Fundamental View of the Bible

[Don]

Hi Don, "there you go again" pushing a policy of your own invention. We know you said the purpose of your questions were to "debunk" the thread, but now you say you would be happy to discuss the topic if only I bow to your sovereignty. The question is, were you being disingenuous then, or now? If the answer if both, there you go again.

Van, what was my very first response to you? It was asking why you placed this thread in the fundamental baptist section. Has that changed in 8 pages?

You've incorrectly assumed that the term "debunk," used on page 2, was in reference to somehow proving you wrong. I say incorrectly because the context in which the word was used was in regards to the relationship of the opening post to this particular forum (i.e., your OP indicated a set of statements attributed to independent fundamental baptists; which JoJ found, and you admitted, actually belonged to a group not associated with fundamental baptists). In other words, it appeared--and still does--that your intent was not to discuss something about fundamental baptists, but to discuss your personal understanding of scripture--something you basically admitted when you were shown where the statements in your OP came from a non-IFB source, and you subsequently posted that you should have paid closer attention to that. You identified in that admission that your motivation for starting this thread had nothing to do with fundamental baptists, but with how people translate, view, and/or understand scripture.

At this point, this thread is still about themes beyond just fundamental baptists; yet you continue to argue about me having some motive other than what I've consistently expressed since the beginning of the thread.

Instead of opening this subject to others in a more appropriate section, you continue to argue it here. Is there a particular reason why you won't take it to those sections? Do you prefer a much less visited area, offering fewer opposing viewpoints, thereby giving the appearance that your opinions/views are unopposed? Do you not want your viewpoints to withstand the maximum amount of testing possible?

 

[Van]

Just a quick note Don. I posted the rule that allows me to post in this forum. You ignored that post. This thread is for the purpose of discussing the fundamental view of scripture alone. Subsequent to the OP, I have posted an doctrine statement from a group calling Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International Constitution. You have not commented on that doctrine. Next, another poster gave references to several more statements on scripture. You have ignored those.

No amount of redefining your words will change the dictionary. Your purpose was not to discuss the topic but to derail it. QED

 

[Van]

Thanks HankD for entering into the discussion of scripture overruling the tradition.

Just because there are opposing views, that does not bolster the older or "traditional" view. What matters is accurately understanding God's inspired scriptures.

The fundamental doctrines of the Baptist tradition must continually be put into the crucible of truth, burning away the sticks and straw, no matter how well intentioned they were.

If we allow God's message to be frozen in archaic words, like begotten or propitiation, or phrases like it is finished not being recognized as meaning "the debt is settled" we hinder the ministry of Christ. We should let our yes be yes and our no be no, and not present doctrines in vague terms to allow people to fill in the blanks with whatever flips their switch. We are not to be manipulative.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic. Lets take the phrase, we believe in the plenary (complete) inspiration of the Bible. Does this mean in the original autographs, i.e. what the author or his scribe originally put in writing, is complete, but was subsequently corrupted in transmission, or does this mean a modern day translation is the inerrant word of God? Does this view, that the 66 books of the Bible are the complete written revelation of God, and also means that no further discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, will reveal additional inspired writings of the authors of the Bible?

Or is it a fact that no one knows what these archaic terms actually mean?

 

[Don]

Just a quick note Don. I posted the rule that allows me to post in this forum. You ignored that post. This thread is for the purpose of discussing the fundamental view of scripture alone. Subsequent to the OP, I have posted an doctrine statement from a group calling Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International Constitution. You have not commented on that doctrine.

From post #23:

Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)

I point you to a "rule" found further down in the Forum rules post:

· Threads that deal with specific topics that have their own forum will be moved to the appropriate forum. (Bible Versions, Creation/Evolution, Calvinism/Arminianism, etc…)

So far, your conversation for the last 8 pages has not addressed fundamentalism, but has extensively questioned translations (i.e., traditional view vs. modern view). You have yet to show that your topic is a fundamental Baptist issue.

Next, another poster gave references to several more statements on scripture. You have ignored those.

Incorrect; see posts 41 and 46.

