Fundamental View of the Bible

[Van]

Don, I addressed, and answered this issue many posts before. Perhaps you should reread my posts and try to actually understand the doctrine of scripture alone over scripture plus traditions of men.

 

[Van]

Bump bump

Originally Posted by Van View Post
9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding. (From the OP)

Because of my trust in the completeness of God's Word, I find the tools of scriptural nullification to be repugnant. My times a poster will say or imply that God did not mean what He said, and go with such inventions as "the secret will of God." Thus when God says He remembers no more forever, what He really means is He remembers the act or thought, and its consequence of divine retribution, but simply decides not to apply the divine consequences of those sins. Thus they equate forgiveness with remembering no more, and the phrase "remember no more" becomes redundant and does not convey anything in addition to forgiveness.

But to support this view, rather than rely upon some specific passage that says this is what God meant, they rely instead upon a man-made addition to the text.

Every time we see "God did not mean what He said" it demonstrates lip service to the doctrine of scripture alone and reveals the actual doctrine of scripture as understood by the tradition of men.

Still trying to have someone actually address the topic rather than some misstatement of my view.

 

[Don]

Don, I addressed, and answered this issue many posts before. Perhaps you should reread my posts and try to actually understand the doctrine of scripture alone over scripture plus traditions of men.

It was a simple question, that actually isn't answered by any of your posts. Are you saying that scripture alone means only one set of manuscripts? i.e., the CT over all other manuscripts?

 

[Don]

Originally Posted by Van View Post
9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding. (From the OP)

Because of my trust in the completeness of God's Word, I find the tools of scriptural nullification to be repugnant. My times a poster will say or imply that God did not mean what He said, and go with such inventions as "the secret will of God." Thus when God says He remembers no more forever, what He really means is He remembers the act or thought, and its consequence of divine retribution, but simply decides not to apply the divine consequences of those sins. Thus they equate forgiveness with remembering no more, and the phrase "remember no more" becomes redundant and does not convey anything in addition to forgiveness.

But to support this view, rather than rely upon some specific passage that says this is what God meant, they rely instead upon a man-made addition to the text.

Every time we see "God did not mean what He said" it demonstrates lip service to the doctrine of scripture alone and reveals the actual doctrine of scripture as understood by the tradition of men.

Still trying to have someone actually address the topic rather than some misstatement of my view.

While there is agreement with what you've written, the question here is: who said "God didn't mean what He said"? Or are you simply looking for agreement so that we can progress further?

 

[Van]

Hi Don, you really do need to read my posts. I addressed Luther's secret will, and the use of a preferred witness (such as the MT/Byz or CT) of the original autographs, excluding the TR.

 

[Van]

Several online sources say the Byz/MT differs from the TR in about 1005 places. Others say 1800 or so with 1005 being translatable differences. I could not find the number of the 1005 that are in agreement with the CT. But, guessing, if there are X (500?) places where the CT and MT agree against the TR, would it not be great if the NKJV was revised to match the MT in those places. I do not understand why this has not happened already.

 

[John of Japan]

All he is actually doing is trying to stop the discussion of the topic with diversionary questions, and charges. Now if he wants to open a new thread, Why JOJ believes the Byzantine Text is superior to the 1550 TR, he is welcome. I would undoubtedly learn a great deal.

So you refuse to debate me on this thread or on a new one about something you've mentioned on thiis thread over 20 times (and keep mentioning), and when I try to debate you on the TR, it is "diversionary." Unbelievable.

 

[Don]

Hi Don, you really do need to read my posts. I addressed Luther's secret will, and the use of a preferred witness (such as the MT/Byz or CT) of the original autographs, excluding the TR.

Van, I'm asking you to walk me through this, so that I fully understand your position. I believe you're saying that you will only accept the CT as the preferred manuscript; however, you may be saying that you accept the CT and the Byzantine text, and you only reject the TR. Is that correct?

 

[Van]

Until you read my posts and refer to the post number where I answered your question, I am going to conclude your questions are disingenious. Why not ask a question on the topic?

