Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

inerrancy and solecisms

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Lord
    If we argue for inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how to we account for solecisms?   Respectfully, Stephen Lord [Non-text portions of this message have
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      If we argue for inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how to we account for solecisms?

       
      Respectfully,
      Stephen Lord

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jozinky
      Hello; Could you give an example of a solecism please? Thanks; James .
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello;

        Could you give an example of a solecism please?

        Thanks;
        James
        .
        On 10/3/2012 6:50 PM, Stephen Lord wrote:
        >
        > If we argue for inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how to we
        > account for solecisms?
        >
        >
        > Respectfully,
        > Stephen Lord
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
      • Stephen Lord
        Rev. 1:4, APO HO WN (following a preposition with a nominative).  The Apocalypse has long been known for its many solecisms.   Respectfully, Stephen Lord
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Rev. 1:4, "APO HO WN" (following a preposition with a nominative).  The Apocalypse has long been known for its many solecisms.

           
          Respectfully,
          Stephen Lord


          >________________________________
          > From: Jozinky <jozinky@...>
          >To: apologetics@yahoogroups.com
          >Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 8:14 PM
          >Subject: Re: [apologetics and theology] inerrancy and solecisms
          >
          >Hello;
          >
          >Could you give an example of a solecism please?
          >
          >Thanks;
          >James
          >.
          >On 10/3/2012 6:50 PM, Stephen Lord wrote:
          >>
          >> If we argue for inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how to we
          >> account for solecisms?
          >>
          >>
          >> Respectfully,
          >> Stephen Lord
          >>
          >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
          >http://theologicallycorrect.com
          >1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole Life of the BelieverYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jozinky
          Then the question would be... is APO HO WN a reflection of the -original manuscripts,- as per your question, quote; If we argue for inerrancy in the
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Then the question would be... is "APO HO WN" a reflection of the
            -original manuscripts,- as per your question, quote; "If we argue for
            inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how to we account for solecisms?" ?
            The answer would involve a study of textual criticism.

            James
            .
            On 10/4/2012 1:28 AM, Stephen Lord wrote:
            >
            > Rev. 1:4, "APO HO WN" (following a preposition with a nominative). The
            > Apocalypse has long been known for its many solecisms.
            >
            >
            > Respectfully,
            > Stephen Lord
            >
            > >________________________________
            > > From: Jozinky <jozinky@... <mailto:jozinky%40pa.net>>
            > >To: apologetics@yahoogroups.com <mailto:apologetics%40yahoogroups.com>
            > >Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 8:14 PM
            > >Subject: Re: [apologetics and theology] inerrancy and solecisms
            > >
            > >Hello;
            > >
            > >Could you give an example of a solecism please?
            > >
            > >Thanks;
            > >James
            > >.
            > >On 10/3/2012 6:50 PM, Stephen Lord wrote:
            > >>
            > >> If we argue for inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how to we
            > >> account for solecisms?
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> Respectfully,
            > >> Stephen Lord
            > >>
            > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >------------------------------------
            > >
            > >Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
            > >http://theologicallycorrect.com
            > >1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole
            > Life of the BelieverYahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
          • Stephen Lord
            Not quite correct. Textual criticism affirms this and the many other solecisms in Rev., and other books of the Bible, whether one subscribes to a critical
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Not quite correct.

              Textual criticism affirms this and the many other solecisms in Rev., and other books of the Bible, whether one subscribes to a critical text, eclectic text, majority text, Massoretic text, or TR.

              So the question of whether these solecisms are part of the original text has already been answered--they unequivocally are a feature of the originals.


              Leaving us with my original question.  If we argue for inerrancy in the original manuscripts, how do we account for the many solecisms found in the text?

