Yuku free message boards

Of course, this view is not only unusual an unorthodox, but throws "preservation" out the window, makes scripture entirely subjective, and creates a whole new slew of logical and practical problems to which Mitex has yet to give a clear explanation.

Bill Kincaid asked concerning this "question":
When you say "original" do you mean the books Moses copied from, the books Moses wrote down with his own hand, the books Moses' scribes wrote down for him, the books the LXX translated, the books in Hebrew that actually exist, or do you mean the LXX?

Preserved? Do you mean "unaltered, unchanged" as per Scott? Or do you mean preserved as in a 3000 year old mummy that disintegrates in sunlight? Or do you mean "exist somewhere in the universe" even though without a miracle they cannot be confidently reconstructed so that 50% of experts might agree on the text of any chapter in the Bible?

When you say "the" (as in a singular original text) which version of the ten commandments do you mean, the one God spoke audibly, the one Moses repeated orally to the people, the one Moses wrote down in a book, the one God wrote down later with his finger on tables of stone, the one God re-wrote down on two different tables of stone, the one Moses wrote down again just before they went into the promised land, the existing Hebrew text of Exodus, the existing Hebrew text of Deuteronomy, the existing Greek text of the LXX, or the NIV? Something tells me you have never considered the meaning of "original" when it comes to inspiration.

When you use the phrase "preserved original text" are you conveniently ignoring the fact that you declared earlier that EVERY Hebrew text of Genesis is wrong, and the correct reading is now ONLY preserved in Greek?

BrianT wrote:

Yes, yes, I basically understand in general what you are saying. However, instead of talking in general, nebulous concepts, I've been trying to get you to apply your view to specific passages. Luke wrote chapter 17 verse 36 or he didn't. If he did, a Bible that omits it has a textual error, does it not? It has not preserved the reading, correct? Conversely, if Luke did not write the verse, a Bible that includes it has a textual error, adding to scripture, correct? I fail to see how one Bible that includes the verse, and another that omits it, can both be wholly inerrant, the perfectly preserved word of God from a textual standpoint. Please respond to this this specifically, clearly and directly, and then we can proceed.

One thing I don't try to do is talk about "nebulous concepts". Believing every word, phrase and verse in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures is not a nebulous concept. Believing the standard reading recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled born again Christians is not a nebulous concept. Believing BOTH the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John even though Luke omits Ye must be born again is not a nebulous concept. If anything, I'm overly pragmatic. Being accused of "nebulous concepts" is a new accusation.

To me, a nebulous concept is the belief that God's preserved word "exists somewhere in the universe" but without a miracle those who make such a profession cannot confidently reconstruct the word of God so that 50% of experts might agree on the text of any chapter in the Bible. A nebulous concept is the belief that all translations are only inspired insomuch as they follow the original (autographs implied) when the original is no longer extant. Yet another nebulous concept is the profession that the word of God is inspired, inerrant, and perfect and that the AV is the word of God, but it is not inspired, inerrant and perfect.

The Scriptures are available, not hidden. The Scriptures are profitable for doctrine. Doctrine can't be taught with "something out there somewhere" that nobody agrees upon. Scriptures (the word of God, the Bible) are to be lived by, preached, read, searched. Again, none of these can be done with "something out there somewhere" that nobody agree upon. Scriptures define the Scriptures as the commonly recognized standard text received as the very word of God by Spirit filled believers. You call all of this bologna. Timothy did not have "the originals", both Paul and Timothy knew exactly what Paul was talking about when he said "holy scriptures". Their recognition of the word of God did not "determine" the Scriptures, they recognized what was the word of God. Jesus told those in His day to "search the scriptures" (not go look and see if you can find the scriptures in the plethora of manuscripts) and everyone knew what He was talking about. I can't find anywhere in the Scriptures where the Scriptures are defined as something "out there somewhere". I can't find anywhere in Scriptures where the Scriptures are defined as matching word for word to the original. On the contrary Jesus quoted "the Scriptures" by saying: It is written. His quote rarely match word for word with "the original". "LORD" vs "God" in Mt 4 and Deut. 8:3. is an example. I think it was you who quipped: How do we know that was "the original" (Deut. 8:3)? All valid versions read the same way in Deut. 8:3 - some with Jehovah in place of LORD. Desperation on your part. Jesus goes into the temple and READS the Scriptures. The Scriptures that He read do not match any extant manuscript. Are all the extant manuscripts wrong?