 

[Van]

JOJ, I asked you to teach on the subject of why you prefer the MT/Byz witness over and against the TR. Tell us about the places where the MT/Byz and CT agree against the TR.

 

[Van]

Scripture alone is a doctrine proclaimed by most if not all Baptist Churches. But what is the proof of the pudding. Do they really trust in the traditions of men over and against scripture alone.

 

[Van]

Hint for Don's eyes only:

Scripture is given by God inspiring the very words of the original authors and is therefore the message of God without error and is the only basis of faith and practice. We believe the best representation of the NT original autographs is the 1993 NA27/UBS4 Critical Text. [Alternately a local church could say the 1550 TR or the WH or any other published version using a specific reference.] This copy is our best effort to preserve the Word of God and is completely trustworthy, having removed what we believe were some of the corruptions that occurred during the transmission of the text over the intervening years since the originals were first written. This original language text is superior to any translation, because translation is imperfect. However, any of the more literal translations is fully suitable for study, instruction, and growth, such as the NET, the HCSB, the NKJV or the NASB95. However, since all these contain some poor choices, a comparison of the various translations seems sound for study.

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ, I asked you to teach on the subject of why you prefer the MT/Byz witness over and against the TR. Tell us about the places where the MT/Byz and CT agree against the TR.

Don't have time right now. Maybe someday. But I can tell you that there are few significant places where the Byzantine textform agrees with the CT over against the TR. (I have examined and compared the entire Robinson/Pierpont Byz 1st ed. with the Scrivener TR in the Greek except for Revelation, which has a very complicated text.)

 

[Greektim]

Don't have time right now. Maybe someday. But I can tell you that there are few significant places where the Byzantine textform agrees with the CT over against the TR. (I have examined and compared the entire Robinson/Pierpont Byz 1st ed. with the Scrivener TR in the Greek except for Revelation, which has a very complicated text.)

Great example of the Byz textform agreeing w/ the critical text is 1 Jn 5:7-8 as opposed to the TR. Classic example.

Not to speak for JoJ, but if you want to understand why he holds to the Byz text, you should read Robinson's article on the priority of the Byzantine text. You can find it online for free.

 

[John of Japan]

Great example of the Byz textform agreeing w/ the critical text is 1 Jn 5:7-8 as opposed to the TR. Classic example.

Yes, this is one of the few significant places.

Not to speak for JoJ, but if you want to understand why he holds to the Byz text, you should read Robinson's article on the priority of the Byzantine text. You can find it online for free.

It was like a breath of fresh air when I discovered the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. textform Greek NT about 10 years ago in Seedmaster (the old Windows 3 Bible software). I've since been privileged to get to know Dr. Robinson and have had fresh air ever since. :thumbs: (My son is currently his grader.) His article may be found here: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html. And of course there are other things on line such as the David Alan Black interview with him: http://daveblackonline.com/interview_with_maurice_robinson1.htm

 

[Don]

Until you read my posts and refer to the post number where I answered your question, I am going to conclude your questions are disingenious. Why not ask a question on the topic?

Wow. Pulling teeth is easier. You referenced Luther on page 6, and another reference a few pages later. Now how about explaining for my obviously feeble mind how those references answer if you're saying that only the CT is acceptable over the Byzantine, and the subsequent TR?
----
Note: read the above and hit Quote before I saw Van's additional response on this page. Thanks for answering.

Now, will the conversation continue if some hold to the Byzantine text, or even the TR, instead of the CT? I believe your point is that holding to the TR is the very tradition that you're arguing against. But if you can't convince someone otherwise, what's the next point of your discussion?

 

[Van]

Returning yet again to topic, why do folks give lip service to the fundamental doctrine of scripture alone, and then turn around and nullify scripture in order to follow the traditions of men?

 

[Don]

Returning yet again to topic, why do folks give lip service to the fundamental doctrine of scripture alone, and then turn around and nullify scripture in order to follow the traditions of men?

Because they don't know any different.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Sorry, but due to a new computer, I'm late to this thread.

However as this thread is on its 17th page by my count, I am closing it.