No amount of redefining your words will change the dictionary. Your purpose was not to discuss the topic but to derail it. QED

My purpose was not to discuss the topic in this forum; and not to derail it, but to have it moved to an appropriate forum. You can keep re-writing my words any way that makes you feel better, but that's the position I've been maintaining since page 1.

Now, you still have yet to explain why the fundamental baptist forum? Why *not* the Theology & Study forum, or the Translations forum? It's a simple question; the assumption for placing it in this forum is usually that you see more of a problem with this subject with fundamental Baptists than with any other group; or, alternatively, that fundamental Baptists are "better" at it than other types of Baptists or other denominations. If that's your answer -- that's all you had to say after post #2 of this thread.

Instead of answering the question, you chose to go on the attack and complain about people derailing the thread. Then, when shown that your original post contained erroneous information, you had to search out a statement from a fundamental Baptist group -- which, in reality, only proved exactly what I've been saying: That this is not a fundamental Baptist issue, but an issue that pertains to all Baptists, and all Christians, and therefore should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

As I said before, I'll be happy to discuss in the Translations or the Theology & Study forums if I see it there. I'm ending my association with this thread.

 

[Van]

Hi Don, you have no basis in fact for your view that this thread is off topic. You say it is about translations, but it is about Bible doctrine, scripture alone versus tradition. The issue with mongenes was not translation but with a traditional translation that changed scripture due to error. Thanks for stopping your efforts to debunk and derail this thread.

Returning to topic. Lets take the phrase, we believe in the plenary (complete) inspiration of the Bible. Does this mean in the original autographs, i.e. what the author or his scribe originally put in writing, is complete, but was subsequently corrupted in transmission, or does this mean a modern day translation is the inerrant word of God? Does this view, that the 66 books of the Bible are the complete written revelation of God, and also means that no further discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, will reveal additional inspired writings of the authors of the Bible?

Or is it a fact that no one knows what these archaic terms actually mean?

 

[HankD]

Returning to topic. Lets take the phrase, we believe in the plenary (complete) inspiration of the Bible. Does this mean in the original autographs, i.e. what the author or his scribe originally put in writing, is complete, but was subsequently corrupted in transmission, or does this mean a modern day translation is the inerrant word of God? Does this view, that the 66 books of the Bible are the complete written revelation of God, and also means that no further discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, will reveal additional inspired writings of the authors of the Bible?

Or is it a fact that no one knows what these archaic terms actually mean?

OK this is a new vein of discussion and I for one appreciate it and look forward (with qualifications) to it.

However I believe it could be, but not should be, a discussion under the umbrella of "Fundamentalism". I suppose the moderators should decide.

One thing Van is your confrontational approach IMO is not conducive to an edifying discussion which is what I believe we all need concerning this very topic. IMO that is why you are largely ignored and even mocked and scorned (you as well as others).

There is IMO an underlying scripture based upon this question you have just raised (and the previous one concerning monogenes).

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

Long after the acknowledged historic completion of the scripture the church was at war with error with an intense battle for the first 300 years.​

Granted, every dogmatic resolution after the completion of scripture after the last apostle penned the last word and went on to his reward would have to come under the umbrella of "tradition" - or would it?​

i.e. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs Symbolism.​

Later (much later) in history there are disputes such as Infralapsarianism, vs Supralapsariansm, Futurism vs preterism, etc, etc, etc...​

(NOTE:These are JUST examples among a myriad of others and not to be anwered in particular in this thread).

At one time in the past these doctrine were part and parcel of the then "Fundamentalism".​

So - Does 1 Timothy 3:15 have any thing to say today to Fundamentalism?​

As to a partial answer to your question concerning the scripture - the New Testament canon of scripture was not officially acknowledged until AD367 by Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria (Also the champion of Trinitarian Doctrine) later to be acknowledged/Decreed by the Council of Chalcedon in AD451.Paraphrase: Christianity Though the Centuries, Earle E. Cairns; page 128.​

Obviously a decree supported only by church tradition.​

Now refecting back upon the 1 Timothy 3:15 passage.
Does this passage have any value to us today?​

And if so where is this "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"?​

And if so was Athanasius and/or the Council of Chalcedon part of it?​

After all without these historical facts (Athanasius witness, Chalcedon Decree) we can legitimately ask the question "how do we know that the 27 books of the New Testament are actually the Word of God?"​

