SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Textual Criticism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Come on now Krispy. I'm sure we can work this out without any mud slinging. I did not think Dann's comments were referring to anyone in particular- but the 'reasoning' itself. That's the distinction I made. He didn't refer to anyone as a 'hot-head' or anything like that. Let's thicken our skins and get on with it? I'm interested to see how this will go. You guys are doing great!

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/6 14:12Profile









 Re:

I dont get offended easily... everyone should know that by now. But calling a position on an issue like this as being "small minded" is not only degrading to those hold that position, but it is a way of manipulating the discussion. I dont think there is any room here for people to declare their superior intellect... so called.

If we can dispense with those types of comments, then I'll join in.

Krispy

 2005/7/6 15:23
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Krispy, and Dann,

You are two brothers I respect and love in the Lord. Krispy is correct, let's continue a discussion such as this in a spirit of humility.

Let's not let our comments and attitudes fall short of the documents we're trying to defend. Let's let "iron sharpen iron."

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2005/7/6 15:34Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Regarding the doctrine of preservation, what do we do about words in the Hebrew and such that we have no idea what they actually mean anymore? For example, in a study of Job I did in school recently, the commentator noted how the "that" (KJV) "something" (NASB) of Job 6:6 is actually some sort of food, but totally unknown to scholars of what it actually is. All we know is that it cannot be eaten without salt, but we don't know what it is that cannot be eaten without salt.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2005/7/6 15:36Profile
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

I apologize to the readers of this thread for taking so long to deal with this.

After reading my post again, I can see where Krispy is offended, and I should have been more careful in my words.

I do not know Krispy well enough to slur him so, and even if I did, it wouldn't be very loving to do so. So I want to make it plain to all, that I do not consider Krispy "small minded" - and I regret having chosen my words so callously.

The remark was never intended to be a slur against Krispy personally, but was directed indiscriminately at the sort of reasoning that would demand a person dismiss three of the four gospels as corrupt while insisting that one and only one was divinely inspired. I characterized this sort of reasoning as "small minded" - and in so doing, implied that the one who was using that sort of reasoning was likewise small minded. This was not simply poor judgment on my part, but needlessly hurtful, and inappropriate, and I apologize to Krispy, and the readers of this thread. I am by no means perfect, and discrepencies of this nature continually remind me of it.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/7/6 18:02Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
We are led to assume that the NT was origianally written in Greek because the oldest MSS (papyri) we have extant today were all written in Greek.


This is not the reason that most evangelical scholars opt for a primacy of Greek autographs. In fact, I have never heard this reasoning. We believe that the original autographs were in Greek because the extant mss do not show signs of translation and that is confirmed by what limited historical evidence we have to hand.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/6 18:05Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Textual Criticism

Quote:
I personally prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts. I prefer them I say because believe that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts than the Byzantine texts do.


what does this mean? How can you say that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts when you don't know what the original texts were? You would have to know the original texts before such a sentence would make sense, and if you knew the originals why would you want anything more? The whole point of textual criticism is that we don't know what the originals said so we are trying to reconstuct them.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/6 18:17Profile









 Re:

I just want everyone to know that Dann and I have resolved the conflict privately that occurred here yesterday.

I'm glad to count him as a brother, and forgiveness has been extended by both sides.

Being imperfect, these types of things will occur from time to time. The important thing is that we remember who the enemy is... and it isnt anyone on this board, unless Satan himself is posting here.

Patience is a must when dealing with a topic here. I'm glad we have the freedom to talk about topics like this because they rarely (if ever) are discussed in our churches. Unless you're an independent fundamental baptist... when was the last time you ever heard a teaching on the Bible itself and it's history?

Just having this discussion shows that many believers are FINALLY discovering things about God and His Word on their own. Praise God for that.

Now, if everyone would just see things my way we would have perfect unity! :-P

Krispy

 2005/7/7 8:25
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
I personally prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts. I prefer them I say because believe that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts than the Byzantine texts do.


what does this mean? How can you say that the Alexandrian texts exhibit more deviance from the original texts when you don't know what the original texts were?



Good question, one for which I have a less than satisfying answer. I cannot say this with the conviction of one who has hard evidence. I said "I believe" rather than "it has been shown" for this very reason - I don't know for certain, but am persuaded because I have a soft spot for the byzantine text forms. I have no evidence to support their superiority, but it was the text I grew up on, and the text I found the Lord through. I was careful in my wording to not give the impression that this was a hard scientific fact, but merely my own opinion - an impression I hope this reply reinforces.

The superiority of one text form over the other however, does little to impact the overall textual criticisms leveled against the whole - which was my point - that even though I prefer the byzantine text to the alexandrian text - even if with my whole heart I zealously consider the byzantine text superior; such a preference in no makes the the critical text less accurate.

Sorry for the confusion.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/7/7 9:03Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
The superiority of one text form over the other however, does little to impact the overall textual criticisms leveled against the whole - which was my point - that even though I prefer the byzantine text to the alexandrian text - even if with my whole heart I zealously consider the byzantine text superior; such a preference in no makes the the critical text less accurate.



Forgive my ignorance here, but the books I have read on this topic seem to give preference to the Alexandrian texts because they are supposedly older. The theories of the authors was that the 'newer' Byzantine texts contained added materials inserted by copiests. It has been a long time ago so I can't reconstruct their point any more than that. However, I reasoned then that the age of the manuscripts alone cannot make for a 'superior' document. I also reasoned that the Byzantine texts could have been the fullest texts and we simply don't have any copies that are as old as the Alexandrian. It seems reasonable to me to then accept the fullest amount of material that we have to which there are more than say 'x amount' of sources. If codex 'a' has material that codex 'b' does not- then go with the fullest text.

If this is any where near how the process plays out- then the material not found in all or most texts comes into question. I see this as to where the theories start coming in such as "marginal notes slowly being 'added' to the text." At the end of the day it seems then that Dann is saying that our 'theories' will follow our preferences or doctrines. Is there any other way of knowing 'objectively' what the final product should look like or are we perpetually locked up in these preference based theories?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/7 9:36Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy