An Inadequate View of God's Providence Regarding Manuscripts of the NT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I agree with this, Rich. To boil it down to a very nuts and bolts type of statement/question: on what biblical basis does the actual translation have to be done under church auspices? Wouldn't a church's approval of a translation function as a substitute for doing the actual translation itself? Theoretically speaking, even if a single individual did a translation of the Bible, that could still be approved by a church that didn't do the translation, and the authority issue is parallel. This gets at the sort of narrow or broad view of providence I brought up in the OP. When applied to this particular issue, the narrow view might claim that God's blessing only coincides with a churchly origin of a translation. Why is God so limited? Furthermore, most of the modern translations were done by a committee of men who were all members of the visible church anyway. So this objection to modern translations has zero weight.
 
I'm not sure if this is directed at my position but I will respond (bold comments) as I believe it is relevant:

Yes, I agree with this, Rich. To boil it down to a very nuts and bolts type of statement/question: on what biblical basis does the actual translation have to be done under church auspices? None. Wouldn't a church's approval of a translation function as a substitute for doing the actual translation itself? Yes. Theoretically speaking, even if a single individual did a translation of the Bible, that could still be approved by a church that didn't do the translation, and the authority issue is parallel. Agreed. This gets at the sort of narrow or broad view of providence I brought up in the OP. When applied to this particular issue, the narrow view might claim that God's blessing only coincides with a churchly origin of a translation. That would be a very narrow view indeed and difficult to support - for example, none of the legends I am aware of surrounding the creation of the Septuagint mention the involvement of the OT Church, and yet it was clearly received by Christ and the Apostles as authoritative. Why is God so limited? He is not, of course! Furthermore, most of the modern translations were done by a committee of men who were all members of the visible church anyway. So this objection to modern translations has zero weight. These last two sentences are a different issue in my view - having a committee of translators who are all members of the visible Church is different than a lawful Church court receiving a translation for use by those under its authority. The former in my mind is similar to saying the United States is a Christian nation because some (or even if all) of the men who wrote its Constitution were Christians. In my view, in theory, the Church could receive a translation from a translation team that included non-believers (Jewish scholars of Hebrew, for example) - again, because God and His wonderful providence is not limited.
 
WCF 1:4 reads, "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

The Belgic confession says similarly:
We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation,
foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, without any doubt, all things
contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as
such
, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts that they
are from God
, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are
able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling.
It is difficult for me to see these confessional statements as meaning every individual might end up with a different version based on the perceived witness of the Holy Ghost in their hearts. This to me would lead to some type of individualized existential post-modern relativistic chaos.

On the other hand, if there is only one true text then those who believe the Holy Ghost is bearing witness in their hearts that some other text is from God would actually be deceived. But this to me would lead to a textual gnosticism and the "Satan's Bible" type of language.

God is not divided, and He is not the author of confusion. Is it possible these confessional statements are referring to the work of God's Spirit when the visible Church assembles in synods and councils? It is "unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God" (WCF 25.3). Arguing from the lesser to the greater perhaps, if Scripture is not open to private interpretation, wouldn't recognizing what is God's Word also not be a private decision? "...first know this, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost." (II Peter 1.20-21).
 
Here's an interesting article written by Jeffrey Stivason that was posted yesterday on Gentle Reformation.

Edward Hills & a Strange Providence

Enjoy!
In the interest of fairness, I'd very much hesitate to bring up Edward Hills and KVJO in the same breath, even though he was defending the KJV and did so with some language that I find extremely bizarre.

He thought it was possible, in addition to the end of Revelation, that God had preserved 1 John 5:7 in the Latin even though it had been lost in the Greek, and then providentially brought it back into the Greek through the various TR editions.

None of which, I'd point out, would have been the view of the Reformers or of the framers of the WCF. This is not "kept pure in all ages" or appealing exclusively to the original languages. It is also a one-sided view of Providence, i.e., it is saying that since common faith makes us believe that God is providentially caring for his word, and since the incorporation of the Latin into the Greek actually happened, that therefore God intended this to happen and therefore we accept that this is the true reading.

