With full disclaimer, from my childhood I recall Gilligan and the fearless crew on the uncharted desert isle. Mr. Howell, the Professor, and Skipper are dressed as women in an attempt to fool some visiting natives looking for a “white goddess” to throw into their volcano. Not expecting any of those three to pull it off, the Skipper orders first mate, Gilligan, to “dress up like a girl.” The words since stuck in my brain Gilligan repeated again and again, “You can’t make me! You can’t make me! You can’t make me!” Everyone knows how that ended.
Mark Ward has spent years working an argument with his “King James-Only brothers” for them to chuck the translation based upon readability, intelligibility, or understanding. He wrote a whole book on it. Ward made “a vow regarding the KJV.”He wrote:
I will not and cannot discuss textual criticism with my brothers and sisters in Christ who insist on the exclusive use of the King James Version. I will discuss only vernacular translation.
“You can’t make him! You can’t make him! You can’t make him!” After years tilting at the vernacular windmill (tilting may be a false friend of Cervantes), Ward broke that vow in a recent published journal article, where he instead dusted off the very, very oft employed “Which TR?” argument instead (I have answered it here, here, here, here, here, and many more times). Because I’ve already argued this, I’m not going to argue with Ward’s article. I’m saying, read what I already wrote.
I confess after these now several years, that Ward still fails to understand or at least not represent accurately the biblical and historical doctrine we teach. I’ve written it directly to Ward and he still chooses to strawman it. As a type of irony, the same journal makes this statement in an earlier article entitled “Role of Biblical Creationism in Presuppositional Apologetics”:
Beyond the theological incompatibilities already discussed, the evolutionary model simply contravenes the clear and straightforward meaning of a number of other biblical passages that emphasize God’s direct and immediate role in creation as well as truth-affirmations about the context, timing, and goal of creation.
Modern textual criticism parallels “the evolutionary model.” The problem I and many others, including the “confessional bibliologists” (whom Ward inaccurately puts in a different category than me), would be represented by writing the same sentence above with a few changed words.
Beyond the theological incompatibilities already discussed, the modern textual criticism model simply contravenes the clear and straightforward meaning of a number of other biblical passages that emphasize God’s direct and immediate role in preservation as well as truth-affirmations about the context, timing, and goal of the preservation of scripture.
If someone believes what scripture says, then he has to believe what scripture says. Not believing what scripture says isn’t believing what scripture says. Modern textual criticism does not buttress its position on the teaching of scripture, which is also confessional or historical. Ward does not arrive at what scripture says, because scripture isn’t the basis of his position. In another bit of irony, Ward has attempted to tether himself to scripture when he makes his one vernacular argument from scripture, 1 Corinthians 14, that edification requires intelligibility.
I’ve followed Ward long enough to know that he didn’t start with his intelligibility argument from 1 Corinthians 14 (read what I’ve written here, here, and here). I contend, he noticed that our side takes its position from scripture, like a young earth creationist does, so he came late with the biblical argument as a corollary. I’m open to be proven wrong on that. As time passed, Ward referred to that argument more and more, seeing it as perhaps the one that could gain the most traction with people who started with the Bible. If scripture is so important to which to refer for positions, I invite him to start doing that on the whole issue.
Presuppositionalism starts with the Bible. Evolutionists presuppose too. They aren’t neutral, they just have different presuppositions. However, we don’t call evolutionists, which would be old earth creationists, presuppositionalists. Ward doesn’t follow biblical presuppositions. He doesn’t deal with anything related to this aspect of bibliology like a presuppositionalist. By the way, just to head this off at the pass, someone could use the lame argument (I’ve read it) that Greg Brahnsen wasn’t a confessional bibliologist and supported modern textual criticism, so the perfect preservation position must not be presuppositional. That is an anecdotal apologetic that doesn’t support a presuppositional one. It’s a loser.
To start any discussion on the Bible, someone should ask, “Does this represent what the Bible teaches on the subject?” Starting with science led to numerous wrong positions on origins, that now must be unraveled with DNA and seeing a cell in detail under a microscope. God wants us to believe what He says. Ward and others like him do not take a faithful or believing view, because they don’t establish what scripture teaches first and then believe it. All “models” should start with scripture, because God’s Word is truth, or what is accurate to call true science.
How do we know that God created the earth in six literal, twenty-four days? Scripture says so. Yes, but evidence shows something different. Scientists list much evidence. They’ve done that to the effect of many Christians rejecting what the Bible says or then going about to change what the Bible says to fit the “evidence.” How do we know God preserved His Word perfectly, every Word? Words not just a general Word that allows for word changes? Scripture says so. That’s also what Christians have believed. Textual critics list much evidence. They’ve done that to the effect of many Christians rejecting what the Bible says or then going about to change what the Bible says to fit the “evidence.”
Jeff Riddle and the ones known as “confessional bibliologists” (why wouldn’t I be referred to as one? See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and many other places) seem to merit Ward’s attention by not settling on Scrivener as an answer to a written text. Perhaps it seems to him like he could get some mileage from them, because if they believe there are some variances between TR editions like he illustrates in his article, then they will be willing to accept even more variances and everyone can then be a big happy family in a modern version world.
