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

12825Re: Text types

Expand Messages
  • timmopussycat
    May 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel"
      <ddrost@P...> wrote:
      > Tim,
      >
      > In responce to your question regarding examples of doctrines
      omited
      > in the non textus receptus texts, I don't have any.

      Tim-Then may I suggest you find some. Otherwise this discussion is
      essentially unnecessary.

      I've answered
      > your question, but can you now answer mine? I never said that I
      know
      > of any examples but my arguement is that we cannot rule out the
      > possibility of them being there yet just not discovered. Just
      because
      > we don't know of them doesn't mean that they are not there. Please
      > anwer this exact question. If you want me to answer another
      > difficulty related to it, that's fine, but please be fair and
      answer
      > my question too.

      Tim- I did answer it. See the pp. on the cross references provided
      by the Ante Nicene Fathers. In addition consider the following: Any
      heretofore unknown differences in doctrine turning up with any
      hypothetical new found mss. of a new type will, of necessity, fall
      into one of these categories:
      1) omissions of material to all presently known text types.
      2) additions to said common material.
      3) contradictions of said common material.

      and can be rejected on the basis of one of these grounds as some
      phoney "gospels" "acts" and "epistles" already have been.

      Note well, however, that I would only use this doctinal control in
      this situation of examining any (hypothetical) newly appearing mss.
      that are doctrinally different from our present known mss. families.
      I do not apply this control to the mss we presently have. In our
      present situation of known mss. differences, the situation is
      different and so is my procedure.

      > And you haven't really answered my objection regarding the fact
      that
      > you consider the Alexandrian manuscript legitimite based on the
      fact
      > that it has fundamental doctrines which you believe in order to
      guide
      > you on your quest for the best text. Did you get these doctrines
      from
      > the Bible? And if so you are using the same logic that you accuse
      me
      > of because you wouldn't consider any text permissible that omitted
      > any fundamentals.

      Tim-You are misunderstanding my reasoning. I am not trying to say
      that I have a doctrinal control of what is valid text among our
      present choices: I am trying to say that my control is the practice
      of starting from what is common betwen the text types. In this
      discussion, for simplicity's sake I limit my remarks to the A and
      the B types, but at a comprehensive level all types must necessarily
      be included. The authoritativeness of this common material is not at
      issue; that, by the Spirit, we know is from God. The issue of which
      of our prsent mss is correct is only raised for us when the existing
      texts differ. Now the Alexandrian text type is shorter than
      Byzantine. Since the A type mss. are shorter than B type, most, if
      not all, of the distinctions between the families are cases where A
      types omit data which B texts have. My point is that there is no
      truth of Christian faith found in B and not found in A (although
      perhaps not taught in the same places). This is why I ask for
      specific examples of where a doctrine found in B. cannot be found in
      A.

      BTW keep in mind that I am not passionately committed to one view or
      the other of this topic. The one point that I am passionate about is
      that much of the heat of the current discussion is unnecessary until
      and unless advocates of any group can demonstrate that there is any
      doctrine lost by reliance on non B. type mss, or anything in B. mss
      that is impossible to be found in other types, neither of which
      conclusions have yet been proved. Until that happens, then and only
      them will this subject deserve the fuss presently being made over
      it.

      In the meantime, provided lay Christians know the main differences
      between text types and how textual criticism works, we can leave the
      quest of catalogueing analyzing the extant mss to scholarly
      investigation. For all major English translations of the Scripture
      (my limit in the liberal direction of the term "major" is the
      original edition NIV, my recommended study bible is NASV) are
      infallibly God's word.

      Tim
    • Show all 32 messages in this topic