But it is one-sided because the same providence is denied to any other moment in textual history: i.e., it denies that any incorporation of even Greek readings (not Latin!) into the CT and into English Bibles, is permitted or overseen by God. The one instance is "providence" but the other is "corruption".
 
With all this said, when discussing God’s providence with a TR proponent, is it necessary to get into the particulars of said providence, or is there a better way to show the problems with their position at this point?

How would you summarize the over-arching principle at play (that doesn’t require the particulars to be discussed)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to re-visit this thread very briefly before departing –

Amongst the Reformed family there is wrangling and confusion regarding this crucial matter of do we have an agreed-upon NT text.

Perhaps we sometimes forget there are often 10 times the number of visitors than members looking in on our discussions (welcome, you visitors! we are glad you look in on us!) – and what must they think when they see the (supposed) “brightest and best” at loggerheads on this topic?

Now, if there is such disagreement among us, who are careful students of the Bible, what are those seeking for knowledge to think? It is a poor witness. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). What then? An enemy hath done this (Matt 13:28), sowing, not tares, but discord.

My approach is not like Andrew’s (@Northern Crofter), as I am more adrift from cohesive church bodies – for an enemy is also wasting the churches in what I take to be days near the end, and must settle for sound local churches (plus I am out of the country, probably permanently) – but more like a saint among like-minded brethren, seeking a ground to stand on to defend our NT Scripture. My stand here is well-known, so I won’t repeat it (see post #130 and following for that).

Notwithstanding the confusion, I love this community, for in the great main we have so much in common! You guys are a home away from home to my spirit and mind! Why can we not have a moratorium on this topic, and live more at peace like the credos and paedos here?
_______

Edit: Perhaps it is because of excesses in the KJV (Not KJVO) and TR views that a reaction against them has risen, and I think that’s healthy. For my part I can rest easy with Lane’s and Logan’s views (to name just two), knowing that they do indeed hold to a providential preservation view I can live with, though I differ in some particulars.

We can discuss variants, while maintaining consensus in the main. I know that 1 John 5:7, 8 can be a flashpoint for some, but it can be defended – as I have done – though I can live with those who disagree.

We are entering a period where our energies, time, and efforts are needed to a) walk in close, strengthening communion with our Shepherd, for there are serious enemies gathering about the believing churches, with hostility and massive agendas against us; and b) to be aware of these latter and how to best survive and thrive in the days ahead.
 
Last edited:
Hello Andrew,

What would you suggest to remedy the lack of available cohesive church bodies? When in the states (NYC) there were none near me.
 
Will, I'm not sure there is an answer to your question. The subject of textual criticism is so difficult that is quite resists "summing up" or "putting things in a nutshell." People rush into this subject without the necessary tools or patience. As a result, they fail to understand the vitally important nuances that must be present for the discussion to have any credibility.

Steve, I would love nothing more than such a moratorium. However, the so-called "confessional bibliology" movement that is casting doubts on people's NIV's, ESV's, even NKJV's will sow discord unless it is answered. If this movement had been content with an approach along the lines of "Well, we merely think the TR is the best, but the NIV (pre-2011, that is!), ESV, NKJV is still the Word of God without qualification or asterisk," I doubt the huge debates circling the web would even have arisen. That has not been their approach, at least not fully. There are a number of very shrill voices within that movement that want to attack the modern versions and say they are not God's Word, or at the very least there will always be an asterisk beside it. There are those of us who love church unity who cannot let such things pass. It is the way this movement has gained steam and is causing division that is the problem.
 
Lane, I would agree that we can call our respective Bibles – CT and TR – real Bibles (though we both have "asterisks" as regards some variant readings). Otherwise churches will be divided, and teachers/preachers who tear down others' Bibles will harm many. I suppose the bottom line for me is I won't destroy the faith my brother has in his Bible – his very lifeline to his Saviour – even if our views in some areas differ. I won't be doctrinaire on such points. The faith of God's individual children deeply matter to Him.
 
I must, in all honesty, say this. This evening, prior to the Bible study and waiting for folks to come, I was looking through a NKJV Bible one of the men asked me to get for him, and, preparing to explain to him about the NKJV margin notes (which I consider helpful), and I saw a margin note for Matthew 1:25 that made my heart sink! In the text it read, "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The margin read, "NU a son" – NU meaning the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies – having a variant that deviated from the text indicating Jesus as firstborn among other children Mary would give birth to later.