If the confessional bibliologists take Hill’s position, then they take the same one I’ve been advocating. There isn’t a thin piece of copy paper between all of us in doctrinal position. I’ve said for years though, that asking for the exact settled text is more of a trap being laid, to be used for the reverse engineer argument. What I’ve written is that the words are preserved and available. The translators of the TR translated from something and that is easy to see in the commentaries written in the 17th and 18th centuries. This respects what the Bible says about itself, what God says about His own Word, honors and worships Him. Even Kurt Aland reports (“The Text of the Church?” in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987, p.131):
[I]t is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’
He also wrote in The Text of the New Testament (p. 11):
We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.
His wife Barbara writes in her book, The Text of the New Testament (pp. 6-7):
[T]he Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical. . . . Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the “revealed text.” This idea of verbal inspiration (i. e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus.
Quoting the Alands is a debate technique. The most scholarly of the enemies agree too. Both sides should just agree on that. The Alands, however, are just reporting though among many, many others what Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
Mark Ward and others like him are taking the new position, the reactionary one, that arose out of mid-19th century modernism and rationalism. His position, and the biblical and the true Christian one, the faithful one, do not and cannot meet.**********************
Watch this and others like it. This is a real apologist in a biblical sense.
I have found the identical experience with Muslims to whom I have evangelized. He’s obviously directing this toward men like James White. What a respectful, true servant of God here. It’s easy to see if you match him up against James White.
I agree. Also in his 2020 article which you linked, the variants he goes over by comparing Stephanus 1550 to Scrivener 1881 mostly evaporate upon realizing that both the KJV and Scrivener also followed Beza 1598 in those places. I wonder why he chose to compare with Stephanus 1550 instead, except to cover up those tracks. We can immediately show that Matthew 21:7, Mark 9:40, 1 Timothy 1:4 (interesting spelling difference), also 2 Cor. 11:10, Heb. 9:1, James 5:12, Revelation 7:10, 1 John 2:23 (the most notably) and Revelation 11:2, over half of the specific places he mentioned, are shown to be the same in Beza 1598 as they are in KJV, which is where they came from.
As for the others, most of them arise from proper understanding of the English word definition, which in some cases led Scrivener to back-translate into a different Greek word, showing perhaps some of the potential misgivings that can result by reverse translation. That's one reason I agree with your conclusion that demanding people reduce to this is more of a trap to be laid than anything. The sole exception he raised in Philemon v.7, which, you can find, has an ancient precedent for saying χαρὰν in the footnotes here: http://images.csntm.org/PublishedWorks/JohnMillNovumTestamentum1707/Mill_NovumTestamentum_1707_0326a.jpg
If things like the spelling of the word Beelzebub proves to be the ultimate stumblingblock for Ward, it only shows for us that the level of accuracy elsewhere is such, that this was the strongest objection to be raised. I think that speaks to the overall level of agreement that must exist if the most energetic argument against it amounts to this.
The distinction between the two opposed positions, the true dividing line, is whether we are looking at 1) a logarithmically decreasing number of variants going from Erasmus 1516 to Stephanus 1550 then to Beza and Elzevir, (Also the Nuremburg Polyglot 1599), later to Mill's 1707 Novum Testamentum, and arriving at certainty, where no one thought there was any question what the text said, and where the variants left over are interesting perhaps yet absolutely inconsequential (this is real textual criticism); and 2) an exponentially increasing number of variants over time due to lower and higher criticism in the 19th century and the introduction of increasing numbers of apocryphal source manuscripts, and from that, even more modern amalgamations (i.e. eclectic texts, easily demonstrated by comparison between modern versions), and from these, yet even more modern translations with their own idiosyncratic and arbitrary word preferences (i.e. gender neutral, vague redefinitions of words at will). The question is whether we have been (rightly) dividing and conquering the uncertainty that remains over all this time, or whether they have been right in deliberately multiplying uncertainty without any bounds starting in the 19th century with the philosophy of relativism and higher criticism. It's clear that this self-referential consensus of theirs only began to shift to the latter view of multiplying uncertainty only somewhere around the late 19th century. If you go to any Biblical scholarship before this turning point, you don't see this. The KJV translators were approaching a more absolute degree of accuracy, not multiplying new variations.
Could it be that the only reason why you or I for that matter, wouldn't be considered as holding to the "confessional" text view is because we are not "confessing" Baptists? I am okay without being confessional, although it is something else when you read that the Westminster divines held to a pure text which we all know is the TR. Where there critical texts already available in their time? Methinks so. Only they didn't receive those as authentic copies. Anyway, Dr. Ward has shifted the aurguments now, for sure. The answers from your previous articles seem more than adequate. Thank you.
What about the London Baptist Confession? I also believe that confessions like the Schleitheim Confession, a Baptist Confession, 16th century, isn't intended to stand alone, but in agreement with other confessions, just showing the differences.
The historical statements are confessional. The question is, what did the church believe? They only believed what we believe.
For Bert first, look up at Aaron's comment (old, tired) — that is ad hominem. Let's be consistent.
Now to Aaron, scripture is truth. It is the pure mother's milk. I'm saying start with scriptural presuppositions and then look what fulfills those. Reason untethered to scripture is rationalism. Where do we get all of our Christian doctrine? From scripture, which is true science.
Back to Bert, show one ad hominem argument I used. Using colorful language to make the post more interesting isn't ad hominem. I'm open to your showing one time I took an ad hominem argument. Even on his saying he would not engage in textual arguments on this issue, I'm just calling him on it. He said it. I gave the quote, and he said it more than once.
