The Doctrine of Preservation?

[Harold Garvey]

I agreed with your statement that I quoted in the OP, and I still agree with you.

Yes, the old democratic process is higher reasoning.

Mob rules.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[franklinmonroe]

Not a theory, the Received Text is why we have the KJV. You couldn't make up what God has preserved.

I presume by "Received Text" you mean both the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence, because if there is a historic 'doctrine' of preservation (as in the WCF) it applies only to original languages (and certainly not to translations).

 

[Harold Garvey]

I presume by "Received Text" you mean both the Hebrew and Greek manuscript evidence, because if there is a historic 'doctrine' of preservation (as in the WCF) it applies only to original languages (and certainly not to translations).

Each text received complies with the original autograph.

each manuscript that doesn't comply with the origianl autographs are not within the Received texts.

Just thought that distinction needed to be made here, unless speculative expressions are what the mob wishes.

 

[EdSutton]

Each text received complies with the original autograph.

each manuscript that doesn't comply with the origianl [sic] autographs are not within the Received texts.

Just thought that distinction needed to be made here, unless speculative expressions are what the mob wishes.

Got it!!! Uh - no! Wait a sec. I haven't actually!

For where EXACTLY are these autographs to be found to be compared with? I seem to have forgotten this, somehow.

Plus, since no two 'major' manuscripts agree 100% with one another, in every minute detail, this is still nothing more (or less) than "question begging" and avoidance, is it not??

In fact, not even the KJV translators relied completely on any one individual text, be it OT, Apoc., or NT, as has been shown by Dr. Scrivener. And, at least, the majority of their notes and MSS apparently perished in one of the great fires of London, so the best we can do is attempt a reconstruction of their efforts, in this. Hardly conclusive, at best.

Not to mention, that it is incorrect to identify the MSS of the OT (and/or Apocrypha) as a part of the "Received Text" to begin with, as that designation is accurate for only the NT texts.

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

Each text received complies with the original autograph.

each manuscript that doesn't comply with the origianl autographs are not within the Received texts. ...

We must choose our words carefully in this discussion to be properly understood.

First, in the above statements you seem to equate "text" and "manuscript". I would normally understand "text" to mean an edited printed text. Since the autographs were not gathered into a single volume which would correspond with a printed text, perhaps you actually meant to convey that each "manuscript" complies to an individual autograph. But then you offer no explanation how two (or more) manuscripts which are different can each be identical to the original.

However, you did not actually state that they would be 'identical' did you? You said that they would "comply" to the autographs. Second, what do you mean by "compy"?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Got it!!! Uh - no! Wait a sec. I haven't actually!

For where EXACTLY are these autographs to be found to be compared with? I seem to have forgotten this, somehow.

Plus, since no two 'major' manuscripts agree 100% with one another, in every minute detail, this is still nothing more (or less) than "question begging" and avoidance, is it not??

So you think the Lord hasn't had his church is the scripture preservation business to have for us the Received Text?

In fact, not even the KJV translators relied completely on any one individual text, be it OT, Apoc., or NT, as has been shown by Dr. Scrivener. And, at least, the majority of their notes and MSS apparently perished in one of the great fires of London, so the best we can do is attempt a reconstruction of their efforts, in this. Hardly conclusive, at best.

Not to mention, that it is incorrect to identify the MSS of the OT (and/or Apocrypha) as a part of the "Received Text" to begin with, as that designation is accurate for only the NT texts.

Ed

It is probably one of the biggest lies of all time to say the Apocrypha is any part of the Received Text.

You seem to place alot of importance on just one man.

 

[Harold Garvey]

We must choose our words carefully in this discussion to be properly understood.

First, in the above statements you seem to equate "text" and "manuscript". I would normally understand "text" to mean an edited printed text. Since the autographs were not gathered into a single volume which would correspond with a printed text, perhaps you actually meant to convey that each "manuscript" complies to an individual autograph. But then you offer no explanation how two (or more) manuscripts which are different can each be identical to the original.

However, you did not actually state that they would be 'identical' did you? You said that they would "comply" to the autographs. Second, what do you mean by "compy"?

To comply means to agree. To agree is what makes the manuscript approved to be accurate. we have the Received Text. God has preserved the Bible in this fashion, or do you believe God cannot preserve anything on earth as it is in heaven and therefore Jesus gave us the incentive to acheive an impossible task?

You might say the word of God is forever settled in heaven but not on earth. that thinking places man at a disadvantage and makes God to blame.:type:

 

[EdSutton]

We must choose our words carefully in this discussion to be properly understood.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to matter to some posters. Especially, if this might seem to get in the way of promoting a particular agenda. :tear:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

So you think the Lord hasn't had his church is the scripture preservation business to have for us the Received Text?

What I may or may not 'think' is irrelevant, here. And your response is likewise irrelevant to what I said, in response to your claims.

It is probably one of the biggest lies of all time to say the Apocrypha is any part of the Received Text.

I did not say it was. In fact, I expressly denied this. However, I was merely covering all the bases in listing the Apocrypha as a 'section' found in all the English Bibles until the last 150 years or so.

You seem to place alot [sic] of importance on just one man.

I'll agree fully, here. I do indeed place a lot of importance on one man. :thumbsup:

For there is one God, and one mediatour betwene God and men, (namely) the man Christ Iesus, (I Tim. 2:5 -MCB)

But yet the gift is not so, as is the offence: for if through the offence of that one, many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Iesus Christ, hath abounded vnto many. (Rom. 5:15 - GEN)

37 But he whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore ye men and brethren, that thorow this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, 39 And by him are all that believe justified from all things from the which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Ac. 13:37-39 - TYN)

And that man is Jesus! :jesus:

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

To comply means to agree. ...

