Objective v Subjective "Facts"

I agree with you 100%.

Alas, many denominations have been started over making an interpretation or preference into a doctrinal item. That's true even within the differing Baptist fellowships and conventions. That doesn't make different denominations wrong necessarily. I'm thankful that this lollipop comes in different flavors. So long as it contains the core ingredients that make up the lollipop, I say "live and let live".

As far as biblical translations, if you've been moved by the Spirit to use a specific translation, then you're by all means welcome to stick to that one translation, whatever it is. I support that 100%, and may God bless you. However, to presume that same thing upon others is just as wrons as if I were to tell other Christians that you must adhere to a Kosher diet, just because I prefer Kosher food in my dietary selections.

No where did I put my Hebrew National chili cheese dog?

 

Most folks sincerely believe that their set of subjective preferences are indeed fact.

 

Ohoh no meat and dairy!

HankD

 

Hence, the reason I "prefer" kosher dietary guidelines, rather than adhere to them in strict manner.

 

I am reminded of how I actually came to the Bible that I use for everything, including study. Keep in mind that I've been studying the Bible academically since I was in first grade (by my senior year in high school we were studying systematic theology at the Christian school I attended). Needless to say, I've gone through my share of Bibles in my day.

Anyway, I live on very meagere means. I had saved up about $100 that I wanted to put toward a really good Bible that was of a print size I can read. I'm relatively young, but (a) poor eyesight is a genetic problem in my family, and (b), more importantly I had eye surgery and my sight changed significantly because of it, so I needed a larger print Bible.

I have a habit of praying before making the important decisions, including, yes, which Bible to choose. I ended up finding a Bible for just over $100 with the exact size print, no study notes of any kind (I'm old fashioned and don't care much for study Bibles. If I need one, I pull down an old study Bible that I used many, many years ago), and, guess what, its an NASB Bible. God gave me that Bible; nobody here can convince me otherwise, because I know that it came from Him as an answer to prayer because of the way that God historically works in my life regarding such things, and its not KJV. I realize that is an appeal to personal experience, but, for me, because I know the Lord and the way He works and the need that so perfectly was satisfied in the specific way it was satisified, that alone is enough to defeat KJVOnlyism from my personal, and, yes, subjective, perspective.

 

A few. When someone says certain manuscripts are "older and better" that is certainly subjective. We can never be entirely sure of the age of a manuscript but we can make an educated guess regarding the age by looking at the material it is written on, the ink, and the writing style. However, the "better" is entirely subjective and without any evidentiary support other than biased opinion.

However, there are objective facts which can point strongly in one direction or the other, and these cannot be dismissed as subjectivism. When we look at the evidence logically and systematically we can determine several facts that may strongly indicate the worth of a manuscript.

1. Location. It seems logical that manuscripts found in the locations the biblical letters were addressed to would be closer to the originals than manuscripts found in locations to which no biblical letter was addressed.

2. Agreement. It also seems logical that manuscripts which agree with each other and the vast majority of the manuscript evidence would more likely represent the original readings than manuscripts which disagree not only with the majority but also disagree among themselves. This was, by the way, not something that proponents of the Byzantine text type championed but which was stated by Hort in The New Testament in the Original Greek. "A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa."

3. Universality. The text types accepted and used by the churches all down through the ages of church history are more likely to represent the original text than those which were not accepted and used by the historical churches.

4. Antiquity. How old is the reading in question? Even Hort is careful to admit that Byzantine readings are at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any of them.

5. Variety. Uncials, minuscules, Fathers, Versions. And, Alexandrian type texts contain more Byzantine readings than vice versa. The same is true of the Western text type.

Admittedly none of the above is absolutely conclusive, but they certainly should cause honest and godly Christians to avoid obviously intemperate language such as saying "the Critical text is better than the Byzantine text" or "the Byzantine text adds words and whole phrases" or vice versa.

 

Amen and well put!
I think that objective Truth must hold court over subjective opinion. I can embrace that with much more comfort than the subjective context getting forced into the place of objective truth that both extremes of the Bible version topic. I do understand that my KJVO #4 is subjective in personal revelation. I see that the embracing of this Holy Bible does not rupture my systematic theology, nor is harm done in sharing that with others as a preference over other Bible types. Now at times this gets in trouble by the details of doctrines based in the Objective truth created by the circular reasoning of systematic theology created in the context of the subjective choice of Bible types. Hence one would ask how to merit what level of subjective doctrinal error in the structure of a given religion can be accepted in fellowship.

 

O-O-O-O-H-H-H-H, sneaky, sneaky!!!