Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges  Hi:
Sorry for the confusion. I hold to the TR and know what I beleive. I am looking for what others would say on the subject in order to improve my own knowledge - iron sharpening iron - so to speak.
Gomarus:
Those who hold to the Critical Text do not understand inspiration the same way as the Orthodox. In acknowledging that there are errors/mistakes in the copies of the originals they argue that inspiration is not in the very words of the text, but in the meaning behind the words. It is this theory that has given rise to all the different versions of the Bible that are now on the market. Consequently, the Orthodox doctrine of inspiration, which you have so eloquently explained, is undermined. . .
-CH |
Thanks C&H, for clarification. But it is my experience that Critical Text guys do not "argue that inspiration is not in the very words of the text, but in the meaning behind the words."
The
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed by 100 conservative evangelical theologians, the great majority of which were Critical Text guys. This Statement concurs with my earlier post summary with which you agree -- verbal, plenary, and inerrant (in the original autographs).
If the thrust of your concern is difference between original autographs, extant manuscripts, and english texts, the answer is providence. I don't see a huge difference unless one wishes to say that providence provided for the very words of the english KJV and stopped there.
