Responding to James White of AOMIN

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
All right, Tim. We appear at an impasse. Could you at least grant, before closing, that those among us who are not as versed yet in modern scholarship have an excuse for clinging to older positions regarding the LXX without being a part of a modern conspiracy?

No, I think we should look into it further. Let's all start contacting orthodox scholars and

1: find out what they believe about NT authors quoting from Greek OT versions.
2: find out why or why not.

Clinging to unicorns and dragons existing like many AVers even here on this board isn't an option for me, or many who are following along, so old, non-confessional opinions on subjects like that can In my humble opinion still be called marginal or conspiratorial under a range of conditions.

"Edersheim said Aramaic was a form of Hebrew, and I can prove he said it, therefore it is a legitimate source" just doesn't cut it. People make mistakes, and the knowledge of the Kingdom advances.

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 10:45:06 EST-----

This is a specious burden of proof. (1.) It cannot be proven that they are quotations if there is no verbal equivalence. (2.) It cannot be proven they are quotations from written sources if there is no stable textual tradition, because an oral tradition can be shown to have preceded literary production. (3.) It cannot be proven that the Christian tradition has not altered Greek mss. to conform to NT statements, and all specialists in the field acknowledge that this has at least partially occurred.

All the more reason to start contacting specialists. Let's do it.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
All the more reason to start contacting specialists. Let's do it.

Prudence might have suggested to you to have followed such a course and to have made sure of your facts before you publicly, dogmatically, and rudely denounced another person's defence of a position which differed from your own.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Tim, as much as I appreciate the offer, I really don't have time to go line-by-line with you through Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament right now. I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to do this; but it is both unnecessary for answering the question I posed, and also just not something I have time to do at this point.

I need to let the issue stand for now. Grace and peace, brother.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
First off Tim. I don't consider myself an extremist. And you were classifying all of us who hold to a position or listen to the Reformers concerns as being in line with extremist AVers. That was what I was wanting you to cool down on.

BTW, here is my stance on the subject. I am not fully convinced either way. But I do like the majority text better. I am not necessarily a defender of the Textus Receptus. I still have a lot to learn on the subject. I am mostly put off by your condescending attitude and the way you discuss this and how you are grouping others in a conspiracy fanatical mind set when that isn't necessarily true of the people who are discussing it here.

I am not piling on. I truly thought you were avoiding the question. I have a head cold and I might be a bit slow tonight. Sorry. I do feel you are disrespectful to others in your approach here.

As you may have noted I did say that I don't believe an affirmative to the question necessarily would lead you into the place you claim it would. I was not being strong handed.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I specifically asked that sources be adduced on this question somewhere above. All other topics we discuss here we resort to literature. This subject will not be any different. No one is calling anyone and dragging them into a conversation they did not start. If you cannot adduce scholarly literature, drop it. This thread is on ice for 24.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
One more thing. I want to see reference materials. Calling specialists is not a good way to dialogue here. Written words are a bit more concrete and no misrepresentation or partial understanding can be adduced as easily with a written reference. That isn't true with hearsay.

I am tired of the extremist label in this discussion. As someone noted to me...Tim V's view amounts to this it seems. "Owen is merely wrong, but if moderns today don't think so, you're an AV only cultist".


This will stop. You can disagree with someone without using ad hominems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top