Also some church "traditions" vary in the number and validity of the number of the books of the Bible with even the 1611 KJV publication inclusion of the Apocrypha between the testaments.​

I think I can safely predict that if this post is allowed to continue then it will devolve into quarrels and shouting matches about detals i.e. "THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL CHURCH!", "THE CONCIL OF CHALCEDON WAS CORRUPT", etc, etc...​

I believe folks have some kind of intuitive feeling that being loud, assertive, insulting and obnoxious with their responses is somehow spiritual and authoritative but in reality everyone goes away having not been edified but instead licking their wounds, after virtually cursing each other.​

I am willing to engage with a calm non-judgmental disussion with you about this but I will not quarrel or even start that kind of discusion.​

One big problem is that I am going on vacation this week and 1) will be at the behest of others as to where I go and what I do and 2) I won't have most of my literary resources with me (apart from my Bible) should that beome necessary.​

At very least can you give me your assessment of 1 Timothy 3:15 as well as your answers to my questions concerning this verse (or at least an attempt)?​

Thanks brother
HankD​

 

[Van]

Hi HankD, do not worry, I want to discuss this topic.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Does 1 Timothy 3:15 have any thing to say today to Fundamentalism?

Does this passage have any value to us today? And if so where is this "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"?

At very least can you give me your assessment of 1 Timothy 3:15 as well as your answers to my questions concerning this verse (or at least an attempt)?

I think the first point should concern the polity of our "church". Our church is made up of professing Christians, some, hopefully most, actually born again by God. They are indwelt and many of these grow into "mature Christians" ready for every good work.

So my first point is that these early believers, acting in accord with what they thought was biblical polity, did their best to "identify" our inspired scriptures. They did not make them inspired by inclusion, they asserted that these seemed to them to be the inspired scriptures.
Now again a side track discussion could ensue about the various tests or assessments they used to identify these writings. However, for the purpose of this discussion lets simply accept they accomplished with the help of the Holy Spirit, the listing of the books of the Old and New Testament. Over the years, some have suggested the addition or deletion of some of the books, but the decisions pretty must agree with the current list. But we have those who look at the individual books themselves and think they have identified where copyists have made mistakes or tried to be helpful, and have added to or altered the text. Currently many among the church of our day believe the critical text represents "the inspired scriptures" not with perfection but with our best effort.

In summary, the traditional view of a later age may differ from an earlier age, but in every age we need to go back to the original message of God and try to understand it ourselves and present that understanding to others using words and examples that the current audience can relate to. Telling an average non-churched person of today that the Bible is verbally, plenary inspired communicates almost nothing.

Paul wrote to Timothy so that if Paul was delayed, Timothy would know how he should act, i.e. conduct himself, in the household of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the Truth.

Specifically 1 Timothy 3:15 contains principles applicable to those of us in the current age,(including those who self identify themselves with Fundamentalism) that we need to learn how we should conduct ourselves in such a way as to build one another up and collectively support the ministry of Christ.

 

[HankD]

Hi HankD, do not worry, I want to discuss this topic.

I think the first point should concern the polity of our "church". Our church is made up of professing Christians, some, hopefully most, actually born again by God. They are indwelt and many of these grow into "mature Christians" ready for every good work.

So my first point is that these early believers, acting in accord with what they thought was biblical polity, did their best to "identify" our inspired scriptures. They did not make them inspired by inclusion, they asserted that these seemed to them to be the inspired scriptures.
Now again a side track discussion could ensue about the various tests or assessments they used to identify these writings. However, for the purpose of this discussion lets simply accept they accomplished with the help of the Holy Spirit, the listing of the books of the Old and New Testament.

Then that would mean that the Spirit of God was active in the ecclesiology of the church in post-apostolic days into the times of the "Apostolic Church Fathers (such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius who were 'disciples' of certain of the apostles)".

Many would dispute this, but then where did we/they get the authority to enumerate the inspired books? This also brings up many other questions unasked or ignored today concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit in the contemporary church.

Over the years, some have suggested the addition or deletion of some of the books, but the decisions pretty must agree with the current list. But we have those who look at the individual books themselves and think they have identified where copyists have made mistakes or tried to be helpful, and have added to or altered the text. Currently many among the church of our day believe the critical text represents "the inspired scriptures" not with perfection but with our best effort.

