WCF 1.8 and CT

[Grymir]

O.k., I get what you are saying. We know that the Greek/Hebrew is, but we don't speak them.

It's just a little class, I'm not the church settling unknown issues. The Barthian in my class does know Greek/Hebrew, and sometimes we break it down to that level, but the KJV says the same thing. If I was a big time theologian, or an ordained Pastor going up against the National Assembly, then I would be using them. The biggest questions I get are about election, or "What does Barth mean by wholly other?", or the inevitable Kirkgaardian "Leap of Faith" or how to defend the reformation against Roman Catholic Church thought. (We did just go through the book, Evangelicals and Catholics together, and Pascal's letters) I'm not settling controversies that will rock the church. But when people say something against the creeds or confessions of the church, I have to have something to stand on.

The WCF 1:8 goes on to say "But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in the language of every people unto which they come,..."

We are not a class of theologians, but simple people. A farmer, an ex-Pastor, a couple of businessmen, a chef, insurance salesmen, ice cream vendors. We don't know Greek/Hebrew, so we have to have something trustworthy. Which is what I teach. That the scriptures are trustworthy.

 

[Thomas2007]

As I see it....

I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.

In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.

Dear Fred,

Let me provide again a quote of the WCF 1:8, because the way I understand what is being said, it is a mischaracterization of the issues. The issue of Authority is what is at stake and is the reason for the Confessional formulation.

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them...."​

Based upon my understanding of the history of the Protestant scholastic defense on the textual issues and the development of confessional standards of "providential preservation" of "authentic" texts, then the Received Text is the Authority to which all other texts must be made to conform.

John Owen held to that view and it was confessionally defended by Francis Turretin in 1675 in the Helvetic Consensus Formula, which was the last and most explicit creedal defense of the Reformation textual and doctrinal position.

Owen held:

"Let it be remembered, that the vulgar copy we use, was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language….men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is of course not to be approved….[t]he generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven…And if this change of judgment which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also on the Protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under the pretence of their corruption.” John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, pg 473 to 477​

And Turretin:

"Faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies...and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy." Turretin, Doctrine of Scripture​

Helvtic Consensus Formula:

“The Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church…not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of faith and life: and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental or Occidental, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.”​

Turretin further explains that by the term “original texts” he means:

“The copies (apographa), which have come in their name (autographa) because they record for us that Word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”​

Finally, Muller sums it up:

"Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa, not in and of lost autographa. The autographa figure in Turretin's argument only insofar as they were written in Hebrew and Greek and are, therefore, best respresented quoad verba and quoad res in the extant Hebrew and Greek apographa. The issue raised by the Protestant scholastic discussion of the relation of autographa and apographa is, in other words, one of linguistic continuity rather than one of verbal inerrancy. The orthodox do, of course, assume that the text is free of substantive error and, typically, view textual problems as of scribal origin, but they mount their argument for authenticity and infallibity without recourse to a logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield." PRRD p 435​

However, that being said, no where does this imply that their is no ministerial liberty of conscience - in the historic position variant texts do not pose a problem, simply because variants exist. It only poses a problem when it challenges the doctrine of authenticity and providential preservation undermining the final authority of Scripture. That the Protestants never allowed until the 20th century, when they pressed the doctrine into an entirely different context.

It is when controversies of religion arise that a known standard is appealed to that settles the issues. Leigh pointed that out clearly as well when he wrote concerning this debate:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and of our Saviour Christ asking “How it is written,” and “How readest thou,” is now either of none effect, or not sufficient” Leigh, Treatise, I vi. P 102-3​

However, proponents of the Critical Text couple it with their dialetic philosophical presupposition of setting unknown Autographs against known Apographs that undermines the Authority of Scripture. This is done, of course, ballyhooing that nothing they are changing affects any central doctrine of the faith - but they absolutely refuse to accept the historic Protestant textual standard as definitive. Much like modern humanists the only absolute asserted is that their is no absolute and truth, and hence Authority, must be relative and always subjective to men.

