Two philosophies

[Pastor Larry]

Which, of course, is not the issue. No one knowledgeable regarding textual issues denies that the TR departs from all known textforms for the last few verses of Revelation.

Thanks again, Thomas. Not to belabor this, but how does this square with your assertion that Erasmus had all the reading we have? Does not the last few verses of revelation prove that he did not have access to the readings we have?

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks again, Thomas. Not to belabor this, but how does this square with your assertion that Erasmus had all the reading we have? Does not the last few verses of revelation prove that he did not have access to the readings we have?

<sigh> The discussion is about the differences between the Alexandrian textform and the Byzantine textform. Erasmus had access to both and chose the Byzantine readings over the Alexandrian readings in the vast majority of cases. The only exception is when the Western readings agree with the Alexandrian readings over the Byzantine readings as we see in Matthew 10:8 (and even that is probably due to the influence of the Latin Vulgate which largely follows the Western readings).

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, Thomas, my question was in direct response to your assertion that "He (Erasmus) had the same readings available to him as we do today." (from page 10, #94). The issue at hand wasn't whether or not Erasmus had access to any alexandrian readings. It was whether or not "He had the same readings available to him as we do today." It seems to me that he did not have "the same readings available to him as we do today." And your statement concerning Rev 22 confirms that, does it not?

 

[TCassidy]

Actually, Thomas, my question was in direct response to your assertion that "

He (Erasmus) had the same readings available to him as we do today." (from page 10, #94). The issue at hand wasn't whether or not Erasmus had access to any Alexandrian readings. It was whether or not "He had the same readings available to him as we do today." It seems to me that he did not have "the same readings available to him as we do today." And your statement concerning Rev 22 confirms that, does it not?

Why is it, Larry, that, every time you are backed into a corner and shown to be wrong you immediately focus on inconsequential minutia rather than discussing the real issue? This is the third time you have done this in the past couple of weeks. Why not just admit you misspoke and get on with it? Nobody has ever claimed that Erasmus didn't back translate from the Vulgate for the missing verses at the end of the Revelation. The point is, was, and always has been, what textforms do we have available today that were not available to Erasmus? The answer is, was, and always will be, NONE!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas, I wasn't backed into a corner, nor was I focused on minutae. I didn't misspeak. You simply were not following closely in the conversation. If you had been, you would have known exactly what I was asking about. I addressed it in my initial post by quoting you word for word. Then I made it clear again in a second post by again quoting you word for word. So clearly, I was responding to your words.

Read your own quote. You said "the same readings," not "the textforms." As we all know, a "reading" is the words that make up the text in a particular variant. A "textform" is a family of manuscripts that are grouped by similarity. T

So unless you misspoke by saying "readings" when you really meant "textforms," it is you who are now focused on minutae and trying to backtrack and avoid the conversation. Either way, this particular issue sprang directly from your comment in post #94 that all can see.

But don't blame me because you missed the point being made. That's not my fault.

 

[LRL71]

Sorenson and erroneous assumptions

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. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

We need not have a verse that tells us specifically that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people; it is senseless to ask for such a Scripture. The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

Getting back to the original post on this thread, there are great leaps of logic and unsubstantiated assumptions made to propagate the view that KJV/TR-onlyism maintains a high view of Scripture, and that 'providential preservation' necessitates a specific text-type, namely the TR. Basing any theological arguments for either essentially undermines the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. If there is any Scriptural support for 'only' adhering to any specific text-type, it cannot be found in Scripture (and, Pastor Bob admits that this is so in the case of specifically the KJV), yet no Scriptural support can be maintained that gives the notion that any text-type was providentially preserved by God. The verses quoted by Pastor Bob in a later post are typically misinterpreted to mean 'providential preservation', but rather are passages that are, correctly interpreted, used to prove the doctrines of infallibility.

Considering that the author of this thread, using Sorenson for his basis, draws from the same polluted well of 'scholarship' in the way of Hills, Fuller, Grady, and ultimately Wilkinson, it is no wonder that the same erroneous conclusions are made here regarding providential preservation. Sorenson has been critically examined by Doug Kutilek (www.kjvonly.org) in a lengthy article, and Kutilek demonstrates the outright distortions that Sorenson makes, where he draws on the aforementioned KJV-only 'scholars', although Sorenson makes claims that he attempted to be accurate and fair to those who differ from his point of view.