Personally I would be of the Traditional School (in support of the Antioch/Byzantine or TR Based text) but you proabably already guessed that point. I am not KJVO but Traditional Text prefered though I do use modern translations based upon the Critical Text where folks are at home with it.

In summary, the traditional view of a later age may differ from an earlier age, but in every age we need to go back to the original message of God and try to understand it ourselves and present that understanding to others using words and examples that the current audience can relate to. Telling an average non-churched person of today that the Bible is verbally, plenary inspired communicates almost nothing.

I am in agreement. Verbal Plenary Inspiration can also be explained and illustrated without using the theologically significant words. Theology is a science as is medicine. The layman can learn from the wise doctor without the theological "gibberish" which is of great value to the doctor but not necessarily the "pew warmer".

Paul wrote to Timothy so that if Paul was delayed, Timothy would know how he should act, i.e. conduct himself, in the household of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the Truth.

Specifically 1 Timothy 3:15 contains principles applicable to those of us in the current age,(including those who self identify themselves with Fundamentalism) that we need to learn how we should conduct ourselves in such a way as to build one another up and collectively support the ministry of Christ.

Agreed. Leading to this question - How is a "true" 1 Timothy 3:15 church identified?

The Church of Rome claims an iron-clad identification.

HankD

 

[Bro. James]

A I Timothy 3:15 Assembly--

Would have all of these marks:

1. Indwelled by The Spirit, The Holy

2. Born again membership

3. Practice closed communion

4. Accept no alien baptism/pedobaptism

5. No connection with Rome

6. No affiliation with the daughters of Rome

There are two kinds of churches: those founded by Jesus extending from the first one gathered from the shores of Galilee and still indwelled by The Spirit, The Holy since Pentecost; and those started by men/women--without The Spirit The Holy--going back to before Constantine, the great one. The distinction is readily apparent using the above paradigm.

There are also some which have had their candlestick(The Spirit, The Holy removed. See Rev. 2 and 3, the seven churches of Asia.

The trail is bloody; Jesus has preserved His Bride in every generation--just like He promised: "I will never leave you nor forsake you." Jesus is faithful--even when we are not.

"Why do you call Me Lord and do not what I say?"

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,
Bro. James

 

[Van]

Personally I would be of the Traditional School (in support of the Antioch/Byzantine or TR Based text) but you probably already guessed that point. I am not KJVO but Traditional Text preferred though I do use modern translations based upon the Critical Text where folks are at home with it.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration can also be explained and illustrated without using the theologically significant words. Theology is a science as is medicine. The layman can learn from the wise doctor without the theological "gibberish" which is of great value to the doctor but not necessarily the "pew warmer".

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

Please "describe" verbal plenary inspiration using words commonly used and understood today. For example in the doctrinal statement, We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, explain why something like We believe the Holy Spirit guided those who dictated or wrote the scriptures such that each of the words used was chosen by God. And we also believe the message presented with those words was complete such that the inspired scripture alone is our only basis for faith and practice.

 

[Van]

Thread Recap: We should study and verify that our fundamental doctrinal statements are true, understandable and fully supported from scripture.

Here is a statement of faith concerning the doctrine of scripture alone:

The Scripture: We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone as verbally, plenarily inspired of God, without error in the original writings and the sole authority of faith and practice, providentially preserved as God’s eternal Word (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 Pet. 1:23 (b)-25). We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries from God, which result in distinguishable stewardships of God’s truth (Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:10; 1 Cor. 10:31).

Does this refer to the critical text or what?

Should the catch-phrase verbal plenary inspiration be updated to read:

We believe the Holy Spirit guided those who dictated or wrote the original scriptures such that each of the words used was chosen by God. And we also believe the message presented with those words was complete such that the inspired scripture alone is our only basis for faith and practice.

 

[jbh28]

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

I agree that the UBS4 and NA27 are much better texts than the TR, but did you mean to include "archaic" words. I think all the Greek words are "archaic."

 

[Yeshua1]

Thread Recap: We should study and verify that our fundamental doctrinal statements are true, understandable and fully supported from scripture.

