tyranny of experts vs priesthood of all believers

[Oldtimer]

On the article found at the link Turner says, "We have the many manuscripts that have been preserved by God through His faithful churches. It is a simple matter of reading them and finding what is the correct reading in the majority of the manuscripts."

Ummm... yeah... that sounds like a 'critical' approach...
So, which of the manuscripts is he talking about exactly? He should be specific, but he won't because vagaries, obfuscation, appeal to authority, reductionism, being selective, etc. is the best way to make his case.

(sigh)

You are assigned the task of determining the school colors of ABC High School. There's no one to ask. All you find are a few discarded jackets scattered about the campus. After picking up all that you can find, there are 27 in the pile.

17 are black with an orange stripe on the left sleeve.
5 are green with an orange pocket on the right.
3 are red and orange with black stitching.
2 are pink and purple with black trim.

What were the school colors?
On what do you base your thinking, "critical" or otherwise?

The author of this article explained the premise for the statement that you've quoted.

You charge him with -- "but he won't because vagaries, obfuscation, appeal to authority, reductionism, being selective, etc. is the best way to make his case." -- without a single specific to back up your own statement.

Have you read all of his works to determine that he hasn't been specific?

List his:
vagaries -
obfuscation -
appeal to authority - (always wrong?)
reductionism - (prove it..*)
being selective - (is this always bad?)
etc. - (aren't you being vague with this term?)

BTW. I'm working on the premise that you know "textual criticism", as it applies to the Bible and this debate is far more reaching than a 'critical approach'. Even a child has to use a 'critical approach' in deciding if a jar of jelly with mold on the top is safe to put on his peanut butter sandwich.

*

Religious reductionism generally attempts to explain religion by boiling it down to certain nonreligious causes. A few examples of reductionistic explanations for the presence of religion are: that religion can be reduced to humanity's conceptions of right and wrong, that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments, that religion is a way to explain the existence of a physical world, and that religion confers an enhanced survivability for members of a group and so is reinforced by natural selection.[3] Anthropologists Edward Burnett Tylor and James George Frazer employed some religious reductionist arguments.[4] Sigmund Freud's idea that religion is nothing more than an illusion, or even a mental illness, and the Marxist view that religion is "the sigh of the oppressed," providing only "the illusory happiness of the people," are two other influential reductionist explanations of religion.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

 

[Yeshua1]

(sigh)

You are assigned the task of determining the school colors of ABC High School. There's no one to ask. All you find are a few discarded jackets scattered about the campus. After picking up all that you can find, there are 27 in the pile.

17 are black with an orange stripe on the left sleeve.
5 are green with an orange pocket on the right.
3 are red and orange with black stitching.
2 are pink and purple with black trim.

What were the school colors?
On what do you base your thinking, "critical" or otherwise?

The author of this article explained the premise for the statement that you've quoted.

You charge him with -- "but he won't because vagaries, obfuscation, appeal to authority, reductionism, being selective, etc. is the best way to make his case." -- without a single specific to back up your own statement.

Have you read all of his works to determine that he hasn't been specific?

List his:
vagaries -
obfuscation -
appeal to authority - (always wrong?)
reductionism - (prove it..*)
being selective - (is this always bad?)
etc. - (aren't you being vague with this term?)

BTW. I'm working on the premise that you know "textual criticism", as it applies to the Bible and this debate is far more reaching than a 'critical approach'. Even a child has to use a 'critical approach' in deciding if a jar of jelly with mold on the top is safe to put on his peanut butter sandwich.

*

Wouldn't the earliest dated manuscripts though be mmore illustrated of what the originals were? And less time for errorsd/mistakes to creep into the copying procedures?

And isn't there a rule that at times the "hardest/most difficult" way to render it might have been the most aucrrate one/

Such as if 10 copies said jesus had compassion and healed them, but there is one that said that he was angry at them and healed them, the angry one, being unusually and seemingly out of place just might be the correct one?

 

[Oldtimer]

Wouldn't the earliest dated manuscripts though be mmore illustrated of what the originals were? And less time for errorsd/mistakes to creep into the copying procedures?

And isn't there a rule that at times the "hardest/most difficult" way to render it might have been the most aucrrate one/

Such as if 10 copies said jesus had compassion and healed them, but there is one that said that he was angry at them and healed them, the angry one, being unusually and seemingly out of place just might be the correct one?

