Logic and the Bible

Nothing wrong with logic. That's how we determine most everything, even if it is poor logic.

As for the differing text, can both be correct if different.

It depends on the difference.

If text A is a subset of text B then both can be correct, yet one may be incomplete.

Example: If it rains today, I will rent a truck and go to Walmart.

If you say my words are "If it rains today, I will rent a truck' you are correct.
If you say "if it rains today, i will go to WalMart" You are correct.

Neither is complete, yet both are true.

You can add a footnote that some text included "If it rains today, I will rent a truck and go to Walmart." and be complete.

We are fallible. We must use God's word as best we can. If that involves adding footnotes, then so be it.

 

Not if some people tell you that "If it rains today, I will rent a truck and go to Walmart." is really NOT supposed to be included because someone other than the original (Holy Spirit) added the "and go to Walmart" part. See what I mean?

Some say one text is correct because it has certain passages in it. Others say another text is correct because it doesn't have those passages, because those passages were ADDED by the translator. Either those passages ARE supposed to be there or they are NOT. Footnotes at the bottom may or may not be the inspired Word Of God. So, how do we know? Will we ever?

 

Oh, I know what you mean. I really hadn't given the subject much thought. I used my KJV almost exclusivly except for an old NIV I had but really didn't know where it was. I sat in a revival last spring where an evangalist went off on modern perversions and preached for 45 minutes on the evils with such which caused me to study the subject a little deeper. The thing is, most KJ have the footnotes also. For example the Lucifer/Morning star controversy. My KJ has a note that says "or Morning Star ".

I deal with a lot of people who must be fed very slowly, lest they choke.

 

Unless someone can prove the authenticity of one manuscript over another we must consider both. That's what i meant when I said we were fallible. We CAN make a mistake. We must consider both, see if they change anything, and seak guidance from the HS. He who hungers and thirst for righteousness shall be filled.

Problem is we don't hunger and search enough. We just take what we've been taught and condem those who disagree.

 

It's GOD'S word. I believe He is quite capable of superintending it, & I believe that if there was no merit to some of those ancient mss, God wouldn'ta allowed them to still be extant. He wouldn'ta caused Tischendorf to rescue Sinaiticus from being burned, nor caused the Vatican officials to have preserved Vaticanus.

 

Nobody has to care that my trailer/signature block contains a complete answer to the 'problem' of this thread:

 

The axiom that is my trailer leads to the following Truths:

If one set of scriptures or two or more of all sets of scriptures SEEMS to vary, then the variation is NOT caused by God.

If one set of scriptures or two or more of all sets of scriptures SEEMS to vary, then the variation is caused by Human Understanding (or misunderstanding).

If one set of scriptures or two or more of all sets of scriptures SEEMS to vary, than that variation must be figured out before the Lord by a responsible group of Christians. ('Responsible group of Christians' = self, prayer group, worship group, local church group, etc.)

Opening post: // ... Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.............so those verses either NEED to be in there, or they are not supposed to be in there. You can not have it both ways! One is RIGHT, the other is WRONG! That's LOGIC. ... //

Yes, that is logic. It is really a logical error. In fact, there are more than just those two answers. Another answer is my trailer/signature block. To that that logic, one has to assume that God is incapable of preserving His Written Word inerrant and without flaw. I hope I never tie up God's hands and bind Him that He cannot function in my own mind. No, a much better axiom to to use is the following one (that allows God to preserve exactly what we find preserved today (yesterday, or tomorrow).

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 - Preach it! :thumbs:

 

What is all the fuss about?

 

You mean like God allowing the JW's warped translation?

God allows lots of things. That doesn't make those things right.

And I am not KJVO. I just don't think this argument holds water.

 

The problem is the derivation from 2 sides of MSS. The line of received MSS and the line of restored MSS. They disagree each other on many passages dues to the changes, omissions and additions. When many passages did not match between received MSS and restored MSS, their disagreement is suspicious to question if they are the Word of God or not. Can the disagreement of word variations between the Textus Received and the Critical Text be equally verbally inspired of God? On other hand, the agreement of wording between the TR and CT is identical to the Words that God inspired.

 

1.. If God has the power in His Divine Providence to preserve His Word(s); Then YES is the clear answer to to your questions, Sir.

2. If God has no power in His Divine Providence to preserve His Word(s): Then NO is the clear answer to your questions, Sir.

So If you have forgotten your reading of Psalm 12, then you should feel free to assume statement #2 and dig yourself into the KJVO hole.

For all non-KJVO - who realize that even IF Psalm 12 teaches only Divine Providence Preservation of the Righteous (in Christ) - THEN there are many other scriptures that teach the Divine Providence Preservation of God's Written Holy Word, God's Holy Written Words, and God's Holy Written Bible (This comma & 'and" connect three names for the same exact set of objects) .

 

I'll let you two "pat each other on the back" while I continue to strongly disagree with you. :thumbs:

 

B4L, why do you strongly disagree with the above? Don't you believe in God's providence?Don't you think he can preserve manuscripts?

 

Ed Edwards, how does one determine what a "valid translation" is? Especially if one isn't a Greek scholar? What do we use for comparison?

 

I absolutely believe in God's ability to do whatever He pleases. I just don't think that all texts that add, or leave out, certain verses or passages can be God's Word. Common sense tells me that either it's RIGHT or it's not. Two, or more, texts that differ cannot be the COMPLETE Word of God. You are either adding to it, or taking away from it. One has to be right. Both may contain some of God's Word, but both cannot be the complete Word of God, if one has some passages that others do not. You may believe they are, and that is your prerogative. I believe only one set of texts is right, and the others are missing, or adding to, God's Word, which makes them bogus to me.


If I take, for instance, the book "Gone With The Wind" and tear out a few pages, you then have a book that has SOME of "Gone With The Wind", but not the COMPLETE "Gone With The Wind". On the other hand, if I take that book, and ADD a few pages of my own thoughts, you again no longer have the COMPLETE book "Gone With The Wind". You now have MORE than what the author had written, so it's not complete, it's MORE than complete.

Then, I take an original copy of the book, just the way the author wrote it, and I throw them all in a pile, and ask someone who's never read any of the book to tell me which one is right, well, it would be impossible.


That is what has happened to the Bible with all the different texts that everyone says is the complete Word of God. I beg to differ, some of them are WRONG.

 

My point exactly! We don't know whether we have the complete text or not, or if we do, which one it is. I believe that the TR is the right text, but that is a "faith" issue rather than something I can prove.
Some believe the "older" texts are right, some the TR. I'm just saying, it bothers me that different versions add (or is it supposed to be in there?) or leave out (or is it really not supposed to be in there?) different passages and verses.

Logic tells me ONE of them is wrong.