If it is true that their is no controversy of religion, which they plainly claim, then what is the purpose and why do they refuse to accept a textual standard, even one they disagree with, if those places of disagreement affect no essential doctrine?

As I see it, then, if ordained Pastors understand that the "authentic" texts that settle controversies of religion is the Received Text, then there is no problem if other texts are "used." There is a problem, however, when there is no final authority, no supreme court of appeal, and that is championed under the auspices that no essential doctrine of the faith has been changed, when in reality the controversy of religion is that the final Authority of Scripture is being undermined in the name of Scripture.

In your own denomination, if the Federal Vision issue was handled plainly by refusing to allow the Confessional detractors appeal to Critical Texts to undermine the Confessional teachings, then the issue would have been put to bed simply and easily. Sorry boys, you simply can't appeal to the Critical Text to redefine your understanding of the Confession, hence the Confession cannot be made to conform to the Critical Text and restore Authority to the visible Church.

This really isn't that hard to understand, it is self evident that the Received Text is the historic Protestant standard that Protestants defended against Rome.

If proponents of the Critical Texts cannot accept the Received Text as the authentic texts for controversies of religion, then since they are departing from the historic standard, they then need to explain what doctrine and controversy of religion the Received Text teaches that they disagree with. Simply believing that a word is wrong here or there, or that one reading may be an interpolation of another, when it doesn't alter or challenge any doctrine is insufficient grounds to take exception to the Confession.


If, on the other hand, they simply wish to hold to a dialetical philosophical presupposition for their axiomatic approach to the issue of Authority and enjoin those that have altered the historic context of inspiration and preservation into a new hermeneutical context, then they need to take exception to the Confession.

Cordially,


Thomas

 

[SolaGratia]

I agree with Thomas, therefore the Church or, better yet, I agree with the Church, therefore with Thomas.

 

[Prufrock]

I believe far more damage is done with the average congregant by engaging in translation wars than by merely preaching, and not taking up every battle. The average congregant does not have the background, time, or frankly, interest in that. They want to be fed the Word of God, and be assured that they can trust the Bible that they are holding in their hands.

Reminds me of what Spurgeon said in his "Chat About Commenting:"

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. "

Have a blessed Lord's Day.

 

[KMK]

Steve,

I agree that this thread has had more than its share of "pushing it." But I honestly don't understand how one can read the OP question (and not the myriad of subsidiary questions in the thread):

If a pastor uses a modern translation in church based on the critical text, do you think this means he should/ought/must claim to take exception to WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation.

to mean other than: "if a PCA/OPC/etc. church uses the NASB, ESV, etc., and the minister does not take exception, he is in violation of WCF 1.8 and the doctrine of preservation."

I cannot view the OP as stating other than that I, as a minister in good standing of the PCA, who subscribes to the WCF (and who, for the record, prefers the MT/TR to the CT), because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong.

In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.

I agree with Fred completely.

If this is the case, then I need to repent. I did not consider that my 'yes' vote was pernicious. Partly do to my ignorance of the Presbyterian vows I didn't stop to think that my 'yes' vote was actually an accusation.

I do not want to rebuke elders with my 'yes' vote. I want to hold all elders in double honor. I change my vote to 'I don't know'.

Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of some good Puritan writings on the subject of 'kept pure in all ages' and I could study the issue on my own.

Have a wonderful Lord's Day y'all!

 

[TimV]

Perhaps someone could point me in the direction of some good Puritan writings on the subject of 'kept pure in all ages' and I could study the issue on my own.

In the mean time, for you and several others, are we on the same page when I assume you hold that Erasmus had more than one text in front of him, and that they all differed, and he, using these differing texts put together a new text, different than all of them?

-----Added 12/21/2008 at 11:11:15 EST-----

Hi Thomas

In the past, I've asked you to stick with one point at a time rather than bringing up multiple points in one post, as it is both frustrating and I would claim unfair. I'd love to go through those points, but for now, can we please leave the CT alone and could I get a straight answer to this question?