OK, I'm just still trying to understand your position.

In your mind does "agree/accurate" mean exacly the same (down to jot & tittles), or does "agree/accurate" mean sufficiently the same (allowing for minor variations)?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... or do you believe God cannot preserve anything on earth as it is in heaven and therefore Jesus gave us the incentive to acheive an impossible task? ...

Can God preserve? My God can do anything (almost. He can't lie, for example).

Did He preserve? This is not the proper question, either; for it is obvious that He has preserved the Scriptures.

The real questions is: What did He promise exactly concerning the preservation of Scripture?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... You might say the word of God is forever settled in heaven but not on earth. that thinking places man at a disadvantage and makes God to blame.

Yes, I would agree (scripturally) that the word of God is settled in Heaven. I don't know if it is on Earth; the Bible doesn't explicitly say. I doubt it, since all of the word of God is not recorded in writing for us. The word of God is so much more than just the Bible. I think when the term 'Word of God' is frequently used as a synonym for 'Holy Scripture' we seriously understate what the Word of God truly is. I know for sure that thinking only in terms of 'the Bible' when reading the phrase "word of God" in the Scriptures will get you very confused.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Yes, I would agree (scripturally) that the word of God is settled in Heaven. I don't know if it is on Earth; the Bible doesn't explicitly say. I doubt it, since all of the word of God is not recorded in writing for us. The word of God is so much more than just the Bible. I think when the term 'Word of God' is frequently used as a synonym for 'Holy Scripture' we seriously understate what the Word of God truly is. I know for sure that thinking only in terms of 'the Bible' when reading the phrase "word of God" in the Scriptures will get you very confused.

So you've jumped into a whole other realm there.

every animate or inanimate object can fit into your line of reason as when God spoke everything into existence taht it also is the word of God.:type:

I have nothing of the word of God apart from the Bible.:thumbs:

 

[Harold Garvey]

What I may or may not 'think' is irrelevant, here. And your response is likewise irrelevant to what I said, in response to your claims.I did not say it was. In fact, I expressly denied this. However, I was merely covering all the bases in listing the Apocrypha as a 'section' found in all the English Bibles until the last 150 years or so.I'll agree fully, here. I do indeed place a lot of importance on one man. :thumbsup:And that man is Jesus! :jesus:

Ed

I am having a difficulty in understanding why you even say anything on this subject since your thoughts are irrelevent to the discussioN?

 

[Harold Garvey]

OK, I'm just still trying to understand your position.

In your mind does "agree/accurate" mean exacly the same (down to jot & tittles), or does "agree/accurate" mean sufficiently the same (allowing for minor variations)?

Does your line of reasoning allow for a little leaven?

 

[Rippon]

Does your line of reasoning allow for a little leaven?

Please answer FranklinMonroe's question without twisting his words.

Do you think that the words "agree" and "accurate" mean exactly the same thing?
Or does "agree" and "accurate" mean sufficiently/substantially the same?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I have nothing of the word of God apart from the Bible.

Exactly. We have only a portion of the total Word of God; it is a written portion. But when Holy Scripture speaks of the "word of God" those verses do not make the distiction that they are exclusively speaking of the written portion; therefore, those verses cannot (necessarily) be prooftexts concerning the preservation of written revelation on Earth.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... each manuscript that doesn't comply with the origianl autographs are not within the Received texts. ...

In 1707 John Mill's Novum testamentum græcum noted over 30,000 discrepancies (a lot of leaven) between some 100 extant manuscripts (most of those MSS were probably not complete New Testaments, nor even complete books). Yet, those 100 manuscripts were likely to represent over 100 believers' precious Bibles. Handwritten Bibles were a fairly scarce commodity. Do we forget that those manuscripts did not just come into existance for the sole purpose of becoming 17th, 19th, or 21st century textual 'evidence'? Did God fail to deliver on His promise for those 100 or more Christians?

Perhaps you think that all 100 were not true believers; but do you think God would provide the lost souls of the world with an inferior Bible? At about 300 variants on average per document, I doubt these MSS would comply with your qualifications for agreeing accurately with the originals. Today we know of over 5,700 Greek manuscripts alone (each with discrepancies). So, in times past why didn't all those thousands of people (saved or unsaved) receive all the jots & tittles of the text?

 

[franklinmonroe]

If you think that preservation necessarily follows inspiration, you've got company: Bart Ehrman, and the Muslims! Notice what James White said in a debate early this year (from a transcript, bold original) --

... We quoted Dr. Ehrman speaking of the miracle of inspiration requiring the miracle of preservation. I would like to assert that the issue is not if God preserved His Word, but how. Dr. Ehrman seems to have concluded many years ago that preservation would require perfection of copying, something not seen in any ancient document. But is this the only way, or even the best way, to preserve Scripture? Ironically, the idea of a single, perfectly preserved version is indeed a very popular concept: amongst Muslims. This is in fact their view of the Qur'an, but it has never been the view of informed Christianity. In fact, the Islamic assertion of a single, preserved version leads to the inevitable questioning of those who produced it, such as Uthman, the third Caliph, who burned the sources he used! ​

 

[Harold Garvey]

Exactly. We have only a portion of the total Word of God; it is a written portion. But when Holy Scripture speaks of the "word of God" those verses do not make the distiction that they are exclusively speaking of the written portion; therefore, those verses cannot (necessarily) be prooftexts concerning the preservation of written revelation on Earth.

There you open the door for anyone to claim God spoke to them and contrary to the Scriptures.

We have the Canon of Scripture to KNOW the mind of God. Anything contrary to the Canon is not God's words.