The rebuttal for the first point, has been made over and over again, with regards to the "age" of manuscripts. And, especially with the OT, process of ensuring faithful copies.

Who originated the "rule" in your second point. Is it a "rule", meaning fact, as I think you are applying it, or is it a theory/opinion. Indeed, at times the "hardest/most difficult" reading may have been the most accurate one, in a GIVEN circumstance. The opposite may also be true in another GIVEN circumstance. It's only opinion/theory that tries to put that square peg in a round hole in all circumstances.

Can you name one other circumstance in your life where you'd take the 1 out of 11 chances with anything that you value? Any instance where you'd put less trust in the 10 out of 11 as more likely to be correct? For example:

Premise: You like rootbeer. You've worked with rootbeer brewing for years.

There are 11 bottles of homemade rootbeer in your refrigerator. You must choose 1 and drink it. Are you going to choose one of the 10 that look alike or the 1 that appears to be quite different in color and aroma?

 

[Yeshua1]

The rebuttal for the first point, has been made over and over again, with regards to the "age" of manuscripts. And, especially with the OT, process of ensuring faithful copies.

Who originated the "rule" in your second point. Is it a "rule", meaning fact, as I think you are applying it, or is it a theory/opinion. Indeed, at times the "hardest/most difficult" reading may have been the most accurate one, in a GIVEN circumstance. The opposite may also be true in another GIVEN circumstance. It's only opinion/theory that tries to put that square peg in a round hole in all circumstances.

Can you name one other circumstance in your life where you'd take the 1 out of 11 chances with anything that you value? Any instance where you'd put less trust in the 10 out of 11 as more likely to be correct? For example:

Premise: You like rootbeer. You've worked with rootbeer brewing for years.

There are 11 bottles of homemade rootbeer in your refrigerator. You must choose 1 and drink it. Are you going to choose one of the 10 that look alike or the 1 that appears to be quite different in color and aroma?

the point though is that JUST saying majority rules would not be the answer, for that would also assume that there were no copying errors/mistakes the longer away from the originals one got in the transmission process!

And per the OP...

did the Kjv translators have inspiration from God to create a perfect version from imperfect texts to base it upon?

 

[Oldtimer]

the point though is that JUST saying majority rules would not be the answer, for that would also assume that there were no copying errors/mistakes the longer away from the originals one got in the transmission process!

And per the OP...

did the Kjv translators have inspiration from God to create a perfect version from imperfect texts to base it upon?

Point 1 - That assumption is not made when taking the position that if the majority of the manuscripts agree, then the majority are more likely to be correct. If 10 of those bottles of rootbeer look, smell and taste the same, they are more likely to be correctly brewed than the 1 bottle that does not share those attributes. (Numbers based on your example.)

Point 2 - You are using one of what I call extremist positions, taken by some, who may have made such a statement. Like an earlier comment, this too has been beaten to death. God "inspired" the original recording of His word. God promised to "preserve" His word. Preservation does not mean new inspiration. Because I preserve 1850's castiron cookware does not mean that I add new metal to a spider or grind off the gatemark.

Do you ever pray for guidance, in accordance, with His will, when you have to make a decision? Later, do you call your decision "inspiration" as you have used the term in this debate? Do you believe that God can lead any English translator of any version to make the correct decision regarding a line of existing scripture written in another language?

 

[Yeshua1]

Point 1 - That assumption is not made when taking the position that if the majority of the manuscripts agree, then the majority are more likely to be correct. If 10 of those bottles of rootbeer look, smell and taste the same, they are more likely to be correctly brewed than the 1 bottle that does not share those attributes. (Numbers based on your example.)

Point 2 - You are using one of what I call extremist positions, taken by some, who may have made such a statement. Like an earlier comment, this too has been beaten to death. God "inspired" the original recording of His word. God promised to "preserve" His word. Preservation does not mean new inspiration. Because I preserve 1850's castiron cookware does not mean that I add new metal to a spider or grind off the gatemark.

Do you ever pray for guidance, in accordance, with His will, when you have to make a decision? Later, do you call your decision "inspiration" as you have used the term in this debate? Do you believe that God can lead any English translator of any version to make the correct decision regarding a line of existing scripture written in another language?

Go dindeed preserved the text for us today, its in the Greek/hebrew source texts, so all English versions that were translated correctly meant the requirement to be the word of God in English to us, as in the Kjv/Nkjv/Niv/nasb etc!