Two philosophies

[Pastor_Bob]

Like the modern text, the TR is a synthetic text that never existed anywhere before it was produced by modern textual critics (modern to 16th century). The only thing that has changed is 1) the method of text preservation believed in; 2) the number of manuscripts available for consideration; and 3) the time period refered to by "modern."

I believe the fundamental difference in the textual critics as you say, "beginning with Erasmus through to Scrivener," as opposed to the modern textual critics beginning with Westcott and Hort is that they were strong believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. They believed the Word of God, as given by God, was infallible and was represented in the Received Text.

With this premise, when they found a variant reading in the various extant copies of the Received Text, they yielded to the usage of the text by the believing churches. The end result was a text that represented the text that had been used for centuries by the believing churches.

The Received Text is not a synthetic text as is the critical text. The Received Text has been received and used by the church beginning with the original autographs and continues to this day.

 

[David J]

Did I get the blind-eye?

Did I just get the blind-eye from Pastor Bob?

Gee I just asked for evidence and for my questions that challenged his Sola Scriptura claims to be answered.

Sigh....

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Amen, Pastor Bob!

In relying on the early church, the Received Text further proves that God ahain was faithful to His Word and that David (as well as many up to that point) had indeed 'hid God's Word in his heart. God was certainly able to and did preserve His Word through His Body, the Church.

 

[David J]

Tradition again....

I believe the fundamental difference in the textual critics as you say, "beginning with Erasmus through to Scrivener," as opposed to the modern textual critics beginning with Westcott and Hort is that they were strong believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. They believed the Word of God, as given by God, was infallible and was represented in the Received Text.

With this premise, when they found a variant reading in the various extant copies of the Received Text, they yielded to the usage of the text by the believing churches. The end result was a text that represented the text that had been used for centuries by the believing churches.

The Received Text is not a synthetic text as is the critical text. The Received Text has been received and used by the church beginning with the original autographs and continues to this day.

So your back to using tradition.:tear:

Sigh..so much for Sola Scriptura

Anyway address my questions Pastor Bob. I'm interested in your Sola Scriptura claims vs. KJVOism.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe the fundamental difference in the textual critics as you say, "beginning with Erasmus through to Scrivener," as opposed to the modern textual critics beginning with Westcott and Hort is that they were strong believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. They believed the Word of God, as given by God, was infallible and was represented in the Received Text.

But that's not really the difference. Because even if you believe in verbal inspiration of hte Bible, the Bible still does not declare that the "Word of God, as given by God, was ... represented in the Received Text." That is a logical jump, not a theological one. And that's what you continually do.

With this premise, when they found a variant reading in the various extant copies of the Received Text, they yielded to the usage of the text by the believing churches. The end result was a text that represented the text that had been used for centuries by the believing churches.

Not in all cases. First, most agree that Erasmus was working from a fairly limited number of manuscripts. Second, some of those variants were almost equally split in the "Received Text." Not all "believing churches" were unanimous on the text. So againk your comments are a little misleading.

The Received Text is not a synthetic text as is the critical text. The Received Text has been received and used by the church beginning with the original autographs and continues to this day.

That is a huge jump. You have a period of several hundred years that is virtually absent of any Received Text evidence. Furthermore, there is no way that someone separated from the early church by 2000 years can honestly be dogmatic about what text tradition they used. You just can't do that Bob. There's no basis for it. Given the evidence that is actually on hand, we woudl have to conclude that the early church used the Alexandrian texts because they are the only ones we have that go back that far. Now, that is not a conclusive argument. The Alexandrian texts may be wrong, but not based on any sort of evidence that has been given here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

In relying on the early church, the Received Text further proves that God ahain was faithful to His Word and that David (as well as many up to that point) had indeed 'hid God's Word in his heart. God was certainly able to and did preserve His Word through His Body, the Church.

Where is this proven in the Received Text?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So your back to using tradition.:tear:

Sigh..so much for Sola Scriptura

Anyway address my questions Pastor Bob. I'm interested in your Sola Scriptura claims vs. KJVOism.

Sola Scriptura v KJVO is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic. This is a promising thread, so lets keep it that way

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Given the evidence that is actually on hand, we woudl have to conclude that the early church used the Alexandrian texts because they are the only ones we have that go back that far. Now, that is not a conclusive argument. The Alexandrian texts may be wrong, but not based on any sort of evidence that has been given here.

