Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
I have never seen how two men can overthrow the faith of so many just because they came up with a dynamic way of translating Greek, but of course, only according to what they demand the Greek to say.
Are you really that ignorant of this subject?
W-H, right or wrong, didn't come up with a dynamic way of translating Greek. They came up with a somewhat scientific means for critically evaluating manuscript evidence.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, thanks for asking. W-H used scientific ways to refute God's Word. Now I am not as ignorant as i used to be!
</font>[/QUOTE] Apparently you are if you can make a statement like this in good faith. W-H for all their real and possible flaws were not attempting to refute God's Word. They made a scholarly effort toward reconstructing the originals based on what they thought were good evidences and assumptions.
It is blatantly un-Christian and dishonest to demonize a person's motives without reason simply because they disagree with you.
Sounds much like darwin, knowing his formulas would never be proven true or false, due to the vast amount of variables he adjusted to fit his theory.
They did come out of the same philosophical era and impulses.
They favored organized study of things over tradition. I would submit that it was the basic presuppositions that led to errors by both Darwin and W-H. I doubt that it was dishonesty or even a flaw in their motivation to set up objective criterion for evaluating textual evidence on the part of W-H.
The problem with darwinists is that they deny he made any critical presuppositions that should be questioned. The presuppositions of W-H have constantly been subject to review, criticism, and change.
Again, thank you for clearing up my dark train of thought that somehow Darwin and W-H were closely related in their philosophical approach to things that are already established fact. All three, by your admission, used questionable means to come to a presupposed conclusion, but that conclusion deserves much criticism.[/quote][/qb] No. I didn't admit any such thing.
W-H were more or less answering/questioning whether the mystical idea that the "traditional texts" preserved by catholicism were the best basis for the Bible.
A completely uncritical approach to the texts relies greatly on the assumption that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have made no significant errors or intentional changes in preserving the texts.
Change, yes, especially since their methods are exposed as misleading as to try and prove those same presuppositons.
I'll answer what I think you mean...
Darwin presupposed a broad and very unlikely conclustion whose truth relies on acceptance of philosophical naturalism/materialism as absolute governing "truth".
W-H presumed that a scientific method for evaluating evidence would produce a text that was closer to the original autographs. They seemed to have assume that it would look like the older family- Alexandrian.
Their main flaws lie in the assumptions they used concerning how to weight texts. In particular, the oldest is not always the most reliable (Oh, but you would agree with W-H there wouldn't you?
). Another is the assumption that the most difficult reading is to be preferred... having managed data entry personnel who entered thousands of addresses daily... I am certain that no such rule is reasonable.
Review? Why? Once they had been exposed, no sense in any further review.
Because they haven't been exposed since there is no evidence they were hiding anything. They thought they could more accurately reproduce the original Bible texts.
What needs to be reviewed is where they went wrong... Assuming that the TR/KJV is correct isn't a reasonable or honest answer to the question of what the precise wording of the original autographs was.
I would deduce that some one of your caliber would reckon these facts for themselves and make some changes instead of holding to any presuppositional philosophies.
I presuppose what the Bible clearly and unquestionably declares- That God would preserve His Word. From that starting point, it is perfectly reasonable and godly to seek the most accurate representation of that preservation... It is ungodly to make assumptions based on tradition that one version or text is "perfect" when God said no such thing nor promised that He would give us a word for word facsimile of the originals.
(being that you did say their works are "presuppositional"
Not nearly as much so as KJVO's... even Darwinists can claim their theory can accommodate the evidence though the probability against their speculation being true is astronomical.
KJVO's continue to hold their theory in spite of evidence that directly contradicts and refutes it- both logical reasoning and historical fact stand in opposition to KJVOnlyism.