Ron Bean, I have no problem with other translations from the same text, so you can retract that. Mark Ward himself has written about that. Ron, you should ask though if the Geneva, as your example, is translated from the identical text. Is it? It was translated from the TR, but not identical words.
Do you know if there is any collective impetus among the "confessional" guys to do a new translation based on Scrivener's TR (or another, for that matter)? That is, a group of Baptist churches which band together to fashion a new translation using the Greek text they feel contains the original words? I know you had reservations about the MEV because it didn't come from churches. I was just curious. There may not be any such impetus, but I was wondering. I would think you, Bro. Ross and other likeminded folks would consider collaborating on this. It'd be a worthy project. Of course, it'd take a LONG TIME!
It seems that the only people who want an update of the KJV aren't going to use it anyway. I would be open and eager for you to show me one TR supporting person, confessional guy, who wants another translation of the same text. I have a lot to do and this would be very low for me, because I have not seen the KJV as a detriment. I read commentaries that will attack the KJV translation, treating it like having done a real whopper to Christianity with a particular translation, and I just don't see it, when they do that. It most often like someone who is propping up his own abilities related to translation. Very often they misrepresent what the translators were even doing. I see the modern versions doing far more damage and the continuous revisions to the original language text to do great, great damage. Things have not gotten better. Why should we spend an abundance of time to do something that won't make any of the detractors happy anyway? I'm fine with the KJV as my English translation.
If we translate the TR into French, and we say that is the Bible, the French translation, then we have debunked what Ron Bean said. But he won't retract. It's just a cheap shot from an armchair theologian.
Bill, Kent, I read Mark Ward to be saying that the "confessional" people have a better reason for their position because they affirm a confession as representing their faith / church, and so they believe they should use the text/Bible affirmed by the "confession". They can discard textual criticism and all of this discussion by saying, "We affirm the Westminster (or London Baptist, or whatever) confession, so of course we use the TR / KJV."
So no, you guys aren't "confessional." But you also aren't "mainstream" as he defines it, which is essentially what Kent calls "English preservationist."
Someday I will write a book on this, well, maybe a blog post. I'll talk about:
"English preservation" Bibliologists
"Confessional" Bibliologists (I'll even give Mark Ward credit for the term)
"Tongues Translationist" Bibliologists (Ruckman's view, actually I already wrote that blog post)
"Man, There's a Lot of Manuscripts, Hope we Got the Right Ones, but We'll Change Our Mind with the Next Discovery Anyway" Bibliologists
"Why Don't We Start With Scripture and See Where it Takes Us" Bibliologists
Of course, some in that last category might end up with differing conclusions on the TR, but they certainly won't end up at the CT.
The MEV has some interesting concerns surrounding it that it shares with many of the more common, eclectic modern translations. For instance, it changes John 5:39 in line with them from imperative "Search" to indicative "You search". In line with the NASB and ESV in Philippians 2:6, the MEV changes "thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."
The MEV also changes both Titus 3:10 and Jude v.19 to say "cause divisions" rather than "separate themselves" a key distinction, since the MEV translation of these two verses both clashes with Luke 12:51, where he said he came to give division.
While the MEV does not change "them" to "us" in Psalm 12:7, it does elect to remove the words "for ever" from the same verse for some reason.
The same MEV translation also change "corrupt" to "peddle" in 2 Corinthians 2:17, another alteration in common with certain modern versions. Micah 5:2 in the MEV the phrase "from everlasting" is reduced to "from ancient days"
Also in Genesis 22:17, "his" is changed to the plural "theirs" despite what Paul says specifically about this very thing in Galatians 3:16. Changing it to the plural kind of defeats the entire purpose of Paul's writing. The MEV also, in addition, changes Nahum 2:2 to say the very opposite of what it normally says, as "hath turned away" is changed to "is restoring the prominence of."
For these concerns as well as others, I would not recommend using that particular translation. At least, not until all of these are addressed.
If you listen to seems like the most outspoken or at least most spoken confessional bibliologist today, Jeff Riddle, he's big on the scriptural teaching of preservation being the confessional position. I believe we are the same except for that thin sheet of paper in that the Holy Spirit leads to the truth, so like the canonicity argument, the Holy Spirit knows what His Words are and the church will know what they are. What have they agreed upon? It's what those of the confession have agreed upon is what Biddle would say, and I would say it is true believers of every generation. I think you believe the same thing. Biddle would say and we would say, the unbelieving position is the rationalistic position, excluding faith. It's also an apologetic position. Presuppositionalism.
I love your writing on this subject and I would love that future post/book.
The MEV is not a legit translation to say, here's what churches should use. I think everyone should watch the video I posted with this post on the bottom. Excellent. His thoughts echo mine exactly with duplicate experience too. The testimony in the discussion afterwards, also very good. I was listening as I was doing other things, so don't think you have to just do one thing. Work out and listen, do a mundane task and listen, listen in the car, whatever, but listen to it. I'd love to hear the critics answer to him. James White wouldn't touch him.
Pastor B. Are you still "banned" or not allowed to comment at Sharper Iron? Would you, if you could? (I feel like the MSM asking President Trump a gotcha question). Is there not a "rapprochement" for you (since Fundamentalists are seeking such from Evangelicals, ala Bauder and the four spectrums book)?