Earlier you (if I'm not mistaken) mentioned that human logic was a gift of God and could rightly be used to a degree. I happen to agree with that statement and would like to apply it here.

It is true that the oldest extant manuscripts are Alexandrian. However, the majority of extant manuscripts are Byzantine. Logic would dictate that since the majority of extant manuscripts are in agreement, than that family of texts were more frequently used and copied down through the centuries.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Earlier you (if I'm not mistaken) mentioned that human logic was a gift of God and could rightly be used to a degree. I happen to agree with that statement and would like to apply it here.

That's a welcome change since earlier you were contrasting logic with belief and revelation, it seemed to me. I think we can and should use logic subject ot the revelation of God in Scripture.

It is true that the oldest extant manuscripts are Alexandrian. However, the majority of extant manuscripts are Byzantine. Logic would dictate that since the majority of extant manuscripts are in agreement, than that family of texts were more frequently used and copied down through the centuries.

Non sequitur. Logic doesn't dictate anything in this case due to the nature of the facts at hand. There are several possibilities.

1. The Byzantine text was used in areas where the most copying went on; the Alexandrian text was used where there was little copying.
2. The Byzantine text did not exist early in church history, which explains its absence.
3. The Alexandrian text was not used early in church history, which explains its presence today.
4. The Alexandrian text was used in dry climates where it was better preserved, and the Byzantine text was used in wet climates where it was not well preserved.
5. The frequent copying of the Byzantine text type led to increased copyists errors that the Alexandrian text type untouched for 1500 years has corrected.

And I could go on and on. Simply put, logic doesn't dictate anything. Logic applied to this situation can lead us any one of a number of ways. Therefore, it is best to leave this in an area of disagreement, not dogmatism. When we start talking about "proving" stuff, we have most likely gone farther than the evidence will allow.

 

[Askjo]

I believe the fundamental difference in the textual critics as you say, "beginning with Erasmus through to Scrivener," as opposed to the modern textual critics beginning with Westcott and Hort is that they were strong believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. They believed the Word of God, as given by God, was infallible and was represented in the Received Text.

With this premise, when they found a variant reading in the various extant copies of the Received Text, they yielded to the usage of the text by the believing churches. The end result was a text that represented the text that had been used for centuries by the believing churches.

The Received Text is not a synthetic text as is the critical text. The Received Text has been received and used by the church beginning with the original autographs and continues to this day.

Amen to that! My post on Dr. Waite's detail concerning the history of the TR is what I agree with you, Pastor Bob. :thumbs:

 

[Deacon]

Sola Scriptura v KJVO is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic. This is a promising thread, so lets keep it that way

When one of the foundations for belief that was stated in the OP includes: "Preservation through the church" it becomes foundational that we recognise that the church does not hold this power.

To imply that the church has perserved a particular form of the text and gives it special preference over others forms smells a lot like a divergence from the tenet of Sola Scriptura.

That's why my first comment was written regarding the applause of the Catholic church.

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

Pastor Larry said, in response to Pastor Bob's statement, "If God used the church to preserve the critical text, as we assert He did with the Received Text, then we should be able to find ample evidence in the writings of the early church fathers that would be represented in the modern critical text."

Non sequitur.

Actually, it is not a non sequitur. It is a valid statement. However the operative phrase is "we should be able to find ample evidence in the writings of the early church fathers." And, of course, we do see such evidence in the patristic writings. Their writings are pretty much evenly split between the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

When one of the foundations for belief that was stated in the OP includes: "Preservation through the church" it becomes foundational that we recognise that the church does not hold this power.

The church, made up of mere humans, does not have the power alone to do this, but, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church is the organization which God has ordained to uphold the truth of the Word of God down through the ages. I, as well as many others, believe that God chose to use believing churches as the primary organization by which the Word of God has been preserved. The means of this preservation is simply the acceptance, use, copying, and distribution of the true text leading up to what we have today in Bibles that have been produced from this true text.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

...we do see such evidence in the patristic writings. Their writings are pretty much evenly split between the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings.

In keeping with the topic of the preservation through the church, do you have any information on the percentages relative to the time periods. For example, are the 1st century quotations still split fairly evenly or do they lean toward one reading? Does the percentage change with each successive century?

 

[TCassidy]

In keeping with the topic of the preservation through the church, do you have any information on the percentages relative to the time periods. For example, are the 1st century quotations still split fairly evenly or do they lean toward one reading? Does the percentage change with each successive century?

