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

Re: Text types

Expand Messages
  • Daniel
    ... What you have to do is prove that it is unneccesary in light of the fact that some differences could be there even though we are not aware of them. ...
    Message 1 of 32 , May 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "timmopussycat"
      <timmopussycat@y...> wrote:
      > --- 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.

      What you have to do is prove that it is unneccesary in light of the
      fact that some differences could be there even though we are not
      aware of them.

      > 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.

      Regardless, you've just admitted that you are using the doctrine
      which we are supposed to learn from the Bible to judge them as phony.
      This doesn't answer the question because all it does is lay out the
      different types of differences and asserts that some texts fall under
      that category. It doesn't prove that there is no difference in the
      major texts any more than I could prove that there are no tables in a
      building by showing you one room of it. This is imposible to prove
      because it would require you to know every single doctrine in the
      Bible which is impossible for mere men.

      Here are the steps to proving that there are no differences between
      the texts:

      1) Obtain a list of all the doctrines that the Bible contains (This,
      of course, would require a pre-criticism Bible but that is a
      different part of the debate.),

      2) Go through them all one by one in each text.

      Step one is imposible, step two (which you can't get to anyways)
      would take an eternity (so even if you did get to this step you could
      never prove it).

      > 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.

      Interesting, but you constantly ask if there are any differences in
      doctrine which indicates that you would reject a text that had
      differences. Let me illustrate. Say I did, some how, find out that
      the Alexandrian texts omited a whole doctrine. You would be in a
      bind. Because the Latin Texts, the Majority Texts, the Textus
      Receptus, Cecerian (and whatever other texts there are) wouldn't have
      them. How would you know for certain which text is right? I guess you
      could look at the dates of the various ones and the amount of the
      various text types but would that make you know for sure? Not really.
      Because that is the nature of science. This means that one doctrine
      would be either missing from one text or added to the others and we
      can't know for sure. And this still doesn't answer the objection that
      the words are inspired, not just the ideas.

      Even if all of the well proven manuscripts did have all of the
      doctrines, they could only be proven over other ones by degrees and
      you can't deny the possibility that the others *could* be right (even
      if it is a .00000001 percent chance.

      What it comes down to is that scripture offers one hundred percent
      truth and science offers at best less than that. How can you be 100%
      sure that Christ rose from the grave if you base that on a Bible that
      is a result of studies that make you only at best LESS than 100
      percent sure. You can't derive a sure doctrine from a premise that is
      unsure. I know you would argue that you are not proving that the
      Bible is right but just trying to refine certain differences (because
      they all agree in most places) but the only reason why you know that
      they agree in most places is because of science and you might be 99.9
      percent certain but the other .1 percent should haunt you because the
      only way to have full assurance of salvation is to have full
      assurance that scripture is true. In other words, scientific
      arguement cannot logically precede our belief in the Bible.

      Here is another question: how does a layman know for sure that every
      word he reads is true? He knows it before he takes apolagetics or
      textual criticism courses. So, it must be the assurance of the Holy
      Spirit and that is the only logical way I can see.

      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.