The Majority Text uses the word Tree in Rev. 22:19. Could you please tell me why the Elders of my Church
a) would be wrong in accepting the MT reading of Rev. 22:19
b) would be in violation of WCF 1.8 in preferring the MT reading of Rev. 22:19 even if they prefer the MT knowing that the TR is different?

 

[fredtgreco]

I believe far more damage is done with the average congregant by engaging in translation wars than by merely preaching, and not taking up every battle. The average congregant does not have the background, time, or frankly, interest in that. They want to be fed the Word of God, and be assured that they can trust the Bible that they are holding in their hands.

Reminds me of what Spurgeon said in his "Chat About Commenting:"

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. "

Have a blessed Lord's Day.

Completely agree, Paul. I would argue that in Providence, the shoe is on the other foot now, with a vast majority of the Church not using the AV by default, and the only way to get them there (in spite of unfamiliar language, style and habit) is to make other old ladies (and young adults as well) distrust the Bible that they have held, memorized and seen God's promises in.

You have a blessed Lord's Day as well!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Before I engage the topic at hand let me restate something. A couple of years ago PuritanBoard was disgraced publicly by one of our members going into meltdown and insulting James White to the max. He was banned, yet it made us look bad nonetheless. There are some KJV forums and anti-KJV forums which engage in unabashed flaming and other ungodly verbal behavior, and I see some of that emerging here. I won’t cite instances (though I could), but the stereotyping and disparaging are not only engaged in but justified as warranted. This is the mode of the aforementioned ungodly forums. If the moderators and administrators wish to allow this – as it is mostly (but not exclusively) directed at the minority KJV advocates – then we will have succumbed to the level of discourse that holds knowledge more important than kindness and respect. And PB’s high level of spiritual and intellectual excellence will have been horribly compromised.

To the issue of the WCF 1:8 and ministers taking exceptions. Fred, in post #251 you said, “...because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong....In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.”

But then you allow that maybe the OP question was alright, the problem lay in the way the thread developed: “It became clear that to acknowledge any validity of a Critical Text version was to be abandoning the doctrine of preservation entirely.” So then what is “pernicious”? (And by pernicious I assume you mean harmful rather than wicked.) Is the Confessional doctrine of preservation? And the post-Reformation theologians who formulated it? Were they just backward (having less light on manuscript evidences than we), and the harm is by holding us accountable to their antiquated beliefs?

I would agree with this: something is pernicious! That is, harmful to the unity of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say, you “share Tim's frustration at making a statement (such as that regarding the Septuagint) that is backed up by all but a minuscule number of scholars, and the response being (in essence) ‘oh yeah, prove it.’ ” I hope you’re not painting with TimV’s broad brush now! My point on the LXX is simply that what we have now of it was penned by “Christian” scribes after the writing of the NT Scriptures. We do not have whatever was the OT in Greek circulating before Christ and in His day, save one possible fragment, Ryland Papyrus (No. 458), which has a few portions of Deuteronomy 23-28 on it. Like you, Fred, I know there was a Septuagint, or more accurately, portions of a Greek Old Testament, for the very name “Septuagint” derives from the legendary 72 etc. And I know there is a “Septuagint” today as well – I have a copy of it and a concordance to it in my library. Your mention of a “minuscule number of scholars” who support this view, well, John Owen was one of them, and concerning the example you gave from Hebrews 10:5 ("a body you have prepared for me"), he pronounces against it being from the Septuagint but rather in the LXX from the Epistle (in his commentary on that passage). Douglas Moo says the same concerning Psalm 14:1–3 and Romans 3:13–18 (in his NICNT commentary on Romans).

Fred, you said, “Let me speak just for a moment for TimV (and he can disown me if he wishes!) - there is a big difference between someone who uses the AV, or who even believes the AV to be the best Bible, and the one who thinks that it is the only legitimate Bible.”