               
              Respectfully,
              Stephen Lord


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jozinky
              ... ....... Yes very correct. :-) ... ........... For example.... ? Can you cite a scholarly textual critic for the above? ... ....... Really? By who/whom? ...
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On 10/4/2012 10:09 AM, Stephen Lord wrote:
                >
                > Not quite correct.
                >
                .......
                Yes very correct. :-)
                .............
                >
                >
                > Textual criticism affirms this and the many other solecisms in Rev.,
                > and other books of the Bible, whether one subscribes to a critical
                > text, eclectic text, majority text, Massoretic text, or TR.
                >
                ...........
                For example.... ? Can you cite a scholarly textual critic for the above?
                ........
                >
                >
                > So the question of whether these solecisms are part of the original
                > text has already been answered--
                >
                .......
                Really? By who/whom?
                ...........
                >
                > they unequivocally are a feature of the originals.
                >
                ...........
                I question that assertion.
                ................
                >
                >
                > Leaving us with my original question. If we argue for inerrancy in the
                > original manuscripts, how do we account for the many solecisms found
                > in the text?
                >
                ...........
                Show an example of inerrancy in the ~~original manuscripts~~ ! Well of
                course you cannot seeing as we do not have the original manuscripts in
                our possession now do we?

                James
                >
                >
                >
                > Respectfully,
                > Stephen Lord
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
              • Stephen Lord
                James, I m asking a legitimate question regarding how we are to deal with inerrancy as it relates to solecisms in the text. If you have no desire or means of
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  James,

                  I'm asking a legitimate question regarding how we are to deal with inerrancy as it relates to solecisms in the text.

                  If you have no desire or means of helping out on said issue, no problem.  Then don't.

                  However, I really don't understand your (non)responses so far.  You have provided nothing useful or constructive to help out on this issue.

                  You don't seem to want to help provide any legitimate means of addressing the subject.

                  Instead, you appear to be interjecting rather evasive comments that serve to cloud the issue and are really irrelevant to my question.

                  I pointed out that textual criticism affirms solecisms as part of the original text.

                  You retorted with the equivalent of a "Oh Yeah, says who?!"  "Can you cite a scholarly textual critic for the above?"

                  Certainly.  Speaking of the very example of a solecism I supplied you, Daniel B. Wallace writes, "This is the first and worst grammatical solecism in Revelation, but many more are to follow." [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 63].

                  Simply pick up the TR, or Hodges & Farstad's Majority Text, or the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text, or the NA28 or UBS4 and you will find solecisms here and there in the text.  Pick up any commentary worth its salt based on the original languages and you will find solecisms treated as a genuine feature of the original text.

                  You question the "assertion" that solecisms are to be found in the original text.  Fine.  But questioning it is not the same as proving it.  So step up to the plate with some concrete facts to prove otherwise or be silent.

                  You seem somewhat confused as to the difference between the "original manuscripts" and the "original text".  We certainly do not have the original manuscripts in our possession.  However, do you believe that means we cannot access the original text?  Do you wish to argue that no Greek mss contain the original reading and that we have no means of reconstructing what the NT writers actually wrote?

                  Here it seems that you are trying to have it both ways.  You opened with an appeal to textual criticism.  Why do that if you don't think the original text is obtainable?  Yet when the results of textual criticism, whether one is working from a critical text mindset, or eclectic perspective, or majority text perspective, or a TR perspective demonstrates that not all the solecisms can be explained away by recourse to the oft too easy "scribal error" you seem dismissive of the fruits of the textual criticism you appealed to.


                  Instead you intimate there were no solecisms in the original manuscripts; but wait, you can't prove that because, conveniently, the original manuscripts are not accessible.  How silly.


                  Again, you can't have it both ways.  Either you believe we can reconstruct the original text with a degree of certainty, so that you and I can access and know what the NT writers actually wrote, or you must side with the Erhmans of the world and claim that we don't have and can't really recover what the Bible writers originally wrote.  If you subscribe to the latter, then inerrancy is irrelevant.

                  If you wish to claim that the original text is recoverable, either in one specific mss or family of mss, then you must face the fact that solecisms are part of the original text.

                  If you believe you have proof that they weren't in spite of the results of textual criticism, put that proof on the table instead of engaging in a song and dance routine.