In order to understand the beliefs that Pastor Bob adheres to regarding providential preservation, he should define it. Secondly, neither Sorenson or Pastor Bob have demonstrated why the critical textual method of textual criticism is so 'unbelieving', let alone based on "uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity" (and, I wonder if Pastor Bob or other KJV-onlyists can define, in his terms, what textual criticism is and its purpose). Thirdly, it cannot be substantiated or demonstrated that the method used in compiling whatever revision of the TR was based on providential preservation, guidance of the Holy Spirit (perhaps this is a veiled term for 'secondary inspiration'?), and preservation through the Church. None of these can be Scripturally defended because God has kept silent regarding what 'method' He used in preserving the text of the Bible. What's worse is that the terms used by KJV-onlyists are remarkably prejudicial in that they attempt to posit their beliefs as being theologically superior and based on Scripture (which it is not), thus casting modern textual criticism as being unbelieving (which it is not), or worse, in more derogative terms of ad-hominem. To assume that the KJV, and its underlying NT text (which TR, for that matter?) is providentially preserved by God (how do you determine what constitutes providential preservation?) is Scripturally unsubstantiated, and unproven either by faith or reason.

 

[TCassidy]

Thomas, I wasn't backed into a corner, nor was I focused on minutae. I didn't misspeak. You simply were not following closely in the conversation. If you had been, you would have known exactly what I was asking about. I addressed it in my initial post by quoting you word for word. Then I made it clear again in a second post by again quoting you word for word. So clearly, I was responding to your words.

Read your own quote. You said "the same readings," not "the textforms." As we all know, a "reading" is the words that make up the text in a particular variant. A "textform" is a family of manuscripts that are grouped by similarity. T

So unless you misspoke by saying "readings" when you really meant "textforms," it is you who are now focused on minutae and trying to backtrack and avoid the conversation. Either way, this particular issue sprang directly from your comment in post #94 that all can see.

But don't blame me because you missed the point being made. That's not my fault.

Fine Larry, whatever salves your ego. I didn't miss anything nor did I misunderstand what you were talking about. I was addressing the issue and you were, once again, trying to obfuscate in order to avoid admitting your error. Rather typical. You sound almost like william. "Don't address the issue! When caught, obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate!"

 

[Pastor Larry]

LOL ...

My ego? Thomas, I really don't care. The fact that some guy in California misread what I said doesn't damage my ego in the least. The plain fact is that you said "every reading," not every "textform."

I am not obfuscating in the least. In fact, the reason I gave the post number was to make it clear what I was addressing. If I were obfuscating, I wouldn't have done that. I have repeatedly addressed the issue.

Though I have made many errors in my life, this is not one of them. You simply misunderstood, or didn't read closely. But face it, Thomas. You said that Erasmus had access to every reading we have, and then you later admitted that wasn't true, that he backtranslated from the Latin into Greek in Rev 22. Everyone knows that, which is why your original statement that he had access to every reading was astounding to me. That's why I gently asked.

If you want to keep arguing this point, that is fine. I won't. I appreciated the kind responses you gave early on and regret that you turned south to start attacking me. More of the former and less of the latter would be great.

 

[TCassidy]

My ego? Thomas, I really don't care. The fact that some guy in California misread what I said doesn't damage my ego in the least. The plain fact is that you said "every reading," not every "textform."

Please don't lie about what I said. We were discussing what we have today vice what Erasmus had in his day. He had access to every reading we have access to today. You just can't seem to deal with that. Fine.

If you think we have access to a Greek manuscript today containing the reading as found in Erasmus's TR then you are sadly mistaken. No such reading exists in any Greek manuscript.

I am not obfuscating in the least. In fact, the reason I gave the post number was to make it clear what I was addressing. If I were obfuscating, I wouldn't have done that. I have repeatedly addressed the issue.

Of course you are! You stated we have access to more information than Erasmus did and I pointed out we don't have any reading available to us that he did not have available, including the last few verses of Revelation. He didn't have a Greek manuscript containing those verses as found in the TR and neither do we.

Though I have made many errors in my life, this is not one of them. You simply misunderstood, or didn't read closely.

I read and understood what you posted and proved it to be wrong. You can't handle that so you tried to bring up the last few verses in Revelation, claiming we have access to those readings but he didn't. Well, we don't have access to them either! They don't exist!

But face it, Thomas. You said that Erasmus had access to every reading we have, and then you later admitted that wasn't true, that he backtranslated from the Latin into Greek in Rev 22.

Please stop lying about what I said. We don't have access to that reading either, and you know it! They don't exist!

Everyone knows that, which is why your original statement that he had access to every reading was astounding to me. That's why I gently asked.

No, you just started obfuscating because your initial statement was proven to be untrue.

If you want to keep arguing this point, that is fine. I won't. I appreciated the kind responses you gave early on and regret that you turned south to start attacking me. More of the former and less of the latter would be great.

I regret that you keep lying about what we have available today. The only reason this discussion went off on a tangent is because that is where you led it. You made a false claim and when that was pointed out you made more false claims and refused to admit it, and continue to refuse to admit it.