I've answered similar questions too many times to count.

I handle the differences in Authorized Bibles the same way I handle differences in the Gospels (there are some whoppers), differences in the list of Ten Commandments (there are numerous) and differences in quotes of the OT as found in the NT (my, my, my what differences!). I use the Polish 1632 and the Spanish 1909.

The principles for recognizing the word of God (not determining) are not limited by time or language. Your position claims that inspiration is recognized one way before 100 A.D. (approximate date) and another way afterwards. Before 100 A.D. two differing accounts of the Ten Commandments can both be inspired despite their "textual" differences (omissions and additions). That is by all the complex rules of Textual Criticism the two extant accounts of the 10 Commandments supposedly written originally by Moses cannot BOTH match the original Ten Commandments that God Himself wrote. Differences are excused under the pretext of inspiration. The complexities of Textual Criticism did not determine the inspired text in Moses' day, not in David's day and not in Paul's day. Yet, in our day you claim that Textual Criticism determines what is and what isn't inspired - a change in principles of recognizing the word of God. If a given text doesn't match the original then according to the rules of Textual Criticism that is proof that they can't BOTH be inspired. Proving in my mind that Textual Criticism is NOT THE CRITERIA for determining what is inspired (no textual error). The soup gets thicker because "the original" in the previous sentence isn't the original that Moses wrote under inspiration, but a recently compiled text put forth by fallible men who did not possess the original autographs. This according to you (or those on this board) is proof that it must be in error; yet amazingly this non-original original is used to correct the English as if it were the very original autograph. I don't see much difference between your position and the KJVO position - TIME and LANGUAGE are the only differences that I see. Overzealous KJVO have a date in 1611 and English as time and language markers, you on the other hand have a date somewhere around 100 A.D. and Greek/Hebrew as time and language markers. My position states that the SAME principles of recognizing God's word are applied regardless of time and language.

Whatever principles that led believers in Moses' day to believe BOTH accounts of the 10 Commandments put forth by the hand of Moses to be "inspired" in spite of the differences (omissions and additions) must be applied today. The principles don't change. I've listed those Scriptural principles: http://www.preachinginpoland.com/Recognize.htm. The same argument applies to the differences in the Gospels, the quotes of the OT as found in the NT. And the same principles apply to differing inspired translations - Tyndale and the AV.

No one knows for sure exactly what Luke wrote, you admit as much. What language did Luke write in originally? Did Luke write multiple copies of Luke, some with Luke 17:36 and some without? Nobody knows. Because there are too many questions that Textual Criticism does not answer and good men using the axioms of Textual Criticism reach different conclusions; Textual Criticism is only a minor part of my criteria for recognizing the word of God. I don't spend my time correcting Bibles, nor do I accuse any version of "not following what Luke wrote originally". Nor do I ever say "the perfectly preserved word of God from a textual standpoint". I'm still waiting for anyone on either side of this debate to define "perfectly preserved". Perfectly preserved? Where? How, by fallible men? Brian you eat KJVO's lunch when they start talking about the AV "being the perfectly preserved word of God from this generation forever". Ruckman on the other hand is more careful and modifies his statements with "in the form that God wants us to have". Perfectly preserved in the 5000+ Greek manuscripts (the majority of which modern scholars reject as authentic because the manuscripts have late dates) that without a miracle those manuscripts cannot be confidently reconstructed into the very word of God (perfect in all its points) so that 50% of experts might agree on the text of any chapter in the Bible? A very nebulous concept indeed.

