment, but as I write this He has not. I put my faith in moment #1/iteration #1 and low and behold I put may faith in something that did not come to pass and so I put my faith in moment #2/iteration #2 and as I write this He has not returned and so I put my faith in moment #3/iteration#3 and so on. Does that call into question the legitimacy of my faith when what I put my faith in does not come to pass but rather points me to the next moment/iteration? No, of course not. I am perfectly within the bounds of God given faith to believe moment #1/iteration #1 at that time in which Jesus Christ will return. Now if I exist in moment #55/iteration #55 but believe the Lord should have returned in moment #1/iteration #1 then I enter the realm of disbelief and/or heresy. Still, my faith was perfect before God when I believe the Lord’s return in moment #1/iteration #1 as I lived in moment #1/iteration #1. God’s word teaches that I am called to watch every day, so it is my business to simply obey the commandment and teaching of Scripture. God’s word also teaches that God’s word is literally perfect, immutable, and eternal so I believe it as much as I believe in the literal imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Brother Van Emmerik wrote,The believing community of iteration #1 believed it to be perfect, eternal, and immutable because the Bible said so of itself. When iteration #1 [Tyndale] pointed to iteration #2 [Coverdale] by the leading of the Spirit the believing community certainly had respect for #1 but then held #2 as the perfect, eternal, and immutable word of God in the place of #1 therefore not holding both as equal. You appear to be thinking of this process of iterations in a 21st century, Western, one dimensional mindset, and it therefore impossible for you to remotely grasp the fact of this process. You must begin with a mindset that there is no English Bible, that the Greek had just recently come to the Western Church, that there were only a handful of Protestants at this time, that the issue at hand was a life and death issue under the persecution of Rome, that there was no internet or even a viable postal service, and then of course there was the necessity of time which is forever a factor in the movement of God’s people by the Spirit as would any pastor so attest.
Actually, it does contradict itself. You claim the NIV and the NASB cannot both be the Word of God because they are not the same. Yet you claim iteration #1 and iteration #2 are both the perfect, eternal, unalterable Word of God because they are accepted as the Word of God at different times in History.
Then of course there is the spiritual factors: the Bible says it is perfect, eternal, and immutable and therefore it is incumbent upon saints to believe that. Furthermore, given the fact that so many in the Western Church had been without the Bible in their own language and as a result being oppressed by the boot of Rome there was a maturation process where the people of God grew as the words of the N.T. canon were be canonized. God’s people grew as their knowledge of God’s words grew as well as their knowledge grew of the connotation and denotation of God’s words.
So then you might say, to believe in iteration #1 is based on a false faith if iteration #2 proves to be the better iteration.
So I offer this example:
I am not sure of your eschatological view of the future Brother Van Emmerik but I believe the Lord could come today. With true God given faith I believe the Lord could come this very moment, but as I write this He has not. I put my faith in moment #1/iteration #1 and low and behold I put may faith in something that did not come to pass and so I put my faith in moment #2/iteration #2 and as I write this He has not returned and so I put my faith in moment #3/iteration#3 and so on. Does that call into question the legitimacy of my faith when what I put my faith in does not come to pass but rather points me to the next moment/iteration? No, of course not. I am perfectly within the bounds of God given faith to believe moment #1/iteration #1 at that time in which Jesus Christ will return. Now if I exist in moment #55/iteration #55 but believe the Lord should have returned in moment #1/iteration #1 then I enter the realm of disbelief and/or heresy. Still, my faith was perfect before God when I believe the Lord’s return in moment #1/iteration #1 as I lived in moment #1/iteration #1. God’s word teaches that I am called to watch every day, so it is my business to simply obey the commandment and teaching of Scripture. God’s word also teaches that God’s word is literally perfect, immutable, and eternal so I believe it as much as I believe in the literal imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] I am not sure of your eschatological view of the future Brother Van Emmerik but I believe the Lord could come today. With true God given faith I believe the Lord could come this very moment, but as I write this He has not. I put my faith in moment #1/iteration #1 and low and behold I put may faith in something that did not come to pass and so I put my faith in moment #2/iteration #2 and as I write this He has not returned and so I put my faith in moment #3/iteration#3 and so on. Does that call into question the legitimacy of my faith when what I put my faith in does not come to pass but rather points me to the next moment/iteration? No, of course not. I am perfectly within the bounds of God given faith to believe moment #1/iteration #1 at that time in which Jesus Christ will return. Now if I exist in moment #55/iteration #55 but believe the Lord should have returned in moment #1/iteration #1 then I enter the realm of disbelief and/or heresy. Still, my faith was perfect before God when I believe the Lord’s return in moment #1/iteration #1 as I lived in moment #1/iteration #1. God’s word teaches that I am called to watch every day, so it is my business to simply obey the commandment and teaching of Scripture. God’s word also teaches that God’s word is literally perfect, immutable, and eternal so I believe it as much as I believe in the literal imminent return of Jesus Christ.Brother Van Kleeck,
While I have much sympathy with some aspects of your position, I find this statement sorely lacking. There is a major difference between possibility and absolute fact.
