Discussion in 'Church History' started by The Parson, Jun 22, 2017.
Was that gauntlet dropped for me or Guttenburg RK?
The question that always comes to mind for me is, why is it that some are under the impression that one particular family of manuscripts can be preserved and even "inspired" by God, and yet don't think God is incapable of preserving all of His word? Did Erasmus and King James have some special relationship with God that I'm unaware of?
Tim, I'm not sure what gauntlet but feel free, you and/or Gutenberg. It's an Internet forum round table. Everyone chimes in. Hopefully we keep it on course. With this group, I trust love and grace stay high.
No, that's fine Joe. Most times it doesn't stay on course.
Yeah, I hear them too RK.
Anyone that wants it.
Not me right now fer sure. It's off track again, ain't it?
Would you mind explaining that statement RK?
He was run out of Alexandria on a rail, eventually ending up in Antioch, where he welcomed with open arms. Spent half his life in Antioch, Caesarea, and Athens after that.
Was that before or after he turned himself from a rooster to a hen?
If that occurred, then most likely in Alexandria as a relatively young man.
Also, if it occurred, then it shows a dedication few of us possess. However, given Origen's tendency to interpret Scripture allegorically, why would he interpret Matthew 19 that literally?
Besides, weren't we just complaining about Eusebius earlier?
Sure of yourself huh?
I've been asking KJVO folks for years the same question. I don't know if you are KJVO or not, and whether you are or not is of no real consequence.
I've heard the "corrupt Alexandria" stuff for decades, and I have yet to have anyone show me anything in any decent translation that uses the most modern accepted scholarship, including both families of texts, to demonstrate any change in any Christian doctrine in any modern translation.
So, yes, *crickets* . For decades.
OK, one at a time then...
The basic doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible has changed RK. How often today do we see people doubting what the scriptures actually say? Not one of the people who defend the newer versions, (the minority texts) actually believe that God has preserved His infallible words.They justify this belief by saying that those who defend the Majority Text and subsequently the King James, are cultists.
I own a 1939 Ford 9-N tractor. Sure, I could have bought a new one but this tractor was my grandpa Bells. I love it and basically it's never let me down in the garden or anywhere on the farm. I know for a fact that it never let grandpa down. Am I a cultist because I don't want to update and buy a new tractor? I've heard the horror stories from people who have bought newer, more fragile tractors, breaking down after the first couple of months in the fields. Mine doesn't. I'm not sure if this is a good example, but if something works so well for me, why give it up because there's something new I could try?
Jesus either lied to us and can't be trusted, or told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
And the statement "any Bible will do" idea many spout gets us nothing but doubt, uncertainty, and eventual unbelief. Have you ever seen me quote an old Anabaptist saying: "If any way will do, no way will do just as well"?
Sorry, Tim, not biting. No one is discussion a made-made doctrine called "infallibility." And, no offense, I really don't care what any old Anabaptist or Catholic or Martian has to say in their attempts to use rhetoric to defend by misdirection.
The question on the table is simple: Show me any purported "Corruption" in the Alexandrian family of texts that changes a material orthodox doctrine of the Christian faith.
John's own witness strikes a death knell to the interpretation of Luke 21:33 that holds that "every word of God has been preserved." John said in 21:35 I think it is that Jesus did many more things that were not all written down. I'm sure he said more than the mere fraction of his words we have recorded. Using the hyper-literal interpretation of Luke 21:33 would mean that the Gospels are not authentic because they do not record every single word spoken by Jesus, so those words must have passed away.
We know that is not the proper interpretation.
I... and I know TrustGzus... and Kirk, and millions of others that believe in the doctrine of inerrancy are not in the slightest bothered by the fact that there are no extant original autographs. Not even a blip on the radar.
We all believe that God has preserved his revelation to us through the vast number of texts that we do have.
You won't hear anyone on this forum call Majority text folks, or even KJVO folks, "Cultists." So, appealing to the supposed ad hominem attacks of others does nothing for your argument. Appeals to emotion or to your granddaddys 1611 Authorized Tractor are meaningless to me. What people are comfortable with, or what works for them, is meaningless to me.
The issue is the texts themselves, not the ways in which folks "feel" about them.
So I will ask again. Show me any "corruption" in the Alexandrian family of texts that changes a material orthodox doctrine of the Christian faith. Just don't spend too much time looking, because there isn't any.
I don't care if someone prefers the KJV. I don't even care if someone is KJVO, as long as they don't belittle and denigrate and scorn those who favor translations that rely, in part, on the Alexandrian texts.
You asked and I'm starting to show you what doctrines have been changed. Infallibility was the beginning. Oh man, and you're hurting my feelings over my grandpa's tractor. Don't fuss when I'm trying to give you what you asked for...
So the question is: if Eusebius was a heretic of the first order, why are we taking his word for it that Origen suddenly went literal re: Matthew 19, when Origen's extant theological work is as allegorical as you can get? It's the same as rejecting Origen's view of the fall, and then immediately applying it to angels. I mean, how bad are Eusebius, or Origen, if we knock 'em outright, then sneak their doctrines in through the back door? I'm not a fan of either, but let's be realistic about it: Antioch wasn't special, and neither was Alexandria. First order heretics, and first order champions of the faith weren't awesome people all the time, nor were they always heretical, or theologically correct. Origen says some good stuff, so does Eusebius. Athanasius says some bad stuff, and - reaching a bit forward - so does Augustine, whose 'Orthodox' theology has been far more damning than Origen's. So does Pelegius, who's been unfairly demonised by oft-repeated rhetoric.
I'm pretty sure everyone here believes that God 'has preserved His infallible words', which is not to say that God has preserved the original autographs -- but, why would this be a problem? If preservation relies on the autographs, then we had no chance the moment someone made a copy. There may have been a shift in the notion that God preserved His infallible words via the TR exclusively, but it's historically naive to think that this was ever the case.
Infalliiblity/inerrancy (some folks use them interchangeably, although infallibility is technically a lower standard than inerrancy) says absolutely nothing about and has absolutely no bearing on copies of manuscripts or translations.
Those two doctrines always refer to the original autographs.
"Preservation", as I believe you use it, has never, to my knowledge, been considered an essential or orthodox doctrine of the church. Some sects or branches, sure.
Who was the father of Christ Jesus? Was it God or was it Joseph?
Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Is Jesus the Son of God, or is his actual daddy Joseph? Is this unimportant?
Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. (NIV)
Luke 2:33 And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him. (NASB)
Luke 2:33 His father and mother were amazed at what was being said about Him. (HCSB)
etc., etc., etc.
Separate names with a comma.