This is an issue here in Cyprus, when talking with the Greek Orthodox.

Given that the NU text is an ecumenical endeavor produced under the supervision of the Roman Catholic organization, little wonder they should have that variant.

My heart now is wounded that I should give credence to such! I shall have to ask the Lord about this.
 
I must, in all honesty, say this. This evening, prior to the Bible study and waiting for folks to come, I was looking through a NKJV Bible one of the men asked me to get for him, and, preparing to explain to him about the NKJV margin notes (which I consider helpful), and I saw a margin note for Matthew 1:25 that made my heart sink! In the text it read, "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The margin read, "NU a son" – NU meaning the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies – having a variant that deviated from the text indicating Jesus as firstborn among other children Mary would give birth to later.

This is an issue here in Cyprus, when talking with the Greek Orthodox.

Given that the NU text is an ecumenical endeavor produced under the supervision of the Roman Catholic organization, little wonder they should have that variant.

My heart now is wounded that I should give credence to such! I shall have to ask the Lord about this.

Can you not point them to Luke 2:7?
 
Thanks, Jake – I overlooked that! Still, the RC connection deeply troubles me. If I am getting feebleminded in my old age I should keep my mouth shut, and retract feebleminded remarks.
 
A single child can be a "firstborn" so I've never read that particular verse as indicating Mary had other children. "Firstborn" by itself doesn't give you enough information to conclude one way or another.
 
Lane, I would agree that we can call our respective Bibles – CT and TR – real Bibles (though we both have "asterisks" as regards some variant readings). Otherwise churches will be divided, and teachers/preachers who tear down others' Bibles will harm many. I suppose the bottom line for me is I won't destroy the faith my brother has in his Bible – his very lifeline to his Saviour – even if our views in some areas differ. I won't be doctrinaire on such points. The faith of God's individual children deeply matter to Him.
Steve, I would say you've been rather consistent on this point. It is very much appreciated. Many of your fellow TR/KJV advocates are not so generous. In other words, non-TR guys did not bring up this debate, and are certainly not responsible for the divisiveness already created. Up until about two years ago, most of the debate happened within collegial bounds, and most TR guys I knew were saying things similar to your position, Steve. That is not true anymore, with many TR advocates now blasting away at any Bible but the KJV/TR as if those other translations were deliberately trying to twist Scripture into something else. The debate has an edge to it now that most non-TR guys like myself feel is completely unwarranted and uncharitable.
 
Hi Lane, a little further clarification. You said, "If this [confessional Bibliology] movement had been content with an approach along the lines of "Well, we merely think the TR is the best, but the NIV (pre-2011, that is!), ESV, NKJV is still the Word of God without qualification or asterisk," I doubt the huge debates circling the web would even have arisen."

I already mentioned the asterisks, so now for the "without qualification" you mentioned. (Please note, I do appreciate the points you are highlighting!) If a "militant TR" guy came into my congregation here in Cyprus saying the Bibles some use not based on the TR are "Satan's Bibles", I would have to expel him for bringing division and error into the church. In the main such Bibles are indeed God's word.

However, I do teach my flock that in particular instances they are not – referring to the variant readings. And they must learn which are which. Generally – as can be seen in the margin footnotes in the NKJV – those readings noted "NU" are not to be trusted, i.e., "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have...". I like this source-indicating feature in the NKJV, and explain how to use it.

The Roman Catholic connection is serious, and should not, in my view be dismissed (re your "without qualification"), due to
“an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it [their Critical Text] has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.” The NA (Nestle-Aland) 27 edition's intro:

NA 27 pic.jpg

Also the United Bible Societies (producers of the Greek Critical Text) view:

 United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis - United Bible Societies.jpg

I'll continue in a following post.
 
The "made under the supervision" of the Vatican needs to be noted.

In sum: I do fully concur, Lane, with withstanding militant TR influences disrupting the peace of both PB, and my own flock — yet it cannot be "without reservation", that is, warning to be alert to what I consider errors introduced by a doctrinally differing organization.

