kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Kevin,
(An aside - this is merely the public version of an interesting and friendly discussion we have all the time in person)
We can be sure that Paul did not have the autographs because of the way that the Hebrew text was preserved. At best, even if Paul had Hebrew texts and he used them (which is questionable given NT quotations from the LXX), he had the Masoric text, which does contain errors. And yet he calls what he had Scripture.
The issue is not one of possession, it is one of reference. We cannot prove either way what he meant.
What the Confession actually says is that the Greek and Hebrew that we have are inspired, not the autographs. That is why Warfield's position was an advancement/backward movement (depending on your point of view) from the Confession, as a result of the inerrency battles of the 19th-20th centuries.
Hmmmm...this may have more to do with your TR position than anything... I see Warfield as a huge step forward. The issue was not an issue when the Divines wrote, so we can see Warfield as a necessary step forward.
The providential preservation argument does NOT touch translations - because they are translations of extent Hebrew and Greek texts. What Providential preservation actually argues is that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been preserved by God. (and thus is a powerful argument against the critical texts.
Non-sequitir. It could just as easlily be an argument FOR the critical text.