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

Re: Text types

Expand Messages
  • Daniel
    Tim, In responce to your question regarding examples of doctrines omited in the non textus receptus texts, I don t have any. I ve answered your question, but
    Message 1 of 32 , Apr 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Tim,

      In responce to your question regarding examples of doctrines omited
      in the non textus receptus texts, I don't have any. 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.

      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. Yes there are texts that don't have even
      fundamental doctrines but not the ones you are talking about because
      then you would have ruled them out. Why? Because you believe certain
      doctrine's which you use to establish which texts are legitimate. If
      I did show you an example that wouldn't do any good because you would
      still jump to any other texts which hasn't been shown to be non-
      fundamental yet. Here is an important request I would like to make:
      You have to establish a criteria which doesn't include "having the
      fundamentals" because that is like saying that evolution is true
      because it matches up with the facts (since the definition is
      of "true" includes factualness).

      As for the early church not having the textus receptus, that's true.
      There are different degrees of corruption. For instance, if all I had
      was a copy of a text that was mainly based on the Alexandrian texts,
      I would gladly use it. But this doesn't prove anything because if we
      DO have better texts why not use them. I don't deny that the TR could
      have some flaws (although I don't rule out the possibility that one
      of them is flawless) but the main thing I am disputing is a method
      not a text. What I measure "corrupt" by is in comparison to the best
      that we now have and what I measure the best by is that which I have
      been persuaded by the Holy Spirit to believe. You might say that is
      supersticious but then the London Confession which I assume you
      adhere to (if you are Reformed Baptist) would have to be
      superstisious (since it affirms this). Also, I could say that you are
      supersticious by using these doctrines that you don't even know are
      true yet according to your logic because at that point in the logical
      sequence you don't yet have a Bible. Also, how can it be proven that
      the Holy Spirit DOESN'T work that way.

      In Christ,

      Daniel Drost
    • bob_suden
      Sorry Chris, Didn t see this before my last. Finally an acknowledgment of PP according to the WCF contra the previous discussion on nothing would be lost
      Message 32 of 32 , May 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry Chris,
        Didn't see this before my last.
        Finally an acknowledgment of PP according to the WCF contra the
        previous discussion on nothing would be lost regardless of which
        text/manuscript family used etc.etc.

        cordially in Christ,
        Bob Suden


        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
        <c_tylor@y...> wrote:
        > > What good is it simply to know that there is an
        > > original out there somewhere?
        >
        > Dan:
        >
        > I think what I am saying is that we know about the providential
        purity
        > of the Scripture text (a priori) and so any corruption must
        > necessarily be insignificant by definition, or preservation isn't
        > preservation.
        >
        > The autograph is not some hypothetical entity existing at the end of
        > research, it is present with us in the apogpraphs (copies) by virtue
        > of providential preservation (WCF 1:8). This isnt Kantianism, where
        > the ding-an-sich is unknowable and always beyond perception. The
        > apographs are of course pure themselves.
        >
        > I just thought this up and the logic of it might be wrong but it
        seems
        > to me as if your position is the one that puts the Scripture outside
        > somewhere. True, you believe we can by a leap of pure faith all
        > together 'reach' out and grab the original variant. You therefore
        > think any sincere Christian can know the words of the original.
        >
        > But your position, if I followed you correctly (which I am not
        certain
        > I have!), considers all but the autographical readings impure and
        the
        > entire manuscript tradition literally a big mass of inchoate
        corrupted
        > uninspired variants. You suggest we can by "inner ostention", pick
        > out individually (or corporately in some capacity) the autographical
        > reading through sincere faith (and perhaps, some scholarship).
        >
        > However it seems to me that is inadequate, since it more or less
        > treats the manuscript tradition as wildly infused with corruptions.
        > How can God by a singular providence kept the autograph readings
        pure
        > if the autograph reading must by definition be only a single variant
        > among the several that usually exist for each sentence?
        >
        > (Forgive me if I reduced a strawman to absurdity, Daniel!)
        >
        > The proper confessional way to view it seems to me to say the
        > manuscripts in church use have been kept pure from heresy or schism
        or
        > infidelity. Isn't that what WCF 1:8 is saying? The TRs of the
        > Reformation are the RPNA's ecclessiastical text(s) because it was a
        > homologated text of the Reformers and it is a known pure text.
        Other
        > printed texts (or even manuscripts) are of indeteriminate purity and
        > so can't be authoritative use until we have a Covenanted synod or
        > assembly trained in all the requisite fields homologate that those
        are
        > pure.
        >
        > [For instance, what if someone wanted to teach doctrine today based
        > off a manuscript of Marcion?! Or another gnostic hacked up text?
        > Providential purity protected only the visible church's
        > ecclessiastical preaching texts and not mutilated versions of
        damnable
        > heretics. One big reason to put a question mark on the Alexandrian
        > and Western (and now Caesarian) text types is John Burgon's
        > scholarship to prove these were isolated, heretical texts that never
        > had widespread ecclessiastical use. Was he right?]
        >
        > The apograph variants are all literally insignificant on this way of
        > viewing things, and the lost autographs are not of any great
        relevence
        > to us today. Of course the fact that the many variants for any
        given
        > pericope originate from a single original entail that only one
        variant
        > is autographical, and textual criticism works towards that. But the
        > enterprise of suggesting most likely autographical readings (which
        is
        > what textual criticism is) is not of any great importance because of
        > the known factor of providential purity of the manuscript tradition.
        >
        > That's why it is not right to think of the implications of accepting
        > textual criticism as implying some sort of
        > Letis-style-interpretion-of-Warfield, the eternal and unreachable
        > search for the autographs, and replacing the apographs with some
        > scholarly probabilistic autograph reconstruction. Who knows, maybe a
        > lot of people who deny the enduring providential purity of the text
        in
        > the framer's sense might believe that. Not sure if Warfield did.
        >
        > So that is kind of why I think textual criticism doesnt make the
        bible
        > the preserve of the "specialist" and the scholar and destroy
        > infallibility. I think if anything your view (or the one I am
        > ascribing to you in this post for the sake of argument) of treating
        > any non-autographical variant as a life-or-death end of inerrancy
        > (saved only by our inner ostending--a Wittgenstein word--the one and
        > only pure variant) is the death of infallibilty.
        >
        > What do you think?
        >
        >
        > Sincerely in Christ,
        >
        > Chris T.
        > Montreal, QC
        > RPNA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.