One last time. Erasmus had access to all the readings we have access to, and the last few verses of Revelation as found in the TR did not exist in any Greek manuscript in his day any more than they exist today! Period!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Getting...

My friend, I knew that you would show up sooner or later as the talk of preservation ensued. It is good to see you here. I can answer your objections very simply. Both positions lack clear-cut, specific scriptural support. It is quite unfair to demand such from me when you cannot provide the same.

In the absence of scriptural support, one has to look elsewhere. Historicity, counting, weighting, etc... all point to the traditional Received Text as being the preserved Word of God.

As to my definition of providential preservation, I will defer to an earlier quote of mine from page 6 #53:

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 Larry]

I didn't lie about what you said, and you know that. You blustery speech wont' help you out of this one. I have clearly proven what I said vs. what you said, and I was shown to be right. There's not really any argument here at all. It is comical to see you try to keep defending what was clearly a mistake on your part.

But on to the point ...

You said he had access to every reading that we have today. We have access today to the reading that all manuscripts agree on. Where did Erasmus have access to that reading and why didn't he use it?

Rev 20:12 may be another reading that Erasmus defaulted to the wrong one because he had no other options, using only one manuscript for Revelation.

I don't think it is possible say dogmatically that Erasmus had access to every reading we have today. The evidence we have makes that highly unlikely.

 

[TCassidy]

Please post any presently extant Greek manuscript which contains the reading found in the 1516 edition of Erasmus for the last few verses of Revelation.

 

[Askjo]

Sorenson has been critically examined by Doug Kutilek (www.kjvonly.org)

Doug is incorrect.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Please post any presently extant Greek manuscript which contains the reading found in the 1516 edition of Erasmus for the last few verses of Revelation.

Um ... As I suspected, this shows you don't understand the question I asked. My question is actually just the opposite.

You claimed that Erasmus had access to all the readings presently have. Today, we have access to manuscripts containing hte proper reading of the last verses of Revelation. My question to you, again, is where did Erasmus have access to the proper reading of the last few verses of Revelation? And why did not he use that reading, if he had access to it?

Can you just focus on that question?

 

[TCassidy]

Um ... As I suspected, this shows you don't understand the question I asked. My question is actually just the opposite.

You claimed that Erasmus had access to all the readings presently have. Today, we have access to manuscripts containing hte proper reading of the last verses of Revelation. My question to you, again, is where did Erasmus have access to the proper reading of the last few verses of Revelation? And why did not he use that reading, if he had access to it?

Can you just focus on that question?

So you are, in fact, denying what every competent researcher has attested to, including the writings of the men involved, that Erasmus had access to Vaticanus through his friends in Rome and they provided him with copies of readings he requested? So, you are calling Erasmus a liar, you are calling Paulus Bombasius a liar, and you are calling Sepulveda a liar? You are calling Frederick Scrivener a liar? You are calling Edward Miller a liar? And you are calling Frederick Kenyon a liar? You deny what each of them gave testimony to, that both Bombasius and Sepulveda provided Vaticanus readings to Erasmus?

And why didn't he use Vaticanus readings? Because he considered Vaticanus to be corrupt and that he believed the Vulgate readings were more accurate?

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, I am not denying that at all. I am asking you what access Erasmus had to those readings. Wasn't that plain what I wrote? Of course, what I wrote was plain from teh beginning and you managed to miss it there too.

I don't know of any competent researcher who will claim that Erasmus had access to all the readings we do.

 

[TCassidy]

So you admit you are accusing all those good and godly men of being liars?

Why not just admit the facts. Erasmus had representative samplings of the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western textforms, just as we do today.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So you admit you are accusing all those good and godly men of being liars?

No, I am not admitting that in the least. Thomas, do you even read what I am writing? You know very well that I am not saying anyone is a liar. What I said was clear from the beginning.

Why not just admit the facts. Erasmus had representative samplings of the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western textforms, just as we do today.

I haven't denied that, as all who are reading here know. My question is very simple. It is not about "representative samplings," it is not about "textforms."

You made the claim that Erasmus had access to every "reading" we have access to today. I have simply questioned the accuracy of that statement. I have not denied that he had access to every textform that we have today. I am not denying that he had representative samples of every textform.

So far as I know, there is no competent scholar who claims that Erasmus had access to every reading that we do.

What is hard to understand about that?

 

[robycop3]

Doug is incorrect.

Howdya KNOW? Or are ya just guessing again?

 

[TCassidy]

So you admit your statement was incorrect? Good. About time. And, if I am not mistaken, a first for you!

See how easy it is? When you depart from the thrust of the discussion to go off on a foolish rabbit trail all you end up doing is having to admit you were incorrect. It is much easer to just stick to the discussion and not try to deflect the discussion to irrelevant minutia.