As far as I know there are no 1st century cites. There are several 2nd century including Athenagoras, Basilidians, the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement, Tatian's Diatessaron, the Didache, Heracleon, Irenaeus, Julius Cassianus, Justin, Marcion, Gnostic Marcion, Presbyter, Ptolemy, Polycarp, Tatian's Oratio ad Graecos, Gnostic Theodotus, and Valentinians. There are a few others who date to the 2nd century but do not quote portions containing a variant so their witness is moot.

There are also several 3rd century witnesses including Amelius, Clement of Alexandria, writings of the Docetists, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Huracleon (possibly late 2nd century), Heraclides, Hippolytus, the Letter of Hymenaeus, Methodius, Naassenes (possibly late 2nd century), Origen, Perateni (possibly late 2nd century), Pseudo Clement of Rome, and Theophilus of Antioch (possibly late 2nd century).

All of the Latin Patristics with the exception of Cyprian (3rd century), Novatian (3rd century), Rebaptismate (3rd century), and Tertullian (3rd century), date to the 4th century or later.

Of those dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, although there are a number of Byzantine readings it cannot be said with any degree of confidence that any of them used the Byzantine textform exclusively. There are many Alexandrian readings found in virtually all of their writings. After the mid 5th century virtually all citations were Byzantine.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Origen taught that Jesus was created. I don't hold that view. Any true believer in God would not hold that view.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, it is not a non sequitur. It is a valid statement. However the operative phrase is "we should be able to find ample evidence in the writings of the early church fathers." And, of course, we do see such evidence in the patristic writings. Their writings are pretty much evenly split between the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings.

Feel free to straighten me out here, but it seems a non sequitur to say that preservation in the Alexandrian text form requires copious citations in the church fathers. It may be there, but I would think it hardly requires it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

There are multiple 'received texts' that were available to
the men who translated the KJV. There is NOT just
one 'received text'. This fact is documented in the original
KJV, the KJV1611 Edition and later KJV Editions.
Speaking of 'received text' and 'KJV' is generally a misnomer
(not a right name), the proper terms are 'received texts
and KJVs.

:Fish:

Logos1560: //The simple fact that many KJV defenders
reject later English translations
of the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie
the KJV such as the 1833 Webster's, the 1842 revision by Baptists,
the NKJV, the Modern KJV,
the KJ21, the KJ2000, etc. clearly suggests that they
are making "the translation the issue" instead of "the text the issue."//

Amen, Brother Logos1560 -- Preach it!


Logos1560: //The truth is consistent. The plain fact remains that arguments
for a KJV-only view are applied very inconsistently.//

Amen, Brother Logos1560 -- Preach it!

For example, the O.P Jumps from these logical statements:

//It should be clear by now that there must be a reason
for such widely held views concerning Bible translations
and the double stream of undergirding Greeks texts.
These differences can be categorized into two distinctly
different undergirding philosophies.
Briefly, those two philosophies can be summarized as follows:

(1) The historic Received Textual position is based in belief
(2) The modern critical textual position is based in rationalism.//

--Touch Not The Unclean Thing pg. 52 - David H. Sorenson


The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture,
whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty,
human logic, and subjectivity.//

-- jumps from those logical statements into KJVO-ism.
But totally ignores the fact that when the received texts
were analyzed by the KJV Translators, the KJV Translators
used 'the critical text position' to choose among the
received texts (TRs)

Quote:
//The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

//All three of these aspects can be easily defended
by Scripture, ...

Pastor Larry: //These three reasons are why I and many other Bible
believers hold to the modern text critical position.
We believe in providential preservation,
guidance by the Holy Spirit,
and preservation in the church.
These three issues line up perfectly with modern textual position.//

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

And many selectively dis-remember:

1. There was an 'old textual position' held by the
translators of the KJV1611 Edition

2. There is no recorded 'received text'. Instead there
are documented in the KJV translator notes that
there were 'received texts'.

 

[Askjo]

In keeping with the topic of the preservation through the church, do you have any information on the percentages relative to the time periods. For example, are the 1st century quotations still split fairly evenly or do they lean toward one reading? Does the percentage change with each successive century?

See this link: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[Dr. Bob]

Reminder to all to please keep this thread on topic - dealing with the two textforms and evidence for their support/use and God's preservation of His Word (as promised) in the God-breathed text. And because someone disagrees with you does not make them "insane".

It may make them "right"!

Thanks.