Textual Criticism

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Askjo, Jun 1, 2003.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Edward F. Hills explained how conservative scholars are interested in the " naturalistic method instead of the " consistently Christian " method.

    He wrote: " Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interests in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. ...most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. ...so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine. "

    I never forget what happened to some Baptist colleges/seminaries. Tenn. Temple University, for example, was TR college/seminariy a long years ago, but today TTU is W/H college/seminary.

    Some Baptist Colleges/Seminaries changed their position upon which Bible versions to use in classes.

    Was Edward F. Hills absolutely right?
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "consistently Christian method" is a name that means nothing. What is the consistently Christian method?? The one that comes up with the TR right?? That is fallacious argumentation. Attaching "naturalistic method" to an approach is an attempt to say that we deny supernaturalism in bibliology. The bottom line is that all preservation is, to a point, naturalistic. The texts have degenerated over the years, fallen apart, blurred, etc. God did not see fit to perfectly preserve any text. Hills was wrong.

    To your other questions, I am not "denying" your information and assertion about WH. I am saying I don't care. I have used some of the commentaries and found nothing unorthodox in them. If there were some points that they were unorthodox on, then so be it. I really don't care. Westcott and Hort are non-issues in this discussion. Textual criticism is not affected by spirituality of the person involved. These men (as well as Erasmus, Scrivener, etc) were working with texts long in existence and unchanged by them. You misunderstand the process of textual criticism and are therefore led to make erroneous assertions about it.

    As for Riplinger and WH, White's book "The King James Only Controversy" shows many of her lies about others, including WH. In addition, this article gives a general review of her book, and has a section specifically on WH. Review of New Age Bible Versions

    YOu are barking up the wrong tree with this line of reasonsing. The debate about textual criticism should focus on methods, and there are strengths and weaknesses of both major approaches. However, to focus on the men is a sleight of hand illusion that may work on some but most of us will see right through it. I would encourage you to put aside your infatuation with WH and move on to things that actually matter.
     
  3. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not here to defend Gail Riplinger. She made many mistakes in her book, New Age Bible Version. I read it a long time.

    James White wrote his book, "The King James Only Controversy" so I read it a long time. He has many spurious answers in his book.

    Let us read what James White said in his book : "We note that Dr. Ruckman provides no evidence that "Gnostics" had anything to do with the production of manuscripts associated with Alexandria. This is a mere assertion without historical facts to back it up." (page 120)

    I have Robert Stewart's comment on this so let him write: "The early church had to face several perversions of the Christian Gospel, but one of the most dangerous of those perversions was (and is) Gnosticism. Am early promoter of Gnosticism was Basilides who taught in Alexandria about AD 125-150. He fabricated his own corrupt version of the Gospel (and composed apocryphal psalms), and founded his own School of Gnosticism in Alexandria." The history disagrees with James White.

    Interestingly, Robert asked James White on January 21, 1998 if he would answer the points that Robert raises here but, on Jan. 23, James answered that he did not have any interest in the matter.

    James White is incapable of answering to Robert's questions because James knows nothing about the historical facts.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither you nor Roberts disproved White. My suspicion is that it is a matter of how one interprets less than conclusive history. However, that is irrelevant. White may well be wrong on that fact, but that does not mean that the modern text is corrupted. That is a non sequitur. It just doesn't matter.
     
  5. Bible Student

    Bible Student
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother I could just not undertand what you are saying here so I am asking. Are you talking about the Word of God?

    Richard [​IMG]
     
  6. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo, I'd still like to see your definition of "consistently Christian" textual criticism. I have no idea what that means.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am happy to help you understand what it means so you compare the difference between 2 methods.

    Edward F. Hills defined them. The consistently Christian method and the naturalistic method deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently.

    The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of the New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures.

    The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said:

    Am early promoter of Gnosticism was Basilides who taught in Alexandria about AD 125-150. He fabricated his own corrupt version of the Gospel (and composed apocryphal psalms), and founded his own School of Gnosticism in Alexandria." The history disagrees with James White.

    Not at all. You will notice that Robert makes note of a particular, identifiable Gnostic who fabricated a particular, identifiable corrupt Gospel text. In other words, what he did was apparently not done in secret, and the Church was not (and is not) deceived by his corruption of the text.

    What Dr. Petey was claiming, specifically (and what White was answering, specifically) is that manuscripts used today that are based on the Alexandrian text type (e.g. Vaticanus or Sinaiticus) were corrupted by Gnostics. For this specific argument, he provides no evidence, and indeed, there is none.

    Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the Gnostic Gospel of Basilides. You and Robert did not refute the historical claim White made; rather, you erected a straw man and sidestepped White's argument entirely.
     
  10. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts disagreed each other in the gospel alone 3,000 times. Are they best MSS?
     
  11. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    The plant is a gigantic herb that grows from an underground stem (rhizome) and forms a false trunk with leaves.

    hey, i can change the subject too!

    :rolleyes:
     
  12. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said:

    Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts disagreed each other in the gospel alone 3,000 times.

    What does this have to do with the price of rice in China? I thought we were discussing whether they had been corrupted by "Gnostics."
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    None of us saw this coming. :rolleyes:
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sounds like we have our own brand of BB "Gnostics" with special knowledge and ability to push hot buttons without thinking!

    If ignorance is bliss, we have some very very very happy people here . . :rolleyes:
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read White's book and marked on what he incorrectly answered against the KJV superiority.

    Read this information from the website:
    David Cloud examined James White's book, "the King James Only Controversy.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    If I were to weigh what James White taught on any subject against what David Cloud teaches, there would be no comparison. My scale would never balance!

    (Personal to Askjo - David Cloud is probably the second "least credible" resource you could suggest to most of us on the BB! Of course, Ruckman and his cronies take top honors in that dubious category!) :rolleyes:
     
  17. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, now, David Cloud never claimed to be a textual critic, and he does have a lot of good things to say even if you disagree with him on the versions issue.

    Jason
     
  18. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo said:

    I read White's book and marked on what he incorrectly answered against the KJV superiority.

    So did I, and as I have already said, he is right when he says there is no evidence the Alexandrian text family has been corrupted by "Gnostics."
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that's part of the problem. When you aren't able or capable or knowledgable of a subject and it comes across in the statements you choose to make regarding that subject, it calls into question your credibility. I'm afraid that Cloud's comments on this and on Calvinism have unnecessarily brought his credibility into question.

    By the way, all of us preachers face the same dilemma. Lloyd-Jones warned against it; Spurgeon did too, as many of the preachers gone before. Yet we still comment on politics, economics, etc., and compromise a hearing for the gospel.

    Sorry for the soapbox. :cool:
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    He has some good things to say. Unfortunately, many of his opinions are tainted by his KJVOnlyism. He counts anyone who uses MV's as suspect or liberal from the start then lets that bias color the facts in evidence. He recently resurrected a 25 year old false accusation against John MacArthur concerning the blood of Christ. You may not agree with MacArthur (I do for the most part) but it is lunacy to label him a liberal much less a heretic.
     

Share This Page

Loading...