So the non-TR Bibles are in the main true Bibles, to be received as such, and not to be called satanic. Yet discernment must be used in detecting errors. If the Lord is magnanimous in using CT-based Bibles to nurture and sustain His flocks around the world (and He is, and He does) even though in some minutiae they err, it is upon me to be and do likewise.

I think my view is magnanimous and not at all militant. We may differ on some of this, but this is where I stand.
 
Logan, is there not a difference in usage between Matt 1:25, Luke 2:7, "her firstborn son", and Col 1:15, "the firstborn of every creature", i.e., preeminent, and likewise Col 1:18, "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence"?
 
I must, in all honesty, say this. This evening, prior to the Bible study and waiting for folks to come, I was looking through a NKJV Bible one of the men asked me to get for him, and, preparing to explain to him about the NKJV margin notes (which I consider helpful), and I saw a margin note for Matthew 1:25 that made my heart sink! In the text it read, "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The margin read, "NU a son" – NU meaning the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies – having a variant that deviated from the text indicating Jesus as firstborn among other children Mary would give birth to later.

This is an issue here in Cyprus, when talking with the Greek Orthodox.

Given that the NU text is an ecumenical endeavor produced under the supervision of the Roman Catholic organization, little wonder they should have that variant.

My heart now is wounded that I should give credence to such! I shall have to ask the Lord about this.

Steve, are you aware that most of the Reformers defended Mary's perpetual virginity? I make this observation as one who regards the idea as superstitious and without biblical warrant. I am only pointing it out because it may not be the best issue to argue with the Eastern Orthodox about, as they could accuse you of ignoring your own tradition.
 
Hi Steve,

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from to be honest. As you said in this and your above post, "Given that the NU text is an ecumenical endeavor produced under the supervision of the Roman Catholic organization, little wonder they should have that variant."

Taken at face value, you are saying there is a bias on the count of Nestle–Aland scholars on wanting to include a variant because it would support their Roman Catholic beliefs. The NA catalogues the variants and includes them. Even if they did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that did not create the variants themselves and they must have done a bad job in their work because they left the exact same phrasing in another Gospel.

I've never been convinced by the idea that the Alexandrians were removing verses about the diety of Christ or other key doctrines due to heretics in the region. There were many solid theologians in the region as well, and the diety of Christ still clearly shows through in the Alexandrian texts. But a conspiracy in the early church by heretics seems far more plausible than NA/UBS introducing variant readings (inconsistently even) to me.
 
Hello again, Jake,

My focus here is not primarily upon the Alexandrian mss (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus [Aleph]) but on the Critical Greek Text produced by the CoE Revision committee headed by Hort and Westcott (W&H), starting around 1871 until 1881. They used B and Aleph – even though these two differed extensively between themselves – as the basis for what they would later call “a neutral text”. So it is not these two mss, but the Revision Committee’s separate production.

Most modern Bibles use the 1881 CT as their general basis. (Sturtzians, such as our Rev. Lane Keister, are not to be typed as holding to any one camp, as they are genuinely eclectic and painstaking in their textual choices.)

My focus at present is on two men who headed the committee, and dominated it, according to the reports of some who were there and wrote on it. Here – in the first link – is some info on what these men thought and said, noted in a recent post from another thread. Below that is an excerpt from a paper on the committee and a Unitarian pastor, Dr. Vance Smith, also on the committee. These are recorded and documented facts.

I do see some worth in the two mss, B and Aleph, as they are ancient and extensive documents of alternate text. Despite their variances they are, in the main, sufficiently preserved Bibles. Even the 1881 revision underlying most modern Bibles which contain most of the B and Aleph variants – all are preserved in the main.

The doings of said committee were a scandal in England of their day, and much that is unsavory was accepted and approved by it.

This is my issue in this discussion, in a nutshell: I much rather choose the judgment of the Reformation scholars and editors in their textual choices, than those by Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. It’s a no-brainer to me.


W&H Post # 175 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-critique-question.109224/page-6#post-1315302

Excerpts from a paper:

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on the [Westcott and Hort] Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith were forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​

For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.”[3] [emphasis added]

One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4] …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.[6] [Emphasis added]​

A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s The Revision Revised, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages.[7]​

Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

_____

[1] Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
[2] Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in Revision Revised, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
[5] Ibid., page 45.
[6] Texts and Margins, Smith, page 47. Cited in, For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
[7] The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, Life of Westcott, Vol I, page 394.
 