Of course there are different views of this with AV users, but I will restate mine, which I have been propounding here at PB. An aspect of my position is that all the churches down through the ages have had adequate preservation of the Scriptures, sufficient for the saving of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

There was a process over time during which God guided “all things together for good” to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text. This process involved the Byzantine textform of the Greek church, and God’s providentially correcting those few small errors that had crept into the Greek text. The pure reading of the autographs He brought together into the texts the Reformation editors compiled (the TR), in which there was minute preservation – as distinguished from adequate preservation.

So, I would say that that all the Bibles are, as you put it, “legitimate” – however, all the readings in all the Bibles are not. Most of my life I have been ministered to by men (and women – I was converted through the testimony of a woman) who used modern Bibles. Very few were AV users. These were godly men, anointed by the Spirit of God. It would be audacious of me to denigrate either them or their Bibles! But I can certainly challenge them (and have) on particular readings, which I do not consider legitimate.

I had asked TimV,

Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?

What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?​

And he answered,

No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is “a settled Scripture – which we have in hand”...although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.​

This is the problem with the Bible situation today. No one has “a settled Scripture...the sure Word of God to us”. It is said, “Well, it is somewhere in the myriad mss, and we will find it eventually.” Now what TimV said was true: “the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.” And this is a blessing from God. But the issue goes deeper: is there a settled Scripture which we have in hand? Even the Majority Text advocates with their fine editions admit they are still in the process of sorting out and seeking to discover the true text. The Critical and Eclectic text editors likewise are still seeking to find out the true text. Can it be that God has not – or not yet – kept His promise to preserve His word for His people? As I am not post-mil I do not see the world going on for thousands of more years, but rather it is drawing to a close (I don’t set dates or even approximates!). And we don’t have a sure Bible yet?

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. (Isaiah 59:21)​

I believe He has preserved it, and I have it in my hand. Why does this provoke others to go on the attack?

And just for the historical record, the phrase that Erasmus was a “very liberal Calvinist hater” again paints with a broad brush, that ends in calumny. For sure he was on the wrong side of the theological dispute with Luther, but I know godly men today – Arminians – who love Christ despite their grievous error. Erasmus was a complex character, and to make a loathsome caricature of him, when there is evidence he loved Christ despite his failings (and RC associations), is to bear false witness.

Erasmus’ Greek editions rocked all of Europe. J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, the historian of the Reformation, comments on what Erasmus had done:

The great work of the 16th century was about to begin. A volume fresh from the presses of Basle had just crossed the Channel. Being transmitted to London, Oxford, and Cambridge, this book, the fruit of Erasmus’s vigils, soon found its way wherever there were friends of learning. It was the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, published for the first time in Greek with a new Latin translation—an event more important for the world than would have been the landing of the pretender in England, or the appearance of the chief of the Tudors in Italy. This book, in which God has deposited for man’s salvation the seeds of life, was about to effect alone, without patrons and without interpreters, the most astonishing revolution in Britain.

When Erasmus published this work, at the dawn, so to say, of modern times, he did not see all its scope. Had he foreseen it, he would perhaps have recoiled in alarm. He saw indeed that there was a great work to be done, but he believed that all good men would unite to do it with common accord. “A spiritual temple must be raised in desolated Christendom,” said he. “The mighty of this world will contribute towards it their marble, their ivory, and their gold; I who am poor and humble offer the foundation stone,” and he laid down before the world his edition of the Greek Testament.

Then glancing disdainfully at the traditions of men, he said: “It is not from human reservoirs, fetid with stagnant waters, that we should draw the doctrine of salvation; but from the pure and abundant streams that flow from the heart of God.”

And when some of his suspicious friends spoke to him of the difficulties of the times, he replied: “If the ship of the church is to be saved from being swallowed up by the tempest, there is only one anchor that can save it: it is the heavenly word, which, issuing from the bosom of the Father, lives, speaks, and works still in the gospel.” These noble sentiments served as an introduction to those blessed pages which were to reform England. Erasmus, like Caiaphas, prophesied without being aware of it.