Here is a statement of faith concerning the doctrine of scripture alone:

The Scripture: We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone as verbally, plenarily inspired of God, without error in the original writings and the sole authority of faith and practice, providentially preserved as God’s eternal Word (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 Pet. 1:23 (b)-25). We believe in a dispensational understanding of the Bible based on the progressive unfolding of the divine mysteries from God, which result in distinguishable stewardships of God’s truth (Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:10; 1 Cor. 10:31).

Does this refer to the critical text or what?

Should the catch-phrase verbal plenary inspiration be updated to read:

We believe the Holy Spirit guided those who dictated or wrote the original scriptures such that each of the words used was chosen by God. And we also believe the message presented with those words was complete such that the inspired scripture alone is our only basis for faith and practice.

refers to the ORIGINALS only, as they were the revelation inspired by God!

the greek texts of today are "essentially" the original manuscripts, so can be trusted and seen as being infallible in all they teach and describe!

 

[Van]

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

The "archaic" words are those used in translations based on the TR text, i.e. the KJV from the sixteen hundreds. Thou doest knowth thee not?

There are those that actually assert "only begotten" reflects the original intent of the author John. Never mind the NA27, or UBS4 contains the same word. So even though the waters are muddied by claims of preferring the TR, what is really being said, in my oft mistaken opinion, is a preference to the KJV, warts and all, over say the NET or HCSB which replace many archaic words with ones we can relate to today. And sometimes the new wording comes closer to the actual intended meaning. And yes, a few times, the good old KJV actually provides the best rendering. But these are exceptions and not the rule. Therefore those that cling to archaic words are clinging to the traditions of men rather than scripture alone. So statements of faith that claim scripture alone doctrine, but then include a preference to a translation are really saying their doctrine is scripture as understood by a specific group of men. How is that view different from the view of Rome at the time of Luther? As put forth above, only the text that includes what we believe are the inspired words as originally put in writing can fulfill the doctrine of scripture alone. Now we can state that the copies of these scriptures that we have today have been preserved by God, according to 2 Peter 1:21 which says folks using the scripture copies of Peter's day were using "holy commands."

 

[jbh28]

The "archaic" words are those used in translations based on the TR text, i.e. the KJV from the sixteen hundreds. Thou doest knowth thee not?

There are those that actually assert "only begotten" reflects the original intent of the author John. Never mind the NA27, or UBS4 contains the same word. So even though the waters are muddied by claims of preferring the TR, what is really being said, in my oft mistaken opinion, is a preference to the KJV, warts and all, over say the NET or HCSB which replace many archaic words with ones we can relate to today.

Don't forget the NKJV. It doesn't have those archaic words but used the TR.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The "archaic" words are those used in translations based on the TR text, i.e. the KJV from the sixteen hundreds. Thou doest knowth thee not?

The Revision Version and the American Standard Version both use archaic language.

There are those that actually assert "only begotten" reflects the original intent of the author John. Never mind the NA27, or UBS4 contains the same word.

Absolutely. I am one of them. But that has nothing to do either with the text nor with archaic language.

So even though the waters are muddied by claims of preferring the TR, what is really being said, in my oft mistaken opinion, is a preference to the KJV, warts and all, over say the NET or HCSB which replace many archaic words with ones we can relate to today.

You speak of what you do not know. There are many of us who prefer the T.R. who also prefer modern language. The success of the NKJV proves that.

Therefore those that cling to archaic words are clinging to the traditions of men rather than scripture alone.

Possibly so, but that has nothing to do with a preference for the T.R.

So statements of faith that claim scripture alone doctrine, but then include a preference to a translation are really saying their doctrine is scripture as understood by a specific group of men. How is that view different from the view of Rome at the time of Luther? As put forth above, only the text that includes what we believe are the inspired words as originally put in writing can fulfill the doctrine of scripture alone. Now we can state that the copies of these scriptures that we have today have been preserved by God, according to 2 Peter 1:21 which says folks using the scripture copies of Peter's day were using "holy commands."

The 1689 Baptist Confession states (1:8): 'The Scriptures are therefore to be translated into the ordinary language of every nation into which they come.' I thoroughly agree with this. However, many of us believe that the Byzantine Text type is more likely to reflect the original than the Critical Text.

