Honest question

FFF said:

By these definitions it is fair to say they believe the Bible is a mythological book that never existed between two covers.

Is anyone else astonished at the amount of dishonesty abounding in a thread titled "An Honest Question"?

 

is anyone else astonished that ransom didn't answer the question, but decided to make up some stupid accusation that totally ignores the whole point of this discussion? </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you could be honest enough to read FFF's post and show us where the question is. There was only a statement (an misleading one at that). Anyone who can read should know that there was no question to be answered. Why did you accuse Ransom of doing something that was impossible to do, i.e., answer a question that did, in fact, not exist??

 

I think a little careful reading is in order for you. You clearly missed some important distinctions and read a few parroted lines in instead. These men never said the Bible was the collection of the original writings. It said it was a collection of the sixty six books, from Genesis to Revelation. That collection does exist today and indeed is found in many translations. They never claimed that all the original manuscripts were in one place at one time.

In your haste to prove a point, you violated the simple English grammar. The "inerrancy and infallibility" that we talk about apply to the original writings.

These men do have a Bible. I hold it in my hands every day. If you would use more discernment, you would find these types of statements much harder to make.

 

Pastor Larry,

Ransom's comments are inflammatory and are not germane to the topic immediately at hand. This is a discussion board, therefore, comments phrased as statements can be construed as questions by implication.

 

First, Ransom's question hit the nail right on the head. Your statement was intellectually dishonest if you are familiar at all with this topic. I think you know that. These men do not believe that the originals were ever all in one bound volume. And they do not believe that the originals must be bound in one bound volume in order to have a Bible. Either you knew that and were intentionally misrepresenting them, or you have misrepresented your level of familiarity with the issues.

Second, you made no attempt to ask a question. There was no implication of a question in your post. I was simply pointing out the obvious that was unfortunately missed.

 

Pastor Larry,

It's unfortunate you must resort to subtle distortion of what I what said to deflect my point. Notice I said "By these definitions". You know I do not have trouble with English. You merely say these things to be insulting and to operate in this thread using indirect personal attacks. It is clear to anyone who studies this issue that the Lockman foundation does not believe in an "inerrant" Bible. They have done just as you have, they have subtly twisted things to give the impression they believe in an inerrant Bible. It seems you have the same skill they do.

 

FFF,

if i understand pastor larry right, many of the mv-ers believe that the teachings of the bible have been preserved inerrantly, but not the actual words. not exactly the same thing as having no inerrant bible at all.

regards,
am ha'aretz

 

I didn't resort to subtle distortion. I replied to your comments. It is you who distorted the position of the Lockman foundation. It is you who distorted the position of these translators. It is you who distorted the position statement. Do not blame that on me. "By these definitions" is not a cop out for what you said. "By these definitions" we know exactly what they meant and it meant an affirmation of inerrancy.

You are wrong. I said them to point out where you have tried to hijack the facts to support your position. I have made no indirect personal attacks. If you believe I have, show me. Any "attacks" I may have made would have been direct. Of course, I made none of those either.

They most certainly do believe in an inerrant Bible. Here is their statement: 2. By "inspiration" we mean that the books of the Bible were written by holy men of old, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired. Once again, it is you who has stooped to this level, not me. Again, you have either been intellectually dishonest or unfamiliar with the facts. At this point, I am not sure. I have seen you say some things that lead me to the latter, but overall your posts seem well thought out, which points me to the former. Either way, you have twisted the position of the Lockman translators.

When you go down the "inerrancy" road, you are going down the wrong road. One can fully affirm inerrancy without holding the KJVOnly or the TROnly position. For years, orthodox Christianity did exactly that and to this day, still does. We affirm inerrancy. Any attempt to paint us otherwise is simply wrong.

 

Not surprisingly, more dishonesty has been added to the "Honest Question" thread.

FFF said: By these definitions it is fair to say they believe the Bible is a mythological book that never existed between two covers.

I answered: Is anyone else astonished at the amount of dishonesty abounding in a thread titled "An Honest Question"?

The Harvest rejoins:

is anyone else astonished that ransom didn't answer the question

Questions end with one of these thingummies: ? I don't see one in what FFF said; hence, he was not asking a question and there is nothing for me to have answered.

but decided to make up some stupid accusation that totally ignores the whole point of this discussion?

Is it a "stupid accusation" to point out that the KJV-onlyists are again doing that thing they do best: posting weird and misleading claims?

FFF took this perfectly understandable definition of the Bible:

and attempted to refute it with the following nonsense:

By these definitions it is fair to say they believe the Bible is a mythological book that never existed between two covers. All original manuscripts were never in one book ever.