I was said I wasn't banned. I was told I had not violated the rules, just that they didn't want our type to comment at SI. This was Jason Janz at the time. I never tried to come back even with new ownership, but we've continued discussions with this format, my commenting to them here.
I'd be interested to have my "bad logic" pointed out, speaking of strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominem, and then also the spiritual devastation I've left behind. I wish they would listen to the man on the video. He says it's just the opposite, and I agree. I was in fundamentalism and it was impossible to be obedient to scripture and be one. That would still be the case with someone like TOvermiller, who took the last shot in the comment thread. He has no evidence that spiritual devastation is found in our church. If he visited, he'd see the opposite, as well as the new church we're starting here in Oregon.
I've never used the Alexandrian, Arius, material in one thing that I've written to which Bert Perry refers either. Notice they did not interact with almost anything that I said. That's why major fundamentalist leaders rarely to never show up at SharperIron either. They have to be exposed to that without moderation. Then if they fight back, they are accused of having a bad spirit.
Dave White: You are confessional when you believe and practice the confessions, not just say you're confessional. On the subject of the preservation of scripture, are you confessional? Read Richard Muller's 3rd volume in his Post Reformation Dogmatics book.
Bert Perry:
I would love to hear the inside voice of people about Bert Perry at SharperIron. Alright.
BP: To me, it says everything that Brandenburg does not see anything wrong with comparing his rhetorical opponents to Don Quixote and Gilligan.
It's just picturesque writing, Bert. I wasn't calling him, Gilligan, just going back to "You can't make me," because that's exactly what Ward said, you can't make me, and he did anyway. You can enjoy that without agreeing with my position.
BP: He also mis-labels Aaron's initial comment as such to justify his behavior.
Fallacy of speculation. Or mind-reading fallacy.
BP: It seems like KJVO activists indulge genetic fallacies to the point that they cannot even see what they are doing anymore. Sadly, you don't just turn that one off when you go from which Bible you use to other topics.
Faulty generalization fallacy. When you use such bad logic as seen in speculation and faulty generalization it will seep into your choice of Bibles or vice versa. The KJVO too is just a pejorative in this case, a red herring fallacy, judgmental language.
BP: And that's just the tip of the iceberg when you're dealing with logical fallacies by KJVO activists. There are statements without evidence ("perfect preservation" is certainly one of them–how do you prove a text is perfectly preserved if you don't have the original?)
Scripture is the proof. How do you prove your sins are gone when you haven't seen the sins or their removal?
BP: non sequiturs ("the lack of this verse proves this manuscript is deficient"), and a lot more.
I don't use that as an argument, so strawman fallacy. I never have.
BP: I would guess that this is why Mark Ward won't discuss textual criticism with Brandenburg or other KJVO activists; the arguments made simply don't proceed from reality, and as far as I can tell–Beacham and Bauder, "One bible only?"–no amount of appeals will bring them to acknowledge the realities of copying manuscripts.
BP: It's not "Darwinism" (another genetic fallacy and false statement by Brandenburg),
Look for the word Darwinism in my piece. I didn't use it. Not a logical fallacy, just a fallacy, that is, a lie. He puts "Darwinism" in quotes, and I didn't say it. I said "it parallels the 'the evolutionary model,'" which is something totally different than my calling it Darwinism. This is typical Bert, almost on every occasion he is like this and anyone dealing with him at SharperIron knows it. Enjoy that over there.
BP: but rather the simple reality that the body of manuscripts we have indicates that God preserved His Word in a plurality of manuscripts, every one different from every other ancient manuscript. Copyists make mistakes, and there is no evidence out there for a set of them who did not.
Of all the manuscripts collated, there are identical manuscripts, Bert. Look at Wilbur Pickerings book. Everyone, expect no retraction from Bert. He says a complete falsehood, but he will not retract.
On top of this, this isn't the confessional text view. Bert doesn't understand that view, which is why he isn't arguing with it.
BP: Plus–and this goes back to dcbii's comment–the significance of a variance in manuscripts must also be established in the logical conclusions of that addition or omission. If there are no theological differences to be drawn whether someone looks at a translation from the TR vs. one from the eclectic text, we're arguing about this….why?
We have two chapter in TSKT to show the theological differences. There are theological differences between the two texts. That is also a fallacy.
BP: If one passage is seen as making a huge difference, isn't one making a basic exegetical/hermeneutical mistake by basing a doctrine from a single passage, or a tiny part of the Bible?
Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Jesus said the tiny things mattered, the least of His commandments. He said that someone who taught what Bert is saying here would not be great in His kingdom. Take warning Bert.
BP: KJVO theology is not the only movement in the church that wreaks spiritual carnage, but it certainly does, and its insistence on the suppression of logic and evidence is a big reason why.
It's easy to see and prove that the uncertainty about scripture caused by multiple versions and a continuously revised text of the Bible has caused exponential problems. There are problems that come from Ruckmanism or any other belief that denies the preservation of the original text, which is where Ruckman and Bert have commonality. Neither is certain on the original language text. Bert chooses to go with a multiplicity of the manuscripts position, which I don't believe that he believes. Critical text people don't believe any manuscript has 1 Sam 13:1 and I'd guess Bert agrees with them. He would wiggle out of that too though.
