Thank you, Jason.
Bryan,
In your post #116 you cite a paper of Wallace’s where
he admits his thoughts are “speculative” but
you think of them as “gospel”: “I can cite an example where the very scribe that heard Paul's words miswrote. To me it's fascinating and shows the value of grammar.” This is not careful inquiry to me.
You asked Robert W. (CalvinandHodges) in post #119 for a verse that said the Scriptures would be copied without error till today. I would posit these two verses from Psalm 12:
6. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The problem is that only the KJV, NKJV, MKJV, and early Reformation Bibles have this reading. I submit a post that examines the linguistic controversy around this passage:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...0&postcount=26
(For those who failed to access the Moorman link to his article on Ps 12:6, 7, it moved:
http://www.feasite.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm)
Would you accept Isaiah 59:21?
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Or Matthew 4:4:
It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The question is how literally are we to take these sayings? If it is indeed
every word we are to live by, it falls to reason He would preserve every word. I read Matthew 24:35 in that light:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
On another point, seeing Dr. Wallace’s remarks about Erasmus – and seeing you are strongly under the influence of Wallace – I shall attempt to correct some misinformation about Erasmus that is widely believed, in another post addressing that (you see, we have been busy on this board dealing with such things!):
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...9&postcount=27
You said to Robert W. “Crude forensics is what we are employing. You and I are coming to conclusions using evidence outside Scripture to support our points.”
Well, that is the problem with textual criticism, we deal with the history of the text after it was written! The textual and historical data is available to all who seek it (though not all seek it thoroughly), but how we interpret this information is determined by our presuppositions, and for some of us these presuppositions
are based on Scripture. For others their presuppositions are based on the reliability of (purported) scientific method in discerning a neutral (uncorrupted) Biblical text. One might fairly say that the former is a view “theologically driven,” but I would deny that such involves circular reasoning (as Wallace states). For do we not all have as reigning presupposition that there is an infinite personal God who has revealed Himself to us in His word spoken through His chosen men, and inscripturated, and that His word is true? Thus we discount evolutionary theory because He has told us how He created all things. And so on. We view the matter of God’s preservation of the Biblical texts in light of our presupposition, based on His word, that He would and did do so. Thus we seek to discern His hand in this matter.
It will not do to say that one
must know Hebrew and Greek to master this field, because highly trained and knowledgeable experts in these languages disagree with one another.
One does not have to be a mechanic to know the production history – including minute components – of a Mercedes compared to a Ford, and the relative merits of each on the road.
When we “use evidence” it is to illustrate our presupposition, that is, God’s promises.
Steve
Linear Mode
