Dean Burgon Quote

[RAdam]

Well, the answer to your question unless I missed it is that for the Hebrew/Aramic is the Masoretic Text, and for the NT was the Recieved Text, or Traditional Text. Is that correct?

Yes. In my view we are either to accept this or be forced to conclude that for centuries God's people were without "every word of God."

 

[TCassidy]

Point me to one single scripture that tells me that there is error in the bible. I keep asking for this and have yet to see one.

You seem to be laboring under a problem of misapprehension. The word of God contains no errors. But hand written copies of manuscripts all contain errors. It is our job, our responsibility, our sacred duty, to root those out and ensure the purity of the word.

If you choose to shirk your God-given responsibility, on your head be it.

 

[TCassidy]

Apparently the bible is telling me that every single individual word is pure.

Interesting. So, you are saying that every single word of the Alexandrian Textform, as represented by Aleph and B, are the pure words of God? Wow! That is quite an assertion!

 

[TCassidy]

Yes. In my view we are either to accept this or be forced to conclude that for centuries God's people were without "every word of God."

So which "Received Text" is the one and only correct version? There are over 30 DIFFERENT editions of the Received Text.

And, when you pick which one is the one and only correct one, how do you know it is the one and only correct one?

 

[RAdam]

You seem to be laboring under a problem of misapprehension. The word of God contains no errors. But hand written copies of manuscripts all contain errors. It is our job, our responsibility, our sacred duty, to root those out and ensure the purity of the word.

If you choose to shirk your God-given responsibility, on your head be it.

I still see you haven't produced one text that tells me the bible has errors and it is my responsibility to find them and remove them. I'm still waiting patiently.

Do you not consider "hand written copies" to be the word of God? If not, then what is the word of God?

 

[RAdam]

Interesting. So, you are saying that every single word of the Alexandrian Textform, as represented by Aleph and B, are the pure words of God? Wow! That is quite an assertion!

I didn't mention the Aleph and B, now did I.

 

[RAdam]

So which "Received Text" is the one and only correct version? There are over 30 DIFFERENT editions of the Received Text.

And, when you pick which one is the one and only correct one, how do you know it is the one and only correct one?

You gotta love this argument, often used by people who give lip service to the word of God. The argument is nothing more than a distraction from the discussion at hand and it shows where one's confidence is placed.

 

[TCassidy]

I didn't mention the Aleph and B, now did I.

You said the word of God is pure. Aleph and B are representitive of hand written copies of the word of God in Greek. I the word of God must be 100% pure, and Aleph and B represent the word of God in Greek, then you must think they are 100% pure. Either that or you are totally lacking in logical reasoning skills.

 

[TCassidy]

You gotta love this argument, often used by people who give lip service to the word of God. The argument is nothing more than a distraction from the discussion at hand and it shows where one's confidence is placed.

I can't help but notice you can't answer the question.

Here, I will post it again for you:
So which "Received Text" is the one and only correct version? There are over 30 DIFFERENT editions of the Received Text.

And, when you pick which one is the one and only correct one, how do you know it is the one and only correct one?

 

[TCassidy]

I still see you haven't produced one text that tells me the bible has errors and it is my responsibility to find them and remove them. I'm still waiting patiently.

Do you not consider "hand written copies" to be the word of God? If not, then what is the word of God?

Yes. Don't you? Does the word of God have to have been printed on a printing press to be the word of God? If so are you claiming all of God's people prior to Gutenberg did not have the word of God?

 

[RAdam]

Yes. Don't you? Does the word of God have to have been printed on a printing press to be the word of God? If so are you claiming all of God's people prior to Gutenberg did not have the word of God?

Yes I certainly do. What made me ask that question was when you said: "The word of God contains no errors. But hand written copies of manuscripts all contain errors." Huh? Are hand written copies of manuscripts not the word of God?

 

[RAdam]

You said the word of God is pure. Aleph and B are representitive of hand written copies of the word of God in Greek. I the word of God must be 100% pure, and Aleph and B represent the word of God in Greek, then you must think they are 100% pure. Either that or you are totally lacking in logical reasoning skills.

First of all, I take exception with your usage of the phrase, "representative of the word of God." Now look, either something is the word of God or it isn't. Either a manuscript is the word of God or it isn't. You say this or that is "representative of the word of God." Do you not believe a manuscript is hte word of God? If not, what then is the word of God?

 

[RAdam]

I can't help but notice you can't answer the question.

Here, I will post it again for you:
So which "Received Text" is the one and only correct version? There are over 30 DIFFERENT editions of the Received Text.

And, when you pick which one is the one and only correct one, how do you know it is the one and only correct one?

Well turn about is fair play seeing you've yet to produce me one text that tells me it is my duty to remove errors from the bible.

The problem is not my inability to answer your question, but your question itself. It is nothing more than a distraction at hand and reveals your position on the word of God. What is the word of God? Your position is we cannot know. You would ask someone to comb through every single manuscript and find one and say, "this is it," or be forced to admit we have no copy today preserved from errors. I reject this notion altogether as being false.

 

[TCassidy]

First of all, I take exception with your usage of the phrase, "representative of the word of God." Now look, either something is the word of God or it isn't. Either a manuscript is the word of God or it isn't. You say this or that is "representative of the word of God." Do you not believe a manuscript is hte word of God? If not, what then is the word of God?

So, if, in your opinion, the Greek manuscripts and texts are NOT the word of God, where did our present English Bible come from?

If one of the Greek manuscripts IS the word of God, which one? There are presently over 5,600 of them, all different.

If one of them is the word of God, how do you know it is the word of God to the exclusion of all others?

These are questions you are going to have to learn to answer, sooner or later. Hopefully they will cause you to examine what you believe and why you believe it to the extent that your faith can grow beyond the milk to the meat of the word.

 

[TCassidy]

Well turn about is fair play seeing you've yet to produce me one text that tells me it is my duty to remove errors from the bible.

So, you would rather the errors stay in the manuscripts and texts? Why?

The problem is not my inability to answer your question, but your question itself. It is nothing more than a distraction at hand and reveals your position on the word of God.

Sorry, but you are wrong. It is a legitimate question. And it does reveal my position on the word of God. I believe the word of God is inspired, preserved, perfect, pure, inerrant, and infallible.

What is the word of God?

The Bible is the word of God.

Your position is we cannot know.

That is simply a lie. We can know. We do know. I have one I have been preaching from for over 50 years.

You would ask someone to comb through every single manuscript and find one and say, "this is it," or be forced to admit we have no copy today preserved from errors.

Not at all. Firstly I never ask anyone to do anything I am not willing to do myself. Secondly I know I have the word of God, inspired, inerrant, infallible, pure, perfect, and preserved for my use today. And further, I know how I got it.

I reject this notion altogether as being false.

So do I. See. We agree on something!

 

[Deacon]

So we all have opinions on the matter.

Experts have expert opinions.

Scholars have scholarly opinions.

But there still just opinions.

It’s a problem that can’t be ultimately solved until we meet our maker.

It becomes a tension that must be managed.

Sure one may be correct and the other wrong but we can’t discern which one it is without some uncertainty.

An inflexible opinion becomes a character flaw.

If you attempt to resolve an irresolvable tension you create new problems.
The final authority becomes those choosing which variant is correct, be it in the year 200, or 1600 or now.

God knows that there are variants in his written word.

IMO, the maturity of a believer depends not upon the resolution of those tensions but on the successful management of these tensions.

We have to balance our understanding of a particular doctrine with the uncertainties in the texts.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
1 Corinthians 13:12 (ESV)

Rob