                  I am working from the concrete evidence of the mss we actually have and the frank observations from conservative exegetes going back many centuries who have noted this linguistic feature of the text.

                  So once more, if you actually have something useful, concrete, and helpful to explain how we reconcile inerrancy with solecisms, please provide it.  I could genuinely use the help.  If all you want to do is wave a magic wand and say that you can't find them in the mss that you don't have, quit wasting our time.


                   
                  Respectfully,
                  Stephen Lord


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jozinky
                  Hi Stephen; ... ... j; Not really. In logic your question is called the Loaded question. A loaded question is one that contains an unproven assumption.
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Stephen;

                    On 10/4/2012 6:28 PM, Stephen Lord wrote:
                    >
                    > James,
                    >
                    > I'm asking a legitimate question regarding how we are to deal with
                    > inerrancy as it relates to solecisms in the text.
                    >
                    ...
                    j; Not really. In logic your question is called the Loaded question. A
                    loaded question is one that contains an unproven assumption. Example;
                    have you stopped beating your wife? The unproven assumption is that you
                    beat your wife. The unproven assumption in your question is that the
                    ~~original manuscripts~~ contain solecisms, not the "text". You need to
                    prove that assumption first in order for your question to be legitimate.
                    ......

                    >
                    > If you have no desire or means of helping out on said issue, no
                    > problem. Then don't.
                    >
                    ..........
                    j; I never said I have no desire or means of helping out on said issue.
                    I am helping... by challenging your question. :-)
                    .....
                    >
                    >
                    > However, I really don't understand your (non)responses so far.
                    >
                    .........
                    j; Asking for proof is hardly a non response.
                    ...........


                    >
                    > I pointed out that textual criticism affirms solecisms as part of the
                    > original text.
                    >
                    > You retorted with the equivalent of a "Oh Yeah, says who?!" "Can you
                    > cite a scholarly textual critic for the above?"
                    >
                    > Certainly. Speaking of the very example of a solecism I supplied you,
                    > Daniel B. Wallace writes, "This is the first and worst grammatical
                    > solecism in Revelation, but many more are to follow." [Greek Grammar
                    > Beyond the Basics, pg. 63].
                    >
                    ..........
                    j; Great. Too bad Mr Wallace did not refer to the ~original manuscripts~
                    in his remark. Try again?
                    .........
                    >
                    >
                    > Simply pick up the TR, or Hodges & Farstad's Majority Text, or the
                    > Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text, or the NA28 or UBS4 and you will
                    > find solecisms here and there in the text.
                    >
                    .........
                    j; All of which are irrelevant to your loaded question which references
                    the ~original manuscripts~. There's no question that all the extant mss
                    we have today contain solecisms... but you asked about the ~original
                    manuscripts~... not the extant mss. So unless & until you can prove that
                    the ~original manuscripts~ contain solecisms you're spinning rubber.
                    Perhaps you want to re-word your question omitting the ~original
                    manuscripts~ and discuss the extant mss that do contain solecisms.
                    .........
                    >
                    > Pick up any commentary worth its salt based on the original languages
                    > and you will find solecisms treated as a genuine feature of the
                    > original text.
                    >
                    ............
                    j; I don't care about the so-called "original text". You did not ask
                    about that. You asked about the original --Manuscripts--.
                    .........
                    >
                    >
                    > You question the "assertion" that solecisms are to be found in the
                    > original text.
                    >
                    ..........
                    j; No... I question -your- assertion that they are found in the original
                    --Manuscripts--
                    ...
                    >
                    > Fine.
                    >
                    .....
                    j; Great. Show me solecisms in the original --Manuscripts-- si vous plait.
                    ........
                    >
                    > But questioning it is not the same as proving it.
                    >
                    .........
                    j; A-hem... obviously. I question... you must prove. Have at it. Show me
                    solecisms in the original --Manuscripts
                    .....
                    >
                    > So step up to the plate with some concrete facts to prove otherwise or
                    > be silent.
                    >
                    .......
                    j; Typical logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. Hey
                    man... I'm not obligated to prove ~~your~~ premise. You made the
                    assertion that there are solecisms in the original --Manuscripts. Burden
                    of proof is on you not me.
                    Have at it or -you- be silent.
                    ..........
                    >
                    >
                    > You seem somewhat confused as to the difference between the "original
                    > manuscripts" and the "original text". We certainly do not have the
                    > original manuscripts in our possession. However, do you believe that
                    > means we cannot access the original text?
                    >
                    .........
                    j; May I remind you of your question sir? Quote; "If we argue for
                    inerrancy in the ~~original manuscripts,~~ how to we account for
                    solecisms?" unquote. So we see that your question references the
                    original --manuscripts-- not the original text. Therefore your remarks
                    above are beside the point. Of course we can access the original -text-
                    to a certain degree but we are locked out of the original ~manuscripts~
                    and that's what your question addresses and what makes it a loaded
                    question because you cannot prove that the original --manuscripts--
                    contained solecisms.... unless you have them in your possession.
                    .........