Now, whoever said that the "original manuscripts" all had to be in "one book," otherwise the Bible is a "mythological book that never existed between two covers"? That is a non-argument. It is obfuscatory KJV-only codswallop.

The point is not the fact that they were, or were not, gathered together; the point is that there were, at some time, originals that were perfect and without error, regardless of what millennia of human tampering has done to the copies.

The sometime existence of originals is indisputable. Unless you KJV-onlyists want to now explain to us why the Bible is a copy of nothing?

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

It's unfortunate you must resort to subtle distortion of what I what said to deflect my point. Notice I said "By these definitions".

Yes, you did. Now go back to "these definitions" and please show us the parts that say the "original manuscripts" had to be bound together to consitute the Bible.

The nonsense you are spouting is tantamount to saying that unless someone has one book containing all 37 of Shakespeare's plays, there is no such thing as "Shakespeare's works" even if 37 people have one play each.

 

perhaps i should just keep quiet....

but one problem with the lockman confession is that it's all well and good that the translators believed all those things about the originals, but how do we know what they felt about what we actually have to work with, ie, all the manuscript evidence?

is there one phrase in the manuscript evidence they can point to and say with absolute certainty "this is from god"? i assume not. honestly, isn't that a little disturbing? it disturbs me.

people seem to make a big deal about how the kjvo's are without biblical basis, but don't acknowledge that the mv scholars are as well when they judge the commonly accepted standards of textual criticism worthy to determine what likely is and isn't the word of god.

for all we know, the original manuscripts all said "the translation of these words in 1611 will be inspired".

 

am ha'aretz said:

is there one phrase in the manuscript evidence they can point to and say with absolute certainty "this is from god"? i assume not. honestly, isn't that a little disturbing? it disturbs me.

You assume incorrectly. The readings of the vast majority of the New Testament are beyond dispute. So you can look at John 1:1, for example, and say with absolute certainty that John wrote these very words, if you will pardon my amateur transliteration: "en arch ein ho logos kai ho logos ein pros ton theon kai theos ein ho logos."

for all we know, the original manuscripts all said "the translation of these words in 1611 will be inspired".

If that is the case, then what you know has its basis in skepticism and unbelief, not faith.

 

aretz: a is there one phrase in the manuscript evidence they can point to and say with absolute certainty "this is from god"? i assume not. honestly, isn't that a little disturbing? it disturbs me.

ransom: You assume incorrectly. The readings of the vast majority of the New Testament are beyond dispute.

without some kind of doctrine of preservation, how can ANY reading be beyond dispute? perhaps the corrupted reading was placed in an early manuscript, and is now reflected in ALL extant manuscripts? how can one prove otherwise? by vote?

so what's your doctrine of preservation?

aretz: for all we know, the original manuscripts all said "the translation of these words in 1611 will be inspired".

ransom: If that is the case, then what you know has its basis in skepticism and unbelief, not faith.

oy, that's the problem. we all have faith in our preservation theories, but without any way of convincing one another. and we can't base such theories on the bible itself, since that's the very thing under investigation. the findings of secular textual scholarship will fail to convince many as well (like me), based as it is on highly questionable principles (guesses) for determining the better text.

but basically i think you're right - it's a matter of faith. but i want to be sure and nor delude myself into believing something obviously wrong, kwim? we all know it's possible.

i think i probably need to spend less time on the internet and more time praying about this. i'm confident god will give me what i need. can't prove it though

i really WISH i could be kjv only in a very strong sense, but the alteratative renderings of the old testament in the new seem to make that impossible (so am i missing something here, guys?)

 

By what they did with it and by what they said about it. They said they believed in inerrancy. To my knowledge, that is more than what the KJV translators said. And your question could equally well apply to the KJV translators. How do we know what they felt?? By what they said and what they did with it.

As was pointed out, this is not true. That vast vast majority of it is beyond dispute. There is no disputed passage that changes any doctrine.

The KJV translators were also operating under standards of textula criticism. The difference is 1) the amount of texts they had and 2) the principles of their criticism. There is no "biblical method" of textual criticism. We are left to use our judgment and discernment in such activity. We freely acknowledge that.

Well, yeah it's a possibility, but what's the probability?? There is no external or internal evidence for this. And that is a major problem. All the textual choices made by textual critics (whether of the erasmian/tr, the MajText, or the eclectic texts) are made with a certain amount of support. A reading such as that would be made with no support. That is a major difference. If a reading has no support, it should be thrown out. If a reading has support, it should be considered.

 

am ha'aretz said:

but basically i think you're right - it's a matter of faith.

