Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I speak in parables so that the unenlightened will flounder in darkness and the true child of God will understand.
Did you forget to read the first 8 posts? Hello?
Man, Pliny was so RIGHT. There is none so ignorant as one who is willingly ignorant!
I hate to take issue with Pliny but the most ignorant man may be the one who knows little and knows not that he does not know. In other words, an ignorant man who knows how little he knows may be in better shape than the guy who knows a little but thinks that he knows more.
Have you noticed how the supporters of the modern critical text generally choose the Ruckman crowd as their opponents. Of course, the Ruckman follies are easy to refute. Anyone could do it. The Ruckman position is nonsense and not worth refuting.
However, let's talk about the W-H follies. The W-H theory underlying most of the modern critical text is pure hogwash as far as scientific methodology is concerned. The W-H textual theories were of the age and type of follies as the phlogenetic recapitulation theory, the redactor theories, Piltdown Man, colonic irrigation and a host of other spurious ideas masquerading as scientific enlightment. Don't believe everything you hear even in Bible college.
The modern critical text is a statistical bastard that has never existed heretofore. It is comparable to the statistically average American family with 2 1/2 children, $62,361.12 annual income, a 2 3/4 bedroom house in the burbs, etc. It is the statistical average but no family like it exists. The same is true of the statistical text (i.e. the modern critical text). In other words, we have probabilities regarding words but the whole text ain't like the originals. We have no way of knowing whether we are closer or farther from the text of the originals. It all hinges upon many slippery presuppositions; there is nothing axiomatic here. There is no historical mandate either. Textual criticism is a child of its time. Since evolutionary thinking (historically, economically, socially, etc.)
was the rage of the age, an evolutionary development of the text was assumed in textual criticism with age of the manuscript determining its importance. There are many problems with this assumption.
In sum, the textual critical methods do NOT meet the rigorous standards of true scientific methodology. I would rather trust the historically received texts of the believing church instead of the quasi-scientific machinations of unbelievers and heretics. Textual criticism ranks with the quasi-scientific study of the paranormal. It ain't science and it ain't true.
Would you care to debate this? I assume you are fairly conversant with rigorous scientific methods of research. Since I know a little of science (microbiology, biochemistry), theology, languages (Hope I can find my copy of old W-H's book on their text), and research design, I think that I would enjoy opening up this can of worms.
As an aside, old Pliny's take on the ostrich has become a cultural myth. What does it matter that it ain't true? It makes for an understood and accepted metaphor.