                    > Do you wish to argue that no Greek mss contain the original reading
                    > and that we have no means of reconstructing what the NT writers
                    > actually wrote?
                    >
                    .........
                    j; Irrelevant to your question. :-). Show me solecisms in the original
                    --Manuscripts.
                    .......
                    >
                    >
                    > Here it seems that you are trying to have it both ways. You opened
                    > with an appeal to textual criticism. Why do that if you don't think
                    > the original text is obtainable?
                    >
                    ....
                    j; Ibid... :-)
                    ........
                    >
                    > Yet when the results of textual criticism, whether one is working from
                    > a critical text mindset, or eclectic perspective, or majority text
                    > perspective, or a TR perspective demonstrates that not all the
                    > solecisms can be explained away by recourse to the oft too easy
                    > "scribal error" you seem dismissive of the fruits of the textual
                    > criticism you appealed to.
                    >
                    > Instead you intimate there were no solecisms in the original manuscripts;
                    >
                    ........
                    j; I intimate nothing. All I am doing is asking you to prove the
                    assertion contained in your loaded question. Show me an example of a
                    solecism ~~in the original manuscripts~~... si vous plait.
                    ............
                    ........
                    >
                    > but wait, you can't prove that
                    >
                    .......
                    j; Correct. I cannot prove something I never said. That's the logical
                    fallacy of stuffing words in the other guys mouth. Bad.. :-)
                    .....
                    >
                    > because, conveniently, the original manuscripts are not accessible.
                    > How silly.
                    >
                    .......
                    j; I see nothing silly about the fact that the original manuscripts are
                    not accessible. What -is- silly is trying to make a point from something
                    that is not accessible... which is precisely what your question attempts
                    to do which makes it loaded. What did you do with the money you stole?
                    .........
                    >
                    >
                    > Again, you can't have it both ways.
                    >
                    ....
                    j; I don't want anything either way. All I want is to see some proof
                    that the the ~~original manuscripts~~, which are not accessible, contain
                    solecisms. Thanking ya in advance.
                    ...........
                    >
                    > Either you believe we can reconstruct the original text with a degree
                    > of certainty,
                    >
                    .........
                    j; Irrelevant. Forget the original -text-. Show me the original
                    ~~manuscripts~~ for that's what your question addresses.
                    ..........
                    >
                    > so that you and I can access and know what the NT writers actually wrote,
                    >
                    ......
                    j; Irrelevant. Original manuscripts please....
                    ...........
                    >
                    > or you must side with the Erhmans of the world and claim that we don't
                    > have and can't really recover what the Bible writers originally wrote.
                    >
                    j; Irrelevant & beside the point. Show me the original ~~manuscripts~~....
                    .........
                    >
                    > If you subscribe to the latter, then inerrancy is irrelevant.
                    >
                    .......
                    j; I subscribe to nothing. Just Show me the original ~~manuscripts~~ and
                    then you will have a legitimate question. Otherwise admit your question
                    is illogical and reword it.
                    .........
                    >
                    >
                    > If you wish to claim that the original text is recoverable, either in
                    > one specific mss or family of mss, then you must face the fact that
                    > solecisms are part of the original text.
                    >
                    ..........
                    j; I wish nothing... except for you to Show me the original ~~manuscripts~~.
                    .........
                    >
                    >
                    > If you believe you have proof that they weren't in spite of the
                    > results of textual criticism, put that proof on the table instead of
                    > engaging in a song and dance routine.
                    >
                    ..........
                    j; More illogic. No one is obligated to prove a negative. =You= made the
                    assumption that the original --manuscripts-- contain solecisms... -You-
                    prove your own assumption. I'm not obligated to prove a denial.
                    ........
                    >
                    >
                    > I am working from the concrete evidence of the mss we actually have
                    >
                    ..........
                    j; Ahh which is a vast world of difference from the ~~original~~
                    manuscripts now isn't it! Therefore you need to reword your question &
                    we can go from there.
                    .............
                    >
                    > and the frank observations from conservative exegetes going back many
                    > centuries who have noted this linguistic feature of the text.
                    >
                    .........
                    j; None of whom have/had the original ~~manuscripts~~... and that's what
                    you asked about.
                    ...
                    >
                    >
                    > So once more, if you actually have something useful, concrete, and
                    > helpful to explain how we reconcile inerrancy with solecisms, please
                    > provide it.
                    >
                    ......
                    j; That would depend on whether you're talking about all the extant
                    manuscripts we have at our disposal or the ~~original~~ manuscripts.
                    Your question addresses that latter which are unavailable. So would you
                    want to start all over and ask about the former? I could go with that.
                    If not then you -must- prove that the original manuscripts contained
                    solecisms, something you will be unable to do, before you go anuther
                    futher. Otherwise your question is illogical.
                    ....
                    >
                    > I could genuinely use the help. If all you want to do is wave a magic
                    > wand and say that you can't find them in the mss that you don't have,
                    > quit wasting our time.
                    >
                    ........
                    j; Then quit asking illogical loaded questions and expect an answer.