I believe that it is entirely possible for Christ to return in the next minute. I do not believe with certainty that He will. If I state that He will and He does not, I am a liar and have stated that which is not true. Even if I state that He will and He does, that would still only be valid if He had told me that He was going to. If He told me that He was going to return in the next minute and He did not, then He would have been a liar.
If we go now to the text, either God told His people, by the Spirit, that a prior TR text was His Word, or He did not tell them. If He did not tell them, then the argument of attestation by the believing community falls flat. If He did tell them, then either the newest iteration of the TR is wrongly attested, or else God lied. If He told them that it is possible that the text was His Word (just as He told us His imminent return is possible), then that is certainly true, but you have no certainty, no attestation by the believing community of a certain text.
In moment #1, the imminent return of Christ is unchanged from the imminent return of Christ in moment #2. His return remains imminent, for imminence does not mean He will return in a particular moment, it means that He may return at any time. On the other hand, the received text of the believing community, as far as how you have expressed it, has changed, but the true Word of God has not. This suggests that the received text of the believing community, while it may be the primary witness, has not historically been an absolute witness to the true text, and therefore its validity as an absolute witness today must be in question.
Perhaps I have misunderstood….
The believing community of iteration #1 believed it to be perfect, eternal, and immutable because the Bible said so of itself. When iteration #1 [Tyndale] pointed to iteration #2 [Coverdale] by the leading of the Spirit the believing community certainly had respect for #1 but then held #2 as the perfect, eternal, and immutable word of God in the place of #1 therefore not holding both as equal. You appear to be thinking of this process of iterations in a 21st century, Western, one dimensional mindset, and it therefore impossible for you to remotely grasp the fact of this process. You must begin with a mindset that there is no English Bible, that the Greek had just recently come to the Western Church, that there were only a handful of Protestants at this time, that the issue at hand was a life and death issue under the persecution of Rome, that there was no internet or even a viable postal service, and then of course there was the necessity of time which is forever a factor in the movement of God’s people by the Spirit as would any pastor so attest.Peter,
How can anyone believe that something is ‘perfect, eternal, and immutable’ and then admit in the very next sentence that it needed to replaced by something that is also ‘perfect, eternal, and immutal’? Either something is perfect - devoid of flaw - or it’s not. You can’t have a perfect thing that needs to be replaced, because the act of replacing something means that the original is flawed in some way (or else it would not need to be replaced).
It’s not a matter of mindset, as you would like us to believe. It’s a matter of truth - either the Tyndale or the Coverdale were ‘perfect, eternal, and immutable’ or they weren’t. They can’t both be ‘perfect…and immutable’ and have differences that we see by comparing them side by side.
You said in one of your posts that you are not a double inspiration guy because you are talking about preservation; my response to you is that if you are going to argue that the Holy Spirit has any kind of direct guidance in the act of preservation, especially when you talk about the Spirit’s leading to a translation that is (by your own admission) ‘perfect, eternal, and immutable’, you’re getting very, very close to arguing for double inspiration, which is heretical. There’s no way to spin that.
"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
Peter, this seems to be what you’re claiming:
Bible 1 = word perfect Scripture
Bible 2 with different words = word perfect Scripture
(“Bible 1” is a version made from the traditional text; “Bible 2” is a version made from a later edition of the traditional text.)
If this is your view, how is it possible that two texts with different words are both word perfect editions of Scripture?
If words mean anything at all, it’s obvious that if the believing community thought Bible 1 was word perfect but also came to believe Bible 2 was word perfect, there are only three possibilities:
1- They were wrong about Bible 1
2- They are wrong about Bible 2
3- God’s word changed
So which is it?