Last edited:
Steve, I would say you've been rather consistent on this point. It is very much appreciated. Many of your fellow TR/KJV advocates are not so generous. In other words, non-TR guys did not bring up this debate, and are certainly not responsible for the divisiveness already created. Up until about two years ago, most of the debate happened within collegial bounds, and most TR guys I knew were saying things similar to your position, Steve. That is not true anymore, with many TR advocates now blasting away at any Bible but the KJV/TR as if those other translations were deliberately trying to twist Scripture into something else. The debate has an edge to it now that most non-TR guys like myself feel is completely unwarranted and uncharitable.
One side may seem less charitable in the current climate, but the logical conclusion of each side seems equally offensive to the other: TR folk essentially feel/believe the CT folk are taking away from Scripture, and the CT folk essentially feel/believe the TR folk are adding to it. It's Luke 16:17 vs Revelation 22:18 Perhaps the only peaceable way forward is for each to submit to the rule of their fellowship (and if no rule, then petition for one) and depart from parachurch discussions on this topic. In other words, work it out in your own church body and/or limit such discussions to that sphere - if more needs to be said, let fellowship speak to fellowship instead of individual-to-individual or side-to-side. This topic is different than other discussions because it is foundational to all other beliefs. Just a thought...
 
For my part, I can live with Lane, Logan, Rich and the other godly men here, as I respect them and their walks and scholarship – even if we differ in the latter in one area. And I also agree that "militancy" in one party which condemns the others' Bibles is truly destructive of the peace and unity of the church, and should not be allowed. All our Bibles are sacred to us, as the word of our God.

We can point out respective flaws, and let folks decide what they will. I'd rather not talk about these things for a good while now – and both sides have had plenty of "say" lately.
 
Just to be clear, I haven't found one person in this thread arguing for a CT "position". I guess this goes to the general ignorance (evident by the way people post about it) as to what the use of the collation of manuscripts is.

Regardless of what one thinks about the textual choices a committee makes about what to do with a variant, the net result is not the "deletion" of any readings but (within the apparatus) the manuscripts that contain the various readings. These are relatively few and far between in terms of significance.

This gets to the point of an educated ministry that is trained to handle the Greek and be able to establish a translation.

I'm not of the conviction that a Bible exists for individual study and no translation can completely avoid some theological interpretation. To understand this requires understanding of Greek and Hebrew syntax. What one does with a genitive, a participle, a relative clause, etc. What one does with a long sentence by Paul and how it is broken up. It's easy to forget that the English translation (any translation) is (in its own way) a "commentary" because the translators had to theologically interpret the text and it was not merely something that can be "finished". In that I mean that it is the work of good teachers to exegete and explain and build up members.

Yes, of course, the Scriptures are perspicuous in the most fundamental areas concerning God and salvation but some things are not altogether plain and this is why it's important to not overstate the "crisis" of the so-called "CT" as if we've "lost" some verses. Even if we were to all stick to the KJV, it would not resolve the unstable and unlearned from twisting the Scriptures (even if they knew Greek). Dispensationalists know Greek too and might even rely upon the TR to still remain in and propagate error.

For my part, I think it is a tremendous blessing to see the variant readings. I'm no more required to accept the underlying Greek for a particular verse in the ESV than I am the translation of the ESV even where it agrees with the TR on the underlying Greek. I can look at the Greek myself and apply a trained theological mind to the process of properly exegeting the text.

In other words, the charge that the CT itself is "Satanic" is a strange and impious statement because it shows everything. It doesn't delete anything. It can't because the manuscripts exist. It can't because all the opinions of the scholars (whether good or bad) are on full display for Godly ministers to look at and apply their skills to either agreeing with or disagreeing with along with establishing their own translation of the text for the purposes of a sermon or an illustration. The charge of being "Satanic" ultimately means that some Christian in the past must have not copied a manuscript in error but that Satan himself caused it or that the variant was always nefarious. It is, in the end, an inadequate view of God's Providence (which is what this thread is all about).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top