                    Happy day;
                    James
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Respectfully,
                    > Stephen Lord
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                  • Stephen Lord
                    This is really quite simple.  James, it appears you have made some assumptions and misconstrued the motive for this question from the get go and wish to make
                    Message 9 of 13 , Oct 5, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This is really quite simple.  James, it appears you have made some assumptions and misconstrued the motive for this question from the get go and wish to make it something it is not.

                      Absent the original manuscripts, can we recover the original reading of the Biblical text with the mss we do have?

                      I believe we can.  I believe the fruit of textual criticism enables us to look at all these mss and reliably reconstruct the reading of the original text.  We can rest assured that we have access to what the biblical writers actually put down on papyrus and parchmente.

                      One of the features of that original text, found in the text provided by textual critics of all persuasions, whether we work from a Majority Text, the TR, or the Critical Text, is the presence of solecisms.

                      So, then, how do we reconcile the very real presence of solecisms in the text with our position on inerrancy?

                      James' apparent solution is to simply deny their existence as part of the original text.  That is not a helpful, nor objective, nor honest approach.  It is the intellectual equivalent of "flat earth" arguments and "KJV Only" arguments--no basis in real world facts.

                      James asked for an example of a solecism.  I gave him but one of many conservative biblical scholars have acknowledged as being part of the original text.  James dismissed it.

                      When I pointed out that the results of textual criticism are that the solecisms are real, he asked proof from a scholarly source.  I provided it.  He dismissed it.

                      What James apparently wants to do is a song and dance routine and quibble over matters of syntax.  James, if you wish to deny that solecisms are a feature of the original text as we are able to reconstruct it, you are welcome to do so.  However, we will be unable to have an intelligent and constructive conversation on this subject so long as you are in denial.  We both have better and more important things to do.

