Quote:
Originally Posted by DTK  I would refer you to Bahnsen's actual position on inerrancy, as he expounded it, "The Inerrancy of the Autographa," pp. 150-193 in Norman Geisler, ed., Inerrancy Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980).
DTK |
I know Bahnsen's position, but that wasn't my point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, but I was only bringing his statements up as an example of something most people accept without question.
I probably should start my own topic, since now I suppose I'm really just wanting to discuss Letis. However, the reason I brought him up, though it was probably not fitted well with the topic at hand, was that he makes the arguement that the early Protestants argued for the texts which they had in hand, rather than about a text impossible to acquire, since the Papists argued that the Vulgate reflected earlier textual sources and was therefore more reliable and ought to take precedence over the texts known around that time.
Letis seems to claim that when you get beyond the popular level, you realize that scholars are not nearly so confident that they'll ever find the perfect text and to depend on them when they reject verses which have edified and protected the church for centuries seems misguided. I'm no KJVO fellow and regard them somewhat like Letis: anti-intellectuals for the most part and non-scholarly as a rule. However, I really despise the rules that say things like "If it seems to suggest orthodoxy and is not in some texts, then suspect it." I feel like the church has surrendered something precious when they reject readings which have been in the church for centuries for a MSS "found in a trashcan in Egypt". Letis seems like a good balance to me. Any thoughts? Has anyone read his books?
If this is too off-topic, would a mod please split it into another topic? I'm interested in pursuing this thread.