The New Testament in Greek and Latin had hardly appeared when it was received by all menof upright mind with unprecedented enthusiasm. Never had any book produced such a sensation. It was in every hand: men struggled to procure it, read it eagerly, and would even kiss it. The words it contained enlightened every heart. but a reaction soon took place. Traditional Catholicism uttered a cry from the depths of its noisome pools (to use Erasmus's figure). Franciscans and Dominicans, priests and bishops, not daring to attack the educated and well-born, went among the ignorant populace, and endeavoured by their tales and clamours to stir up susceptible women and credulous men. “Here are horrible heresies,” they exclaimed, “here are frightful antichrists! If this book be tolerated it will be the death of the papacy!” “We must drive this man from the university,” said one. “We must turn him out of the church,” added another. “The public places re-echoed with their howlings,” said Erasmus. The firebrands tossed by their furious hands were raising fires in every quarter; and the flames kindled in a few obscure convents threatened to spread over the whole country.

The irritation was not without a cause. The book indeed contained nothing but Latin and Greek: but this first step seemed to auger another—the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue. Erasmus loudly called for it. “Perhaps it may be necessary to conceal the secrets of kings,” he remarked, “but we must publish the mysteries of Christ. The Holy Scriptures, translated into all languages, should be read not only by the Scotch and Irish, but even by Turks and Saracens. the husbandman should sing them as he holds the handle of his plough, the weaver repeat them as he plies his shuttle, and the weary traveler, halting on his journey, refresh him under some shady tree by these godly narratives.” These words prefigured a golden age after the iron age of popery. A number of Christian families in Britain and on the continent were soon to realize these evangelical forebodings, and England was to endeavor to carry them out for the benefit of all the nations on the face of the earth.

The priests saw the danger, and by a skillful maneuver, instead of finding fault with the Greek Testament, attacked the translation and the translator. “He has corrected the Vulgate,” they said, “and puts himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!” and then, turning over the pages, they pointed out the most odious passages: “Look here! This book calls upon men to repent, instead of requiring them, as the Vulgate does, to do penance!” (Matt. 9:17). The priests thundered against him from their pulpits: “This man has committed the unpardonable sin,” they asserted, “for he maintains that there is nothing in common between the Holy Ghost and the monks—that they are logs rather than men!”….”He's a heretic, an heresiarch, a forger! He's a goose….he's a very antichrist!” (D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Vol. V, pp. 153-156; in recent one-volume edition, pp. 729, 730)​

Tim, I’ll get to your questions re Rev 22:19, but now it’s bedtime.

Fred,

You say,

I would argue that in Providence, the shoe is on the other foot now, with a vast majority of the Church not using the AV by default, and the only way to get them there (in spite of unfamiliar language, style and habit) is to make other old ladies (and young adults as well) distrust the Bible that they have held, memorized and seen God's promises in.​

The trouble with this is, that many young people I know, and some old ladies as well, are troubled by the stated discrepancies between versions as brought to light in the modern Bible margin notes. There is a growing lack of reverence for God’s Word due to the diminishing of its authority in many people’s eyes. “Ach! We don’t even have a sure Bible anymore; the experts don’t agree, so how can we know it’s reliable?” Maybe not in your church; but the writing’s on the wall: "NO SURE BIBLE!" This lie is seeping into the culture. What TimV said is true, the discrepancies should not “keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives” – but the issue of diminished authority will lead to a distrust in His word. Is this not a factor in the growing apostasy? Was not the Confessional understanding of 1:8 a dyke to keep out the deadly waters of disbelief in God's word?

Is not this pernicious – greatly harmful? Where is the remedy? Is there none?

 

[TimV]

To the issue of the WCF 1:8 and ministers taking exceptions. Fred, in post #251 you said, “...because I allow the use of the ESV in my church, I must say that I do not believe in the Confessional doctrine of preservation and WCF 1.8, and I must take exception to WCF 1.8 - i.e. say that the doctrine of preservation is wrong....In my mind, the entire thread is pernicious.”

But then you allow that maybe the OP question was alright, the problem lay in the way the thread developed: “It became clear that to acknowledge any validity of a Critical Text version was to be abandoning the doctrine of preservation entirely.” So then what is “pernicious”?

