the critical text position

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ed Edwards, Jun 5, 2006.

?

Can "the critical text position" be derived from these three Doctrines?

  1. yes

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
  2. no

    7 vote(s)
    53.8%
  3. Apathy/ignorance - don't know, don't care, etc.

    3 vote(s)
    23.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consider these three doctrines:
    1. Providential preservation
    2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
    3. Preservation through the church

    Can "the critical text position" be derived from these three Doctrines?

    Yes
    No
    Apathy/ignorance - don't know, don't care, etc.
     
  2. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't understand what 1 and 3 mean and I don't understand how why one would derive a position supportive of critical texts from doctrines. Usually support for a textual position is derived from manuscript evidence and one's school of textual critical theory. I couldn't answer this poll.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gold Dragon: // ... I don't
    understand how why one would derive a position supportive
    of critical texts from doctrines.//

    Ones actions should be derived from one's doctrines.
    If one's actions do NOT derive from one's doctrines,
    then they are a hypocrite.

    Quick Logic:

    All systems of logic start with a minimal number of
    'undefined terms'. These are terms that are so basic
    the the whole system of logic in essence defines the terms.

    If you start with points, lines, and angles - you have
    a logic of geometry (there are different geometries with
    different natures, most people are familiar with Euclidian
    Plane Geometry, if taught in US schools).

    If you start with terms like 'man', 'fellow man', 'state', etc.
    then you develop a logical system of government.

    If you start with terms like 'God', 'man', 'salvation, etc. then you
    develop a system of religion.

    The second element of a system of logic is agreed upon
    (if you wish to talk to others) statements using the
    undefined terms and defined terms based on the defined terms.
    In the 19th Century these were called 'Axioms' - unprovable truths.
    But in the 20th Century they were called 'Assumptions'
    for they are unprovable so you can only assume they are true.

    Using the Assumptions, the defined terms, the undefined terms
    a system of logic developes more defined terms, more statements
    called 'propositions' are developed.

    PROPOSITION - n - 5. logic, as statement
    affirming or denying something so that it can be characterized
    as true or false.

    In a system of religious logic, final propositions
    are called 'DOCTRINE'.

    So the question is about a proposed system of logic
    where the three doctrines can be logically developed into
    the given proposition (actually defining is closer
    to what is done): "the critical text position".

    Yes, these three doctrines can logically lead to the
    proposition/definition: "the critical text position".

    I really don't have the time, raising two grandchildren,
    working, serving in my local church, etc. to write up
    all the steps of Logic leading from the three propositions
    (Doctrines) to :the critical text position".

    The 'correct' answer is YES.
    That was all I was trying to show by my question, for
    there are claims in another Topic that shows some people don't
    know the FIRST thing about logic and hold a false doctrine
    that LOGIC and FAITH are enemies. So in ignorance (the
    opposite of logic) said persons falsy deny the FAITH (the
    opposite of DOUBT) of others.

    Gold Dragon: //Usually support
    for a textual position is derived from manuscript
    evidence and one's school of textual critical theory//

    BUt one's 'school of textual critical theory' flows from
    one's Doctrines/Assumptions/Axioms/etc.
     
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Agreed


    I do not consider doctrines to be axiomic. Doctrines are derivations based axioms. For evangelical protestants, those axioms from which we derive doctrine is the biblical text itself. For Catholics and Orthodox, church tradition is another axiom from which doctrine is also drawn.

    I agree that one's school of textual critical theory does flow from one's assumptions and axioms.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again proving the Majority can be wrong,
    and the manority right :praying:
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. How much? 2. Did the Holy Spirit? If so, explain. 3. Which the church?
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0

    ...and proving logically that "Ed Edwards" is a pseudonym for John McLaughlin! :wavey:
    Nice to meet you John.:laugh:
     
  10. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why vote?

    Why not cast lots?
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone up topic questins:

    //Why vote?
    Why not cast lots?//

    I did a word study of the some 15 cases in the
    Bible where 'cast lots' is used. It is used
    in the Old Testament (O.T.) as a way to show God's will
    in certain matters. In the New Testament there are two
    gospels that mention the Roman Soldiers who crucified
    Jesus 'cast lots' for His one-piece robe (rather than splitting
    it among the soldiers.

    So 'vote' means to find the will of the people;
    'cast lots' means to find the Will of God.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...