Does Anybody Know?

After rechecking my source, the comments attrubuted to Metzger are found in the Reader's Digest Bible in Metzger's Introduction to the Old Testament and not in a book by the same name. My apologies.

 

After rechecking my source, the comments attrubuted to Metzger are found in the Reader's Digest Bible in Metzger's Introduction to the Old Testament and not in a book by the same name. My apologies. </font>[/QUOTE]No problem. I just knew I'd never come across a work he'd done strictly on the OT on his own.

 

Although I have no idea how much a "scintilla" is, I asume it is a rather small quantity. Nonetheless, I disagree that it is irrelevant to textual matters. His theology would most certainly affect his choice of variants in a given situation. I'm quite sure that conjecture played a role in his criticism process. That being the case, I do not trust his judgment in these matters of grave importance.

In response to your second quote, I do not view it as poisioning the well, I view it as placing a warning sign in front of an already poisoned well.

 

That is pure conjecture.

Proof?

Pure sophistry. The laws of logic disagree with you, which the Puritans and Reformers believed were God-ordained. Don't tell me you have a dismissive for them as well

 

Tom said: Proof? </font>[/QUOTE]It is well established that the editors of the modern critical text used conjecture in places where uncertainty made the choice of variants very difficult. I have no reason to believe that Metzger was any different.

I thought my comment was rather creative. I guess that is relative. I'm afriad I don't follow the Puritans/Reformers spin. I assure you that I do not have a dismissive for them. Where they hold true to the Word of God, I have the utmost respect for them.

 

Actually, I don't think this is true. All of the readings in teh NT text have manuscript support. The place where conjecture plays a big role is in the OT (something no one much talks about because Hebrew is known even less than Greek). When you read the Textual Commentary on the NT, you see that theology did not affect Metzger's committee's decisions. They used other criteria. There is no way to substantiate that theology played a part.

There is even less practical reason to believe it. It Metzger's theology played a part in his textual choices, he has a sound theology (which we all know is not true). He failed to distort any biblical doctrine. If he was allowing his theology to affect his text criticism, he is very inept, and that would be a good reason to doubt him.

 

Proof? Your statement is an assertion, which is guilty of the logical fallacy of "appeal to belief." Fallacies and assertions are not proof. Please provide proof.

Canards usually are

 

I do not see Bruce's faith.

 

So??? No one has yet to show that it makes a difference. His faith is not at issue, any more than Erasmus, Scrivener, or King James or anyone else. The issue is simple: What is on the paper in front of you and how does it fit with the rest of the evidence?

 

So??? No one has yet to show that it makes a difference. His faith is not at issue, any more than Erasmus, Scrivener, or King James or anyone else. The issue is simple: What is on the paper in front of you and how does it fit with the rest of the evidence? </font>[/QUOTE]Erasmus rejected the Catholic text namely the Vaticanus Manuscript. Logic of faith? Yes!

 

If you believe Metzger was born again, you contradict yourself with Metzger's comments on the Bible as what Metzger did:

If Metzger was born again, how did he doubt the whole Bible?

 

If you believe Metzger was born again, you contradict yourself with Metzger's comments on the Bible as what Metzger did:

If Metzger was born again, how did he doubt the whole Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Since when did any of this equal "Believe on teh Lord JEsus Christ"? I am confused. What is the means of salvation? Belief in Christ or fitting Askjo's theological box?? Someone help me here.

 

If you believe Metzger was born again, you contradict yourself with Metzger's comments on the Bible as what Metzger did:

If Metzger was born again, how did he doubt the whole Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Since when did any of this equal "Believe on teh Lord JEsus Christ"? I am confused. What is the means of salvation? Belief in Christ or fitting Askjo's theological box?? Someone help me here. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus believed in the historicity and universality of the Noahic Flood. (Mat. 24:37-39) Why did Metzger not believe it? Jesus and Metzger disagree each other on the story of Noah and the flood. When Jesus is the Judge, Jesus would ask him - why did Metzger reject it? This question makes sure if Metzger is born again OR unbeliever. Jesus warns that man will be judged by God's Word (Jn. 12:47-48).

 

12 hour notice. Let's wrap this up.

 

Jesus believed that translations of Scripture other than the KJV were the perfect inerrant word of God. Why don't you believe it? When Jesus is the judge, he will ask you, "Why did you reject it?" This question might make us unsure if you are born again or an unbeliever. Jesus warns that you will be judged by God's word.

See, it works both ways. You have rejected the teaching of Scripture on a matter, just as Metzger has. So what? Niether of those things are tests of salvation in and of itself. No knowing Metzger, I have no idea. I have even less concern since I will never know him. I am not questioning your salvation; I am simply pointing out the fallacy of your method.

You have yet to show why this matters. Metzger's belief or unbelief has no bearing on the text critical process, just as Erasmus belief or unbelief, Scrivener, the KJV translators, King James himself. We can question people salvation all day long and in the end it is irrelevant for this discussion.

 

Reprise the theme song and roll the credits.