                      Now, as someone who believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures and that the original reading of the text is not lost to us, I have been challenged on the subject of inerrancy.  I turned to this list for constructive help, perhaps being directed to a resource or to be presented with intellectually honest and objective treatments of the subject.  Are there list members who can provide help on this matter?

                      If not, no harm, no foul, I'll look elsewhere for answers.


                       
                      Respectfully,
                      Stephen Lord


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jozinky
                      Yo Stephen; . ... ......... j; Things are not always what they appear to be. :-) ... ........... j; Ver-r-ry goood. My point precisely. ... ............ j;
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 5, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yo Stephen;
                        .
                        On 10/5/2012 10:36 AM, Stephen Lord wrote:
                        >
                        > This is really quite simple. James, it appears you have made some
                        > assumptions and misconstrued the motive for this question from the get
                        > go and wish to make it something it is not.
                        >
                        .........
                        j; Things are not always what they 'appear' to be. :-)
                        ....
                        >
                        >
                        > Absent the original manuscripts,
                        >
                        ...........
                        j; Ver-r-ry goood. My point precisely.
                        ....
                        >
                        > can we recover the original reading of the Biblical text with the mss
                        > we do have?
                        >
                        ............
                        j; Ah... so you are backpedaling from the original -manuscripts- to
                        recovery of original -text-. Very good.
                        The answer to your question is.. Yes; but... not 100%.
                        ............
                        >
                        >
                        > I believe we can.
                        >
                        .........
                        j; Me too... but again not 100%. If you know of a 100% recovery then lay
                        it on me & I will admit I learned something.
                        ...........
                        ........
                        >
                        > I believe the fruit of textual criticism enables us to look at all
                        > these mss and reliably reconstruct the reading of the original text.
                        >
                        .......
                        j; Me also... but again not 100%.
                        ....
                        >
                        > We can rest assured that we have access to what the biblical writers
                        > actually put down on papyrus and parchmente.
                        >
                        ........
                        j; True but not 100%. :-)
                        ........
                        >
                        >
                        > One of the features of that original text, found in the text provided
                        > by textual critics of all persuasions, whether we work from a Majority
                        > Text, the TR, or the Critical Text, is the presence of solecisms.
                        >
                        ..........
                        j; I absolutely agree. In the -recovered- texts... not the Original
                        Manuscripts. No one knows what the OMs look like. :-)
                        .....
                        >
                        >
                        > So, then, how do we reconcile the very real presence of solecisms in
                        > the text with our position on inerrancy?
                        >
                        ......
                        j; Zimple... Scribal error.
                        ..........
                        >
                        >
                        > James' apparent solution is to simply deny their existence as part of
                        > the original text.
                        >
                        ...........
                        j; Prove where I denied that. :-(
                        .........
                        >
                        > That is not a helpful, nor objective, nor honest approach.
                        >
                        ........
                        j; Of course it's not because it's your straw man fallacy. I never said
                        I denied anything. All I said was 2 words... Show Me. You can't so you
                        claim I denied something. Bad bad bad Stephen. :-)
                        ....
                        .........
                        >
                        > It is the intellectual equivalent of "flat earth" arguments and "KJV
                        > Only" arguments--no basis in real world facts.
                        >
                        .........
                        j; Whatever.... :-\. You're the one who has no basis of facts concerning
                        the OMs. All you/we have are extant mss from which we attempt to recover
                        the original text... which so far has not come to 100%. In these
                        -recovered- texts there is without a doubt lots of solecisms.
                        .......
                        >
                        >
                        > James asked for an example of a solecism.
                        >
                        .......
                        j; Yeah from the -Original Manuscripts-... which you are unable to produce.
                        ...........
                        >
                        > I gave him but one
                        >
                        ........
                        j; Not from the Original Manuscripts you didn't. :-\
                        ......
                        >
                        > of many conservative biblical scholars have acknowledged as being part
                        > of the original text.
                        >
                        ......
                        j; But -not- part of the Original Manuscripts.
                        ..........
                        >
                        > James dismissed it.
                        >
                        ........
                        j; James did nothing of the sort. James pointed out that not even
                        scholars have access to the OMs.
                        ..........
                        >
                        >
                        > When I pointed out that the results of textual criticism are that the
                        > solecisms are real, he asked proof from a scholarly source. I
                        > provided it.
                        >
                        ........
                        j; You did no such thing. All you "provided" was a reflection of present
                        day extant mss. I asked you to show me from the Original Manuscripts as
                        per your loaded illogical question. You could not so now you construct
                        straw man arguments against me. Bad on you Stephen.
                        ...........
                        >
                        > He dismissed it.
                        >
                        .........
                        j; Correct because proving something from extant mss and proving it from
                        the OMs are 2 very different things. You can prove the former but you
                        can in no way prove the latter... unless of course you have OMs in your
                        possession. Do you?
                        ...........
                        >
                        > What James apparently wants to do is a song and dance routine and
                        > quibble over matters of syntax.
                        >
                        .....
                        j; Straw man fallacy... ;-/
                        ......
                        >
                        > James, if you wish to deny that solecisms are a feature of the
                        > original text as we are able to reconstruct it, you are welcome to do so.
                        >
                        .........
                        j; Another Straw man fallacy... ;-/. James does not wish to do so...
                        James wishes to see some proof from you for your claim about the
                        Original ~~Manuscripts~~.
                        .........
                        >
                        > However, we will be unable to have an intelligent and constructive
                        > conversation on this subject so long as you are in denial.
                        >
                        ...........
                        j; And as long as you continue to beat your wife.
                        .........
                        >
                        > We both have better and more important things to do.
                        >
                        .....
                        j; True. I'm learning club chops. Very difficult.
                        ..........
                        >
                        >
                        > Now, as someone who believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures and
                        > that the original reading of the text is not lost to us, I have been
                        > challenged on the subject of inerrancy.
                        >
                        ..........
                        j; As well as on your loaded question... not to mention your straw man
                        arguments.
                        ...........
                        >
                        > I turned to this list for constructive help, perhaps being directed
                        > to a resource or to be presented with intellectually honest and
                        > objective treatments of the subject.
                        >
                        .........
                        j; And I encouraged you to rephrase your question because it contains an
                        unproven assumption... that being that there are solecisms in the
                        Original Manuscripts.
                        ..........
                        >
                        > Are there list members who can provide help on this matter?
                        >