"Of all the manuscripts collated, there are identical manuscripts, Bert. Look at Wilbur Pickerings book. Everyone, expect no retraction from Bert. He says a complete falsehood, but he will not retract."
I rarely agree with Bert, but this is hardly a complete falsehood. When we discussed this before, you could never show me two manuscripts that were actually the same. You had some fragments that matched up with larger texts/manuscripts, but they are clearly not identical because one ms has more words than the other. You had some manuscripts that were the same for whole books within the manuscript, but not everywhere, so clearly not identical. Identical means identical, word for word, through the whole manuscript. It would be cool to have that. I don't think it really impacts either of our positions one way or the other. And I would be happy to retract what I said, if proved otherwise, but I don't think you guys have show that.
I know we're coming back to the same discussion, but the goal posts get moved in this irrelevant point that is meant to create shock and awe. The wording of manuscripts, albeit fragments, are the same, when a comparison is made between the same text. Yes, the fragments themselves are not the same fragments, but they agree where there is overlap, which is the point, isn't it? I know it is relatively meaningless except as a debate point. You know this doesn't make any different not only to our position, but also to the one Bert would say he espouses, yet it is regularly thrown out there as a talking point.
Andy, before defending Bert's point you should look at it in context:
"God preserved His Word in a plurality of manuscripts, every one different from every other ancient manuscript. Copyists make mistakes, and there is no evidence out there for a set of them who did not."
The very sentence after he makes the claim, he draws his conclusion — copyists make mistakes. Obviously, copyists did and do make mistakes. But a different length of manuscript is not evidence of a copyist making mistakes.
If I quote John 3:16 perfectly, and you quote the same plus verse 17, neither of us made a mistake. If instead we wrote it down, neither of us made a mistake. If I wrote verse 17 down, too, and someone tore my page in half and shredded the bottom half, there's still no mistake.
In context, Bert's claim is clearly that there are discrepancies between all mss, not simply that they are of different length in some cases. For him, it's the evidence of mistakes. That demonstrates quite clearly that it's not an accurate comment, but he'll likely go on making it for years and never retract.
It's also irrelevant. Neither Kent nor anyone else that I know of claims copyists didn't make mistakes. I don't even think Ruckman did (could be wrong on that).
It's rather humorous in a sad way that Bert is so free with making accusations of being illogical when he's arguing with a straw man. It was when I began to be aware of how completely illogical the whole construct was that I lost faith (word used intentionally) in the modern "Received" view of textual criticism. I'm thankful for people like Bert who go on making the logical failings so obvious.
Unfortunately, most "believers" never go back to the theological assumptions underpinning the "religion." If they did, they'd suddenly find the theological assumptions underpinning their faith in Christ aren't compatible with those underpinning the modern textual criticism. It's not just about preservation of Scripture, that's just one doctrine.
Kent,
With all due respect, your side is the one moving the goal posts. In fact, I noticed that Thomas changed the “canard” in one of his recent posts:
“By the way, if you have heard the canard that no two Biblical NT manuscripts contain the same text, note that the video displays copies of several MSS that are identical to the letter over the course of entire Biblical books.”
I’ve never said, and I don’t recall anyone trying to make the point, that “no two Biblical NT manuscripts contain the same text.” I don’t think anyone disputes that. I said this before, but the reason I bring it up when I teach on this subject is because it helps people understand the need for textual criticism. We have a great volume of extant manuscripts, but even with that, God has not been pleased to prevent copying mistakes of his Word. Inspiration refers to the words, letters, and ideas of the original documents – those original documents were what God breathed out. Copies reflect that inspiration to the degree they correspond to the originals. By saying no two manuscripts are identical means we need to use textual criticism to weed out the false readings and deficiencies that exist among the manuscripts. I think it is important to say this because it helps set expectations. The good thing is, and I attribute this to God’s intention to preserve his word, is that it IS true that many manuscripts contain the same text and that helps confirm the true reading.
I checked out this Sharp Iron place that was mentioned in the comments above. What does a political site have to do with Bible doctrine or Bible versions? That site is nothing but a political site. I didn't see much talk of doctrine; it is all politics. I don't know a thing about them other than what I've read in a few minutes of reading their site, but they are probably the most fearful people I have come across in some time. The main purpose of the site seems to be a place to share their extreme fear of the corona virus and how they can be as fearful as possible of it. They appear to be the most effeminate group of people I have come across in a long time. They cower in fear of going to church on Sunday unless the entire congregation, all 20% of them, is dressed in hazmat suits like they are going to a nuclear power plant that just sprung a major leak. You really want to take anything a group like that says seriously?
By the way, I have lots of gay friends, so I'm not making attacks of that site for being the way they are. If they choose to live that way, who am I to judge? All I'm saying is that I wouldn't go to a Black Lives Matter meeting to get insights on knitting tips, or I wouldn't go to a dog food company to get a new camera. You know, the old apples to oranges thing. Why go to a political site for information or to debate about Biblical things?
Wait a sec, in the post above, BP is clearly quoted as stating that every manuscript is "different from every other ancient manuscript."
If the only way two MSS are different is that one is a longer fragment, but in the places where they overlap they are identical, then it is misleading to imply that the two are "different" in the sense that one of them has "mistakes" as BP wrote in the very next sentence: implying that the "difference" (actually in some cases just being different length but completely agreeing in the overlap) he is talking about implies a "mistake"! It is unmistakeable that BP links the so-called differences to existence of "mistakes" in the very next sentence, even though this is not the case.
