Two philosophies

Thanks again, Thomas. Not to belabor this, but how does this square with your assertion that Erasmus had all the reading we have? Does not the last few verses of revelation prove that he did not have access to the readings we have?

 

Actually, Thomas, my question was in direct response to your assertion that "He (Erasmus) had the same readings available to him as we do today." (from page 10, #94). The issue at hand wasn't whether or not Erasmus had access to any alexandrian readings. It was whether or not "He had the same readings available to him as we do today." It seems to me that he did not have "the same readings available to him as we do today." And your statement concerning Rev 22 confirms that, does it not?

 

Thomas, I wasn't backed into a corner, nor was I focused on minutae. I didn't misspeak. You simply were not following closely in the conversation. If you had been, you would have known exactly what I was asking about. I addressed it in my initial post by quoting you word for word. Then I made it clear again in a second post by again quoting you word for word. So clearly, I was responding to your words.

Read your own quote. You said "the same readings," not "the textforms." As we all know, a "reading" is the words that make up the text in a particular variant. A "textform" is a family of manuscripts that are grouped by similarity. T

So unless you misspoke by saying "readings" when you really meant "textforms," it is you who are now focused on minutae and trying to backtrack and avoid the conversation. Either way, this particular issue sprang directly from your comment in post #94 that all can see.

But don't blame me because you missed the point being made. That's not my fault.

 

Sorenson and erroneous assumptions

Getting back to the original post on this thread, there are great leaps of logic and unsubstantiated assumptions made to propagate the view that KJV/TR-onlyism maintains a high view of Scripture, and that 'providential preservation' necessitates a specific text-type, namely the TR. Basing any theological arguments for either essentially undermines the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. If there is any Scriptural support for 'only' adhering to any specific text-type, it cannot be found in Scripture (and, Pastor Bob admits that this is so in the case of specifically the KJV), yet no Scriptural support can be maintained that gives the notion that any text-type was providentially preserved by God. The verses quoted by Pastor Bob in a later post are typically misinterpreted to mean 'providential preservation', but rather are passages that are, correctly interpreted, used to prove the doctrines of infallibility.

Considering that the author of this thread, using Sorenson for his basis, draws from the same polluted well of 'scholarship' in the way of Hills, Fuller, Grady, and ultimately Wilkinson, it is no wonder that the same erroneous conclusions are made here regarding providential preservation. Sorenson has been critically examined by Doug Kutilek (www.kjvonly.org) in a lengthy article, and Kutilek demonstrates the outright distortions that Sorenson makes, where he draws on the aforementioned KJV-only 'scholars', although Sorenson makes claims that he attempted to be accurate and fair to those who differ from his point of view.

In order to understand the beliefs that Pastor Bob adheres to regarding providential preservation, he should define it. Secondly, neither Sorenson or Pastor Bob have demonstrated why the critical textual method of textual criticism is so 'unbelieving', let alone based on "uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity" (and, I wonder if Pastor Bob or other KJV-onlyists can define, in his terms, what textual criticism is and its purpose). Thirdly, it cannot be substantiated or demonstrated that the method used in compiling whatever revision of the TR was based on providential preservation, guidance of the Holy Spirit (perhaps this is a veiled term for 'secondary inspiration'?), and preservation through the Church. None of these can be Scripturally defended because God has kept silent regarding what 'method' He used in preserving the text of the Bible. What's worse is that the terms used by KJV-onlyists are remarkably prejudicial in that they attempt to posit their beliefs as being theologically superior and based on Scripture (which it is not), thus casting modern textual criticism as being unbelieving (which it is not), or worse, in more derogative terms of ad-hominem. To assume that the KJV, and its underlying NT text (which TR, for that matter?) is providentially preserved by God (how do you determine what constitutes providential preservation?) is Scripturally unsubstantiated, and unproven either by faith or reason.

 

LOL ...

My ego? Thomas, I really don't care. The fact that some guy in California misread what I said doesn't damage my ego in the least. The plain fact is that you said "every reading," not every "textform."

I am not obfuscating in the least. In fact, the reason I gave the post number was to make it clear what I was addressing. If I were obfuscating, I wouldn't have done that. I have repeatedly addressed the issue.

Though I have made many errors in my life, this is not one of them. You simply misunderstood, or didn't read closely. But face it, Thomas. You said that Erasmus had access to every reading we have, and then you later admitted that wasn't true, that he backtranslated from the Latin into Greek in Rev 22. Everyone knows that, which is why your original statement that he had access to every reading was astounding to me. That's why I gently asked.

If you want to keep arguing this point, that is fine. I won't. I appreciated the kind responses you gave early on and regret that you turned south to start attacking me. More of the former and less of the latter would be great.

 

I didn't lie about what you said, and you know that. You blustery speech wont' help you out of this one. I have clearly proven what I said vs. what you said, and I was shown to be right. There's not really any argument here at all. It is comical to see you try to keep defending what was clearly a mistake on your part.

But on to the point ...

You said he had access to every reading that we have today. We have access today to the reading that all manuscripts agree on. Where did Erasmus have access to that reading and why didn't he use it?

Rev 20:12 may be another reading that Erasmus defaulted to the wrong one because he had no other options, using only one manuscript for Revelation.

I don't think it is possible say dogmatically that Erasmus had access to every reading we have today. The evidence we have makes that highly unlikely.

 

Doug is incorrect.

 

Um ... As I suspected, this shows you don't understand the question I asked. My question is actually just the opposite.

You claimed that Erasmus had access to all the readings presently have. Today, we have access to manuscripts containing hte proper reading of the last verses of Revelation. My question to you, again, is where did Erasmus have access to the proper reading of the last few verses of Revelation? And why did not he use that reading, if he had access to it?

Can you just focus on that question?

 

No, I am not denying that at all. I am asking you what access Erasmus had to those readings. Wasn't that plain what I wrote? Of course, what I wrote was plain from teh beginning and you managed to miss it there too.

I don't know of any competent researcher who will claim that Erasmus had access to all the readings we do.

 

No, I am not admitting that in the least. Thomas, do you even read what I am writing? You know very well that I am not saying anyone is a liar. What I said was clear from the beginning.

I haven't denied that, as all who are reading here know. My question is very simple. It is not about "representative samplings," it is not about "textforms."

You made the claim that Erasmus had access to every "reading" we have access to today. I have simply questioned the accuracy of that statement. I have not denied that he had access to every textform that we have today. I am not denying that he had representative samples of every textform.

So far as I know, there is no competent scholar who claims that Erasmus had access to every reading that we do.

What is hard to understand about that?

 

Howdya KNOW? Or are ya just guessing again?