                        >
                        > If not, no harm, no foul, I'll look elsewhere for answers.
                        >
                        ......
                        j; Happy hunting... but perhaps you might want to do a qu1k brush up
                        course in basic Logic? Try here;

                        http://www.logic-classroom.info/intro.htm

                        http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
                        See Complex Question on that one... :-)

                        Acts 17:11;
                        James
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Respectfully,
                        > Stephen Lord
                        >
                      • Jozinky
                        Greetings; Rev 1:4 according to the scholar Robinson is not a solecism. The Greek construction was done on purpose. From him which is (apo o wn). This use of
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 5, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Greetings;

                          Rev 1:4 according to the scholar Robinson is not a solecism. The Greek
                          construction was done on purpose.

                          From him which is (apo o wn). This use of the articular nominative
                          participle of eimi after apo instead of the ablative is not due to
                          ignorance or a mere slip (laquv pennae), for in the next line we have
                          the regular idiom with apo twn epta pneumatwn. It is evidently on
                          purpose to call attention to the eternity and unchangeableness of God.
                          Used of God in #Ex 3:14. Robertson's word pictures.

                          James
                        • Stephen Lord
                          I found something of what I was looking for in regard to help on my question in the following article, though not quite as detailed as I was hoping for. 
                          Message 12 of 13 , Oct 6, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I found something of what I was looking for in regard to help on my question in the following article, though not quite as detailed as I was hoping for.  Perhaps it will be of help to list members:
                            http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=1263

                            There is also a section of solecisms and inerrancy in an essay by Daniel Wallace at:
                            http://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism

                            I'm told there is also some treatment of the subject in Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible, when I'm able to access a copy I'll look there.