I would further add that in Bible translation there is no need to pander to the most ignorant and least literate. 'Propitiation' is the best translation of hilasterion and the ESV translators agree. If necessary, a glossary can be included at the back of the Bible.

Steve

 

[John of Japan]

I agree that the UBS4 and NA27 are much better texts than the TR, but did you mean to include "archaic" words. I think all the Greek words are "archaic."

Actually, words can only be archaic in their own language, i.e. koine Greek to modern Greek. So no, words in the TR are not archaic. They are completely consistent with 1st century AD Greek documents, just as are any Alexandrian manuscripts. But I realize you were just feeding off Van's ignorance. (And he insinuated I was ignorant early in this thread. :tongue3

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

However, "archaic Form or use of a form which is obsolete or belongs recognizbly to an older stage of a language: e.g. the syntax of
God Save the Queen! or the use of words like hereafter in legal documents" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, ed. by P. H. Matthews, p. 25).

And I strongly disagree that the Critical Text is "much better" than the TR. Are you familiar at all with Ernst Colwell's or Maurice Robinson's work? Mainline textual critics are starting to agree with these men that the "shorter is better" canon must go. In which case the whole critical text, eclectic method is up in the air, and the Byzantine text type is closer to the originals than the Alexandrian or Western text types on which the eclectics base the UBS/Nestle-Aland texts.

 

[Van]

Talk about efforts to derail a thread. The subject is scripture alone, rather than scripture as understood by men of the past. Luther confronted this problem. Now we have experts saying the TR is superior to the critical text. Nonsense.

Next "only begotten" is said not to be archaic. Nonsense.

Next, those that agree with me, that the NKJV is superior to the KJV because it is more understandable to modern audiences, seem to think this argues in favor of the TR. Nonsense.

Next we have propitiation being claimed to be the best translation of "hilasterion" but Daniel B. Wallace thinks the best translation is "satisfaction." And of course, in my ignorant opinion, I believe "means of salvation" best translates the intended meaning of the word.

But I certainly agree with "The Scriptures are therefore to be translated into the ordinary language of every nation into which they come." So an updated statement of faith concerning the Bible would include a statement of "We believe the Critical Text or TR or UBS4 or whatever should be translated into the ordinary language of today," leaving no room for archaic words.

However, "archaic Form or use of a form which is obsolete or belongs recognizbly to an older stage of a language: e.g. the syntax of God Save the Queen! or the use of words like hereafter in legal documents" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, ed. by P. H. Matthews, p. 25).

I am sure there is a thought in there somewhere, but I am too ignorant to be able to find it.

It is clear that scripture alone has been sacrificed on the alter of tradition yet again, but where is our 'Luther' to confront this popery from those who give lip service to scripture alone.

 

[HankD]

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

Please "describe" verbal plenary inspiration using words commonly used and understood today. For example in the doctrinal statement, We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, explain why something like We believe the Holy Spirit guided those who dictated or wrote the scriptures such that each of the words used was chosen by God. And we also believe the message presented with those words was complete such that the inspired scripture alone is our only basis for faith and practice.

Actually, the Traditional Text (sometimes referred to as the TR - Textus Receptus, of which there are variants - Stephanus, Beza, etc) is a kind of Greek collation compiled from Byzantine type manuscript copies of the originals and has no "thees" or "thous" as these words are 1611 English translation words.

"Scripture Alone" depends not only on preservation of the original language text as accurate but must include IMO a reference to transmission of the those text as well. Historically there has been a dispute between the crtical text type (Alexandrian based - Wescott, Hort) and the Traditional typt text type (Byzantine - Burgon) as to which is more faithful to the original manuscript(s).

Obviously this aqccuracy cannot be determined without question as the original manuscript(s) no longer exist on planet earth (as far as we know).

On preliminary perusal your definition of verbal plenary inspiration is workable but still lacks some definition concerning the transmission through scribal copies of these texts.

My time is limited and will try again later to respond Van but I won't be back from vacation until Sunday-Monday.

Also the thread has entered into a confrontational mode and in all probability nothing will be gained and in fact the overall result will no doubt become counter-productive.

Thanks
HankD