Just because one has an extra verse that the other abruptly ends at doesn't mean they are different to the extent that one has a mistake in it… One fragment being more complete than the other does not automatically indicate a mistake in either, which was the implication by BP.
The point of no manuscript the same is supposed to bring shock and awe. For what point? Andy says there is a point, but his point is speculative at best. It doesn't come from scripture. The real point is, look God didn't preserve every Word, deal with it, and now adjust scripture to this "reality" or just ignore scripture and take your "doctrine," if it could be said to be an actual bibliology, from "science." This is "using your reasoning," which honors God, to love Him with your intellect. This reason though contradicts scripture.
The news that they have no settled text, a constantly revised text, and no belief that we have the knowledge of what the very words of God, that's what is supposed to be accepted. If you don't, then you got your view from Benjamin Wilkinson, a seventh day adventist, a lie like that. This is Bert territory too. And then going so far as TOvermiller, who says that this believe brings spiritual devastation. I would like to see the spiritual devastation, except that his authority is questioned because someone believes in preservation and he doesn't, so he thinks this is devastating, because they stop trusting him as their authority. Instead, they believe scripture, about scripture.
I guess the reader who trusts him is supposed to conclude that since every single last manuscript has "mistakes" in it according to his wording, it is better not to even bother investigating this subject any further, they're supposed to just thank Bert for filling them in about this before bothering to actually investigate such hopelessly error filled manuscripts any further; to just trust everything else he says to you as the "expert" on this subject; and rather to be allured as many have into the multiple version-only, believing/making-the-Bible-say-whatever-you-want philosophy. Because, everyone truly knows, despite any amount of posturing that Something that's so mutable as a changing text subject to revelations of Tischendorf and others, is not really worthy of respect in the first place, and the only danger to that kool-aid festival— a full scale three-ring circus—, would be, someone with the idea that it is unchanging and eternal: and that these latter day revelations are adulterations and corruptions of the Greek originals, as it mentions in 2 Corinthians 2:17 wherein the Apostle Paul speaks, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." And furthermore, His oath is an immutable thing, by Hebrews 6:17-18. Furthermore, this word shall not depart out of any generation, according to Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Matthew 24:35 etc. And furthermore this word is trustworthy according to Proverbs 30:5.
I agree. Also in his 2020 article which you linked, the variants he goes over by comparing Stephanus 1550 to Scrivener 1881 mostly evaporate upon realizing that both the KJV and Scrivener also followed Beza 1598 in those places. I wonder why he chose to compare with Stephanus 1550 instead, except to cover up those tracks. We can immediately show that Matthew 21:7, Mark 9:40, 1 Timothy 1:4 (interesting spelling difference), also 2 Cor. 11:10, Heb. 9:1, James 5:12, Revelation 7:10, 1 John 2:23 (the most notably) and Revelation 11:2, over half of the specific places he mentioned, are shown to be the same in Beza 1598 as they are in KJV, which is where they came from.
As for the others, most of them arise from proper understanding of the English word definition, which in some cases led Scrivener to back-translate into a different Greek word, showing perhaps some of the potential misgivings that can result by reverse translation. That's one reason I agree with your conclusion that demanding people reduce to this is more of a trap to be laid than anything. The sole exception he raised in Philemon v.7, which, you can find, has an ancient precedent for saying χαρὰν in the footnotes here: http://images.csntm.org/PublishedWorks/JohnMillNovumTestamentum1707/Mill_NovumTestamentum_1707_0326a.jpg
If things like the spelling of the word Beelzebub proves to be the ultimate stumblingblock for Ward, it only shows for us that the level of accuracy elsewhere is such, that this was the strongest objection to be raised. I think that speaks to the overall level of agreement that must exist if the most energetic argument against it amounts to this.
The distinction between the two opposed positions, the true dividing line, is whether we are looking at 1) a logarithmically decreasing number of variants going from Erasmus 1516 to Stephanus 1550 then to Beza and Elzevir, (Also the Nuremburg Polyglot 1599), later to Mill's 1707 Novum Testamentum, and arriving at certainty, where no one thought there was any question what the text said, and where the variants left over are interesting perhaps yet absolutely inconsequential (this is real textual criticism); and 2) an exponentially increasing number of variants over time due to lower and higher criticism in the 19th century and the introduction of increasing numbers of apocryphal source manuscripts, and from that, even more modern amalgamations (i.e. eclectic texts, easily demonstrated by comparison between modern versions), and from these, yet even more modern translations with their own idiosyncratic and arbitrary word preferences (i.e. gender neutral, vague redefinitions of words at will). The question is whether we have been (rightly) dividing and conquering the uncertainty that remains over all this time, or whether they have been right in deliberately multiplying uncertainty without any bounds starting in the 19th century with the philosophy of relativism and higher criticism. It's clear that this self-referential consensus of theirs only began to shift to the latter view of multiplying uncertainty only somewhere around the late 19th century. If you go to any Biblical scholarship before this turning point, you don't see this. The KJV translators were approaching a more absolute degree of accuracy, not multiplying new variations.