Actually he said that the thread developed the way it did was that

What might have been implicit, or muted, came out loud and clear as the thread went on.

And it's true, by any reasonable way you look at it.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say, you “share Tim's frustration at making a statement (such as that regarding the Septuagint) that is backed up by all but a minuscule number of scholars, and the response being (in essence) ‘oh yeah, prove it.’ ” I hope you’re not painting with TimV’s broad brush now! My point on the LXX is simply that what we have now of it was penned by “Christian” scribes after the writing of the NT Scriptures.

That is an opinion held by only a minuscule number of scholars. To hold to this view, you have to specifically reject the overwhelming majority of scholars. Like your strange view of Aramaic. Even after I go to the trouble to contact three top living scholars, even writing to the University of Tel Aviv to contact a famous specialist in Aramaic you still dig your feet in by refusing to admit Edersheim and Bruce were dead wrong on that issue. You still won't call Aramaic a separate language and keep calling it a dialect.

he pronounces against it being from the Septuagint but rather in the LXX from the Epistle (in his commentary on that passage).

Well, I didn't understand that, and like Owen, whatever that quote means doesn't change the fact that academically you're on the outside looking in.

An aspect of my position is that all the churches down through the ages have had adequate preservation of the Scriptures, sufficient for the saving of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

Now we are in agreement.

There was a process over time during which God guided “all things together for good” to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text. This process involved the Byzantine textform of the Greek church, and God’s providentially correcting those few small errors that had crept into the Greek text. The pure reading of the autographs He brought together into the texts the Reformation editors compiled (the TR), in which there was minute preservation – as distinguished from adequate preservation.

And now we get to the core of the matter. As an act of faith, the AVer sect thinks that God's Word was contained in several different manuscripts prior to Erasmus (are you reading this Ken?) but then an act of direct inspiration happened in the second decade of the 16th century, and we now have God's Word, perfect and entire, after a millennium and a half, contained in one text. Any text that differs from this Pure text is Impure, to one degree or another.

I had asked TimV,

Did God leave us a Bible – a settled Scripture – which we have in hand? Is it reliable in all its parts? Can we say it is the sure Word of God to us, with certainty?

What Bible do you offer, when asked thusly?
And he answered,

No, Steve, I am not willing to say to you that any version of the Bible in existence is “a settled Scripture – which we have in hand”...although I do believe that God has kept His Word pure in all ages. I am quite certain that one of His tasks that He has set for His church is to search it out. And in the mean time, I think it's truly miraculous that the versions we have today are so close that there really aren't the sort of differences between texts that can legitimately be said to keep anyone from knowing God's will for our lives.

Bingo!!!!!!
Tim and Steve agree that until the second decade of the 16th century God's Word wasn't written down perfect and entire in one text. Steve thinks a miracle occurred at that time. Tim doesn't see any proof of that miracle, doesn't belong to a Church that demands him to, and frankly thinks the whole idea borders on the cultish.

Can it be that God has not – or not yet – kept His promise to preserve His word for His people? As I am not post-mil I do not see the world going on for thousands of more years, but rather it is drawing to a close (I don’t set dates or even approximates!). And we don’t have a sure Bible yet?

What we had in 1450 was sufficient for God's purposes. What we have in 2008 is sufficient of God's purposes. Rhetorical questions like the above don't have any answers. You might as well word it "All you people who deny the TR is exactly the Word of God, perfect and complete think that God didn't keep His promise!". As I said, this belief borders on the cultish.

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. (Isaiah 59:21)
I believe He has preserved it, and I have it in my hand. Why does this provoke others to go on the attack?

We're not attacking. The teeny, tiny sect of AVers is doing the attacking. Everything I've been doing on this thread has been defensive. Really! Now you're claiming persecution for believing God's Word!! Persecutions directed at you by members in good standing of Reformed churches!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This thread is closed and TR debates are hereby banned until further notice. I'll let all parties decide how they can fruitfully interact within the Church at large in the meantime.