                            I'm sorry I could not find the help I was looking for on this list.

                            James, were I an opponent of the inspiration of Scriptures and seeking to enter in to a formal debate with another, which would include a set of agreed upon rules, a panel of moderators and formally stated Affirmations and Negatives, I might have an interest in wording a statement in accord with the mutually agreed upon rules of that formal debate procedure.  However, as I was not entering in to a formal debate, but asking a personal query in an informal setting, I'm under no moral compunction to reword a question to suit the whims of one individual before a helpful answer will be provided.  If you had a constructive solution to the issue of solecisms in the text, it would have been useful to provide it instead of wanting to engage in a sideshow issue of how to word a question in a formal debate in a way to suit your liking.  Trying to sweep every instance of solecism in the text under the rug with the magic broom of "scribal error" is intellectually
                            dishonest and therefore of no help to me. 

                            And, sir, I do know a thing or two about Formal and Informal Logic, including its limitations.  And I didn't learn it from websites.  Perhaps one day when it is of burning concern to me, you and I can enter in to a discussion of its use, misuse, and abuse in informal conversations.


                             
                            Respectfully,
                            Stephen Lord


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jozinky
                            Yo Stephen; . ... ......... j; Well you really didn t make a statement; you asked a question, and an illogical one at that. ... ...... j; Yes... an illogical,
                            Message 13 of 13 , Oct 6, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Yo Stephen;
                              .
                              On 10/6/2012 9:27 AM, Stephen Lord wrote:
                              > James, were I an opponent of the inspiration of Scriptures and seeking
                              > to enter in to a formal debate with another, which would include a set
                              > of agreed upon rules, a panel of moderators and formally stated
                              > Affirmations and Negatives, I might have an interest in wording a
                              > statement in accord with the mutually agreed upon rules of that formal
                              > debate procedure.
                              .........
                              j; Well you really didn't make a statement; you asked a question, and an
                              illogical one at that.
                              ...........
                              > However, as I was not entering in to a formal debate, but asking a
                              > personal query in an informal setting,
                              ......
                              j; Yes... an illogical, loaded question. :-)
                              ........
                              > I'm under no moral compunction to reword a question to suit the whims
                              > of one individual before a helpful answer will be provided.
                              .........
                              j; One cannot offer a "helpful answer" to an illogical question.
                              .........
                              > If you had a constructive solution to the issue of solecisms in the
                              > text, it would have been useful to provide it instead of wanting to
                              > engage in a sideshow issue of how to word a question in a formal
                              > debate in a way to suit your liking.
                              .........
                              j; Well you didn't ask about solecisms in the text; you asked about
                              solecisms in the Original Manuscripts.
                              .......
                              > Trying to sweep every instance of solecism in the text under the rug
                              > with the magic broom of "scribal error" is intellectually dishonest
                              > and therefore of no help to me.
                              ........
                              j; You don't believe in scribal error? You think it's a "magic broom"?
                              So sorry. Perhaps you have a better solution for solecism in the
                              ~text~... not the Original Manuscripts. If so y knot show it to us
                              instead of throwing rocks.
                              .........
                              >
                              > And, sir, I do know a thing or two about Formal and Informal Logic,
                              > including its limitations.
                              ........
                              j; Well you kood-a fooled me with your loaded question & straw man
                              arguments.
                              .........
                              > And I didn't learn it from websites.
                              ......
                              j; Methinks you didn't learn it period.. :-D
                              ....
                              > Perhaps one day when it is of burning concern to me, you and I can
                              > enter in to a discussion of its use, misuse, and abuse in informal
                              > conversations.
                              ......
                              j; Surprise... we already have by way of my pointing out your illogical
                              thinking.

                              hand;
                              James
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.