Could it be that the only reason why you or I for that matter, wouldn't be considered as holding to the "confessional" text view is because we are not "confessing" Baptists? I am okay without being confessional, although it is something else when you read that the Westminster divines held to a pure text which we all know is the TR. Where there critical texts already available in their time? Methinks so. Only they didn't receive those as authentic copies. Anyway, Dr. Ward has shifted the aurguments now, for sure. The answers from your previous articles seem more than adequate. Thank you.
Andrew,
I agree.
Bill,
What about the London Baptist Confession? I also believe that confessions like the Schleitheim Confession, a Baptist Confession, 16th century, isn't intended to stand alone, but in agreement with other confessions, just showing the differences.
The historical statements are confessional. The question is, what did the church believe? They only believed what we believe.
SharperIron Readers,
I'm going to answer your questions here.
For Bert first, look up at Aaron's comment (old, tired) — that is ad hominem. Let's be consistent.
Now to Aaron, scripture is truth. It is the pure mother's milk. I'm saying start with scriptural presuppositions and then look what fulfills those. Reason untethered to scripture is rationalism. Where do we get all of our Christian doctrine? From scripture, which is true science.
Back to Bert, show one ad hominem argument I used. Using colorful language to make the post more interesting isn't ad hominem. I'm open to your showing one time I took an ad hominem argument. Even on his saying he would not engage in textual arguments on this issue, I'm just calling him on it. He said it. I gave the quote, and he said it more than once.
Ron Bean, I have no problem with other translations from the same text, so you can retract that. Mark Ward himself has written about that. Ron, you should ask though if the Geneva, as your example, is translated from the identical text. Is it? It was translated from the TR, but not identical words.
Kent:
Do you know if there is any collective impetus among the "confessional" guys to do a new translation based on Scrivener's TR (or another, for that matter)? That is, a group of Baptist churches which band together to fashion a new translation using the Greek text they feel contains the original words? I know you had reservations about the MEV because it didn't come from churches. I was just curious. There may not be any such impetus, but I was wondering. I would think you, Bro. Ross and other likeminded folks would consider collaborating on this. It'd be a worthy project. Of course, it'd take a LONG TIME!
Tyler,
It seems that the only people who want an update of the KJV aren't going to use it anyway. I would be open and eager for you to show me one TR supporting person, confessional guy, who wants another translation of the same text. I have a lot to do and this would be very low for me, because I have not seen the KJV as a detriment. I read commentaries that will attack the KJV translation, treating it like having done a real whopper to Christianity with a particular translation, and I just don't see it, when they do that. It most often like someone who is propping up his own abilities related to translation. Very often they misrepresent what the translators were even doing. I see the modern versions doing far more damage and the continuous revisions to the original language text to do great, great damage. Things have not gotten better. Why should we spend an abundance of time to do something that won't make any of the detractors happy anyway? I'm fine with the KJV as my English translation.
If we translate the TR into French, and we say that is the Bible, the French translation, then we have debunked what Ron Bean said. But he won't retract. It's just a cheap shot from an armchair theologian.
Bill, Kent, I read Mark Ward to be saying that the "confessional" people have a better reason for their position because they affirm a confession as representing their faith / church, and so they believe they should use the text/Bible affirmed by the "confession". They can discard textual criticism and all of this discussion by saying, "We affirm the Westminster (or London Baptist, or whatever) confession, so of course we use the TR / KJV."
So no, you guys aren't "confessional." But you also aren't "mainstream" as he defines it, which is essentially what Kent calls "English preservationist."
Someday I will write a book on this, well, maybe a blog post. I'll talk about:
"English preservation" Bibliologists
"Confessional" Bibliologists (I'll even give Mark Ward credit for the term)
"Tongues Translationist" Bibliologists (Ruckman's view, actually I already wrote that blog post)
"Man, There's a Lot of Manuscripts, Hope we Got the Right Ones, but We'll Change Our Mind with the Next Discovery Anyway" Bibliologists
"Why Don't We Start With Scripture and See Where it Takes Us" Bibliologists
Of course, some in that last category might end up with differing conclusions on the TR, but they certainly won't end up at the CT.
The MEV has some interesting concerns surrounding it that it shares with many of the more common, eclectic modern translations. For instance, it changes John 5:39 in line with them from imperative "Search" to indicative "You search". In line with the NASB and ESV in Philippians 2:6, the MEV changes "thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."
The MEV also changes both Titus 3:10 and Jude v.19 to say "cause divisions" rather than "separate themselves" a key distinction, since the MEV translation of these two verses both clashes with Luke 12:51, where he said he came to give division.
While the MEV does not change "them" to "us" in Psalm 12:7, it does elect to remove the words "for ever" from the same verse for some reason.
The same MEV translation also change "corrupt" to "peddle" in 2 Corinthians 2:17, another alteration in common with certain modern versions. Micah 5:2 in the MEV the phrase "from everlasting" is reduced to "from ancient days"
Also in Genesis 22:17, "his" is changed to the plural "theirs" despite what Paul says specifically about this very thing in Galatians 3:16. Changing it to the plural kind of defeats the entire purpose of Paul's writing. The MEV also, in addition, changes Nahum 2:2 to say the very opposite of what it normally says, as "hath turned away" is changed to "is restoring the prominence of."
For these concerns as well as others, I would not recommend using that particular translation. At least, not until all of these are addressed.