Don't misunderstand what I said. It's a matter of faith, yes, but it's also a matter of evidence. You asked, for example:

without some kind of doctrine of preservation, how can ANY reading be beyond dispute?

When every known copy of John 1:1 says precisely the same thing, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that is good prima facie evidence that those are the authentic words of John.

Why can I have faith that God has preserved his Word from the time of its enscripturation to the present? Because the evidence is overwhelmingly in its favour. This also means that I can have faith in the preservation of the Word of God in those few disputed passages, even though it is less certain which of the variant readings is most likely the authentic one.

perhaps the corrupted reading was placed in an early manuscript, and is now reflected in ALL extant manuscripts? how can one prove otherwise? by vote?

Yeah, this is the "conspiracy" theory of knowledge: the proof that massive conspiracies exist is the fact that they cover their tracks so well.

Of course, I don't believe something on the basis of nothing.

 

Pastor Larry,

Obviously I touched a nerve, as your reply demonstrates. The truth usually does.

One more time for those who are still struggling with English.

So the Lockman foundation said:
[We believe that the entire Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice.]

And clarified their meaning of Bible by saying:
[By "The Holy Bible" we mean that collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which, as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God.]

Now, let me combine the two by replacing Bible with their definition of Bible:
[We believe that the entire collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which, as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God, is the inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice.]

My conclusion was:
By these definitions it is fair to say they believe the Bible is a mythological book that never existed between two covers. All original manuscripts were never in one book ever. If they define the Bible as inerrant and infallible, but then say it was only that way as originally written, they have closed themselves up very tight in a logic-type compartment of reasoning. They have no Bible, and certainly are unfit to say anything they created is a Bible, based on their own definition of the word Bible.

The evidence speaks for itself.

 

aretz: but one problem with the lockman confession is that it's all well and good that the translators believed all those things about the originals, but how do we know what they felt about what we actually have to work with, ie, all the manuscript evidence?

pastor: By what they did with it and by what they said about it. They said they believed in inerrancy. To my knowledge, that is more than what the KJV translators said. And your question could equally well apply to the KJV translators. How do we know what they felt?? By what they said and what they did with it.

sure, they believed in inerrancy of the originals - but they didn't have those to work with. how did they feel about the extant manscripts, and why? i'm not trying to imply anything sinister, however, one's attitude to the extant manuscripts seems like a much more important question to me, since that's effectively what they were able to work with.

aretz: is there one phrase in the manuscript evidence they can point to and say with absolute certainty "this is from god"? i assume not. honestly, isn't that a little disturbing? it disturbs me.

pastor: As was pointed out, this is not true. That vast vast majority of it is beyond dispute. There is no disputed passage that changes any doctrine.

without an agreed apon doctrine of preservation, how could it be beyond dispute? just because the reading exists in ALL extant manuscripts? perhaps an addition, reflecting correct doctrine, was inserted early in the document stream? how can we ever know with certainty what words in the extant manuscripts are from god, without an agreed apon (and true ) doctrine of preservation?

aretz: people seem to make a big deal about how the kjvo's are without biblical basis, but don't acknowledge that the mv scholars are as well when they judge the commonly accepted standards of textual criticism worthy to determine what likely is and isn't the word of god.

pastor: The KJV translators were also operating under standards of textula criticism. The difference is 1) the amount of texts they had and 2) the principles of their criticism. There is no "biblical method" of textual criticism. We are left to use our judgment and discernment in such activity. We freely acknowledge that.

at least much of their work was based on generally accepted tradition. in many respects i trust the tradition of earlier ages more than i do the scholarship of today (19th-21st centuries). perhaps i'm wrong. we don't seem to be living in a great age of faith and piety.

aretz: for all we know, the original manuscripts all said "the translation of these words in 1611 will be inspired".

pastor: Well, yeah it's a possibility, but what's the probability??

granted, about zero. it was 1/2 a joke. just trying to show that without some faith based doctrine of preservation, anything is possible.

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

Obviously I touched a nerve, as your reply demonstrates. The truth usually does.

Ah, "proof by persecution."

It's too bad that other thread was locked, because I would really like to now go back and answer Bartholomew, after his major wobbly: "Obviously I touched a nerve, as you reply demonstrates. The truth usually does."

Now, let me combine the two by replacing Bible with their definition of Bible:
[We believe that the entire collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which, as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God, is the inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice.]

I'm still trying to figure out where it says those 66 books had to have been collected and bound together, otherwise the "Bible" is "mythological."

But the point is not their location, it is their creation. You miss the point. You have had this error pointed out to you more than once by multiple people.

I submit that you are being deliberately obtuse.

My conclusion was

soundly trounced by both me and Pastor Larry.