English speakers had the word of God in Tyndale's day "in the form that God wanted them to have" and they recognized it as such by a consensus of Spirit filled born again Christians. We have in the AV the word of God in the form that God wants us to have recognized (not determined) as such by a consensus of Spirit filled born again Christians. Perfection is not determined by Textual Criticism. Inspiration (implied perfection, inerrant, infallible) is not determined by MVs comparing translations to a Greek NT recently compiled by fallible men and KJVO comparing translations to an English NT translated by fallible men. Both positions make the same error. To press the point further inspiration was not determined by comparing Moses' different copy to God's original copy of the 10 Commandments. You recognize all the versions (God's, Moses', Joshua's, etc.) with their differences (omissions and additions) as inspired (textually perfect despite their differences), but not by making comparison with a non-extant original. How did you come to believe all the various versions ARE inspired? Not by the complexities of Textual Criticism.

So, in conclusion. Do away with "perfectly preserved word of God from a textual standpoint" and replace it with "God's word in the form that He wants us to have it today, recognized as such by a consensus Spirit filled born again Christians" and you will have your answer. Do away with your nebulous concept of something "being the word of God, but textually impure" or "being true and the word of God, but must be textually corrected to match what Luke or John penned" and you will understand my point of view. But I'll tell you what, in the spirit of pragmatism (vs nebulous concepts), you bring me exactly what Luke or John wrote that a consensus of Spirit filled born again Christians agree on and I'll change my belief in those points where valid Bibles "are different".

Euthymius wrote:
Despite all the long-winded spin, the bottom line still seems to remain the same: define "consensus" in a manner that all can accept.

Euthymius wrote:
If more English-speaking believers today are using the NIV, does that constitute "consensus"? What if the "consensus" shifts to the ESV?

Euthymius wrote:
At least my definition of "consensus" is one that is measurable and not subject to popular whim, but is established by a simple comparison and tabulation of a reasonable number of Greek manuscripts representative of all eras of hand-copying and a wide range of locales.

Suppose George W. Bush gives a speech. Included in his speech, he lists 5 foreign policy objectives. Later, various translators translate his speech.

One translation omits one of the objectives Bush said.
One translation adds a 6th objective Bush didn't say.
One translation changes one of the objectives to say something other than what Bush said.

Does not each translation contain a textual error? Of course they do.

Now to make your analogy work in our present day circumstances we must make a few minor changes.

Suppose George W. Bush gives a speech. Included in his speech, he lists 5 foreign policy objectives. Later, various translators translate his speech. We all agree that President Bush did indeed give a speech. President Bush's original speech however no longer exists. All the scholars affirm that there is no means of obtaining or recovering his original speech where all extant copies and translations do not agree.

What we do have is:
One Polish translation with the official Presidential seal that some scholars feel omits one of the objectives Bush said sent to Poland by the President's emissaries.
One English translation with the official Presidential seal that some scholars feel adds a 6th objective Bush didn't say sent to all English speaking nations by the President's emissaries.
One Spanish translation with the official Presidential seal that some scholars feel changes one of the objectives to say something other than what Bush said sent to all Spanish speaking nations by the President's emissaries.

Everyone agrees that the seal is official.

What to do now? My position states that we are not in a position to determine what was original and the Poles, English and Spaniards better go by the official copy/translation that they received as their authority. In fact according to my position for 350+ years all national groups have been functioning quite well each one fully trusting with undying affiance the translation that the President sent them. The United Nations noted the "differences" in translations and suggested some sort of Standardization that everyone could agree upon, but along came some Jihadist scholars who have never liked the President having his policies translated in the first place claiming that only the original language is authentic, that in their opinion the President's seal is not official and that they have recently discovered the President's original intent and insist that all three language groups must change their official translation not only in those places where they disagree, but hundreds if not thousands of other places where all the official translations agreed as well! They base their opinion upon some recently found non-official scraps of paper in the original language of the President assuming that original language is proof of the President's seal. Of course these Jihadist scholars were quite congenial back in 1880 when they first proposed their opinion of the President's original intent. Despite setback after setback and outright rejection of the Jihadist scholar's opinions and proposals, the Jihadist scholars pressed on with their allegations changing their original opinion of the President's original intent on almost a yearly basis. And with further immigration from Egypt filling the nation's universities they find themselves in a position to call all those who disagree with them heretics, liars and splitters of churches Only time will tell if they will begin using their swords to enforce their opinion. If and when the storm blows over the United Nations can get back to Standardization among all extant official translations until then you don't open your door to wash your windows in a huricane! Speaking of which, I must vacate Corpus Christi! Later!