|
johnkw -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (10/12/2008 12:46:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
1-3:
God's word being preserved does not mean that we will have a perfect, undiluted understanding of Scripture as we would from the original autographs. It is simply not possible.
Not sure that we'd have a perfect undiluted understanding even if we had the original autographs. There'd still be argumentation between Calvinists and Arminians, for example. But why is it possible for God to breathe out Scripture, but impossible for Him to preserve it perfectly? (Bear with me, cause I'm trying to work this one out. It's just a question. I tend to think He preserved it really really well, rather than perfectly.)
quote:
Even reading the Bible in English, with no knowledge of how the original languages works, does not give a, in my opinion, full understanding.
Fully agree with you there.
quote:
It does, however, give an entirely sufficient understanding.
And there.
quote:
4-5:
If you want to go dirt-digging, I'm sure that fault can be found with every translation. I tend to trust in God to work in spite of our flaws.
Praise God for that.
I only bring it up because it's relevant to their work, the presuppositions they bring, and the conclusions they make.
quote:
6-7:
How do we know those words were stripped away by later versions, and not added to the Textus Receptus? Most serious Greek scholars I have spoken with do not think that the Mark 16 ending was written by the original author. Same with the other verses. They were likely added later by scribes to "help along" their readers.
I understand these arguments. But again, scholars have their presuppositions. "Likely" is based on some philosophical somewhat-scientific naturalistic framework. The people I've been listening to lately have a completely different approach to Scripture altogether, a presuppositional one. (But then again, Naturalism is a supposition.)
quote:
9:
'Til it breaks down, I imagine. But my Honda isn't too rusty. Just got the oil changed and everything.
Well that's good. Fortunately, God won't let His Word break down. Now, I understand that committed Christians both of the TR-preferred and Nestle-Aland-preferred type can believe this.
quote:
10:
Which would you trust more, a few copies of George Washington's writings from 1800, or many copies of George Washington's writings from 1900?
The 1800 ones. But here's where the presuppositions come in. I have absolutely no reason to believe that George Washington's writings will be providentially preserved throughout the centuries. And I'm still left with a little doubt about the choice. But God said not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass. He said His sayings would never pass away. Paul also said that savage wolves would come in later. You'd expect the enemy to try to mar (no pun intended) God's word, and in fact that's what guys like Marcion did. Now that I think about it, I would be surprised if there were no counterfeit Scriptures. So this theological presupposition effectively lowers the older-is-better criterion somewhat, though it still is, of course, useful.
|
|
|
|