(Spare us the drivel about 21st century mindsets, blah, blah… I’m talking about something formally true here. It’s the most basic level of reasoning: a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense and in the same relationship… Two documents with different words cannot both be word perfect editions of the same thing.)
Bible 1 = word perfect Scripture
Bible 2 with different words = word perfect Scripture
(“Bible 1” is a version made from the traditional text; “Bible 2” is a version made from a later edition of the traditional text.)
If this is your view, how is it possible that two texts with different words are both word perfect editions of Scripture?
If words mean anything at all, it’s obvious that if the believing community thought Bible 1 was word perfect but also came to believe Bible 2 was word perfect, there are only three possibilities:
1- They were wrong about Bible 1
2- They are wrong about Bible 2
3- God’s word changed
So which is it?
(Spare us the drivel about 21st century mindsets, blah, blah… I’m talking about something formally true here. It’s the most basic level of reasoning: a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense and in the same relationship… Two documents with different words cannot both be word perfect editions of the same thing.)
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-
Would you agree with the following quote:
Would you agree with the following quote:
I believe that the Authorized Version is the inspired, infallible, inerrant, immutable, pure word of God to English speaking people…I believe that God not only inspired the writers in the original languages, but also the New Testament writers when they translated the Hebrew passages into the Greek, and the translators of the Authorized Version as they made their selection of English words.Thanks for letting us know.
"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
Beginning the topic with William Whitaker - Post #1
I. Going with the flow of the opposition’s questioning.
A. Correlations between the allowance for the multiplicity of versions but not for other authoritative documents within their contextual limitations e.g. the U.S. Constitution or class syllabus. (Post #28)
B. Drawing correlation between the mindset of feminist theology and the present modern textual criticism. (Posts # 24, 28)
C. Introducing the flow of God’s Spirit in God’s people concerning God’s word. ( Post #44-45)
D. An argument for the principle of gradation/source and product. (Post #45)
E. An initial explication of historical context with regard to the Bible in the Renaissance and Reformation. (Post #61)
F. The first visitation to the maturation process the believing community went through in accepting the English Bible tradition. (Post #62)
G. Answering questions concerning the next iteration from the King James Bible. (Post #70)
H. Brief treatments of Luke 16:27-31; John 18:37; Acts 1:1-9; Ephesians 5:19; and Romans 8:1-4. (Post #97)
I. Answering how the doctrine of Scripture relates to the apographa and translation and the certainty of that doctrine in Scripture. (Post #100)
J. A brief discussion of the necessity of faith and truth with reference to the nature of Scripture. (Post #100)
K. An introduction to the Best-Possible-World line of reasoning. (Post #115)
L. The objective basis for the Principium Theologiae [Scripture]. (Post #144)
M. A correlation between modern text critical theory and the newly formed Emergent Church. (Post #145)
N. An introduction to Turretin’s treatment of “jot and tittle.” (Post #145)
O. Addressing the loss of certainty in Scripture for the gain of aspiration. (Post #155)
P. Astrophysics and the textual debate. (Post #155)
II. A brief summary of certain central points of the Standard Sacred Text position.
A. Texts used in the summary. (Post #166)
B. A brief treatment of Ps. 12:6; Ps. 119:140; Pro. 30:5 and II Tim 3:16. (Post #167)
C. Some historical theology with regard to the above Scriptures. (Post #167 and 168)
D. The definition and brief treatment of key Latin and Greek terms. (Post # 169, 171-173)
E. Concluding summary. (Post # 174)
F. Whether Scripture + personal reasoning is enough to engage in orthodox theology (Post #188).
III. An abbreviated treatment of certain elements of modern text critical theory.
A. Texts used in the summary. (Post #192)
B. The Scripture that support modern text critical theory. (Post #192)
C. The theology that support modern text critical theory. (Post #192)
D. The mistreatment of the believing communities Bible at the hands of modern text critical theory. (Post # 193 and 194)
E. Final conclusions. (Post #194)
IV. A discussion of Ps. 119:140
A. Discussion whether the word of God in Ps. 119:140 refers to David’s Bible and whether that Bible is unconditionally pure from corruption. (Post #212)
B. Expansion of presuppositions, arguments, and conclusions of the Ps. 119:140 discussion. (Post #215)
C. The call for one certain meaning of Scripture to believe and preach. (Post # 217)
D. Addressing preference vs. certainty. (Post #217 and 220)
E. A brief treatment of authoritas Scripturae and certain aspects of Theology Proper with regard to Bibliology. (Post # 237)
F. Expounding certain elements of Turretin and introducing Hoornbeeck. (Post #243)
G. Treating whether the same God can do two different things at the same time and in the same way in a single moment in history. (Post #259)
H. Elementary presuppositions and questions from the Standard Sacred Text position to its adversaries. (Post #260)
I. Treatment of the believing community’s maturation during the time in which the Holy Scriptures were formulated and received in the English language. (Post #274 and 275)
I. Going with the flow of the opposition’s questioning.
A. Correlations between the allowance for the multiplicity of versions but not for other authoritative documents within their contextual limitations e.g. the U.S. Constitution or class syllabus. (Post #28)
B. Drawing correlation between the mindset of feminist theology and the present modern textual criticism. (Posts # 24, 28)
C. Introducing the flow of God’s Spirit in God’s people concerning God’s word. ( Post #44-45)
D. An argument for the principle of gradation/source and product. (Post #45)
E. An initial explication of historical context with regard to the Bible in the Renaissance and Reformation. (Post #61)
F. The first visitation to the maturation process the believing community went through in accepting the English Bible tradition. (Post #62)
G. Answering questions concerning the next iteration from the King James Bible. (Post #70)
H. Brief treatments of Luke 16:27-31; John 18:37; Acts 1:1-9; Ephesians 5:19; and Romans 8:1-4. (Post #97)
I. Answering how the doctrine of Scripture relates to the apographa and translation and the certainty of that doctrine in Scripture. (Post #100)
J. A brief discussion of the necessity of faith and truth with reference to the nature of Scripture. (Post #100)
K. An introduction to the Best-Possible-World line of reasoning. (Post #115)
L. The objective basis for the Principium Theologiae [Scripture]. (Post #144)
M. A correlation between modern text critical theory and the newly formed Emergent Church. (Post #145)
N. An introduction to Turretin’s treatment of “jot and tittle.” (Post #145)
O. Addressing the loss of certainty in Scripture for the gain of aspiration. (Post #155)
P. Astrophysics and the textual debate. (Post #155)
II. A brief summary of certain central points of the Standard Sacred Text position.
A. Texts used in the summary. (Post #166)
B. A brief treatment of Ps. 12:6; Ps. 119:140; Pro. 30:5 and II Tim 3:16. (Post #167)
C. Some historical theology with regard to the above Scriptures. (Post #167 and 168)
D. The definition and brief treatment of key Latin and Greek terms. (Post # 169, 171-173)
E. Concluding summary. (Post # 174)
F. Whether Scripture + personal reasoning is enough to engage in orthodox theology (Post #188).
III. An abbreviated treatment of certain elements of modern text critical theory.
A. Texts used in the summary. (Post #192)
B. The Scripture that support modern text critical theory. (Post #192)
C. The theology that support modern text critical theory. (Post #192)
D. The mistreatment of the believing communities Bible at the hands of modern text critical theory. (Post # 193 and 194)
E. Final conclusions. (Post #194)
IV. A discussion of Ps. 119:140
A. Discussion whether the word of God in Ps. 119:140 refers to David’s Bible and whether that Bible is unconditionally pure from corruption. (Post #212)
B. Expansion of presuppositions, arguments, and conclusions of the Ps. 119:140 discussion. (Post #215)
C. The call for one certain meaning of Scripture to believe and preach. (Post # 217)
D. Addressing preference vs. certainty. (Post #217 and 220)
E. A brief treatment of authoritas Scripturae and certain aspects of Theology Proper with regard to Bibliology. (Post # 237)
F. Expounding certain elements of Turretin and introducing Hoornbeeck. (Post #243)
G. Treating whether the same God can do two different things at the same time and in the same way in a single moment in history. (Post #259)
H. Elementary presuppositions and questions from the Standard Sacred Text position to its adversaries. (Post #260)
I. Treatment of the believing community’s maturation during the time in which the Holy Scriptures were formulated and received in the English language. (Post #274 and 275)
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
PVK,
Instead of recapping the entire thread, why don’t you deal with the most recent posts and questions about what you believe?
Instead of recapping the entire thread, why don’t you deal with the most recent posts and questions about what you believe?
"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
Discussion