Jon,
If you listen to seems like the most outspoken or at least most spoken confessional bibliologist today, Jeff Riddle, he's big on the scriptural teaching of preservation being the confessional position. I believe we are the same except for that thin sheet of paper in that the Holy Spirit leads to the truth, so like the canonicity argument, the Holy Spirit knows what His Words are and the church will know what they are. What have they agreed upon? It's what those of the confession have agreed upon is what Biddle would say, and I would say it is true believers of every generation. I think you believe the same thing. Biddle would say and we would say, the unbelieving position is the rationalistic position, excluding faith. It's also an apologetic position. Presuppositionalism.
I love your writing on this subject and I would love that future post/book.
Anonymous,
The MEV is not a legit translation to say, here's what churches should use. I think everyone should watch the video I posted with this post on the bottom. Excellent. His thoughts echo mine exactly with duplicate experience too. The testimony in the discussion afterwards, also very good. I was listening as I was doing other things, so don't think you have to just do one thing. Work out and listen, do a mundane task and listen, listen in the car, whatever, but listen to it. I'd love to hear the critics answer to him. James White wouldn't touch him.
Pastor B. Are you still "banned" or not allowed to comment at Sharper Iron? Would you, if you could? (I feel like the MSM asking President Trump a gotcha question). Is there not a "rapprochement" for you (since Fundamentalists are seeking such from Evangelicals, ala Bauder and the four spectrums book)?
Hi Bill,
I was said I wasn't banned. I was told I had not violated the rules, just that they didn't want our type to comment at SI. This was Jason Janz at the time. I never tried to come back even with new ownership, but we've continued discussions with this format, my commenting to them here.
I'd be interested to have my "bad logic" pointed out, speaking of strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominem, and then also the spiritual devastation I've left behind. I wish they would listen to the man on the video. He says it's just the opposite, and I agree. I was in fundamentalism and it was impossible to be obedient to scripture and be one. That would still be the case with someone like TOvermiller, who took the last shot in the comment thread. He has no evidence that spiritual devastation is found in our church. If he visited, he'd see the opposite, as well as the new church we're starting here in Oregon.
I've never used the Alexandrian, Arius, material in one thing that I've written to which Bert Perry refers either. Notice they did not interact with almost anything that I said. That's why major fundamentalist leaders rarely to never show up at SharperIron either. They have to be exposed to that without moderation. Then if they fight back, they are accused of having a bad spirit.
SharperIron Readers,
Dave White: You are confessional when you believe and practice the confessions, not just say you're confessional. On the subject of the preservation of scripture, are you confessional? Read Richard Muller's 3rd volume in his Post Reformation Dogmatics book.
Bert Perry:
I would love to hear the inside voice of people about Bert Perry at SharperIron. Alright.
BP: To me, it says everything that Brandenburg does not see anything wrong with comparing his rhetorical opponents to Don Quixote and Gilligan.
It's just picturesque writing, Bert. I wasn't calling him, Gilligan, just going back to "You can't make me," because that's exactly what Ward said, you can't make me, and he did anyway. You can enjoy that without agreeing with my position.
BP: He also mis-labels Aaron's initial comment as such to justify his behavior.
Fallacy of speculation. Or mind-reading fallacy.
BP: It seems like KJVO activists indulge genetic fallacies to the point that they cannot even see what they are doing anymore. Sadly, you don't just turn that one off when you go from which Bible you use to other topics.
Faulty generalization fallacy. When you use such bad logic as seen in speculation and faulty generalization it will seep into your choice of Bibles or vice versa. The KJVO too is just a pejorative in this case, a red herring fallacy, judgmental language.
BP: And that's just the tip of the iceberg when you're dealing with logical fallacies by KJVO activists. There are statements without evidence ("perfect preservation" is certainly one of them–how do you prove a text is perfectly preserved if you don't have the original?)
Scripture is the proof. How do you prove your sins are gone when you haven't seen the sins or their removal?
BP: non sequiturs ("the lack of this verse proves this manuscript is deficient"), and a lot more.
I don't use that as an argument, so strawman fallacy. I never have.
BP: I would guess that this is why Mark Ward won't discuss textual criticism with Brandenburg or other KJVO activists; the arguments made simply don't proceed from reality, and as far as I can tell–Beacham and Bauder, "One bible only?"–no amount of appeals will bring them to acknowledge the realities of copying manuscripts.
Muslim apologists agree.
Bert Part Two
BP: It's not "Darwinism" (another genetic fallacy and false statement by Brandenburg),
Look for the word Darwinism in my piece. I didn't use it. Not a logical fallacy, just a fallacy, that is, a lie. He puts "Darwinism" in quotes, and I didn't say it. I said "it parallels the 'the evolutionary model,'" which is something totally different than my calling it Darwinism. This is typical Bert, almost on every occasion he is like this and anyone dealing with him at SharperIron knows it. Enjoy that over there.
BP: but rather the simple reality that the body of manuscripts we have indicates that God preserved His Word in a plurality of manuscripts, every one different from every other ancient manuscript. Copyists make mistakes, and there is no evidence out there for a set of them who did not.
Of all the manuscripts collated, there are identical manuscripts, Bert. Look at Wilbur Pickerings book. Everyone, expect no retraction from Bert. He says a complete falsehood, but he will not retract.
On top of this, this isn't the confessional text view. Bert doesn't understand that view, which is why he isn't arguing with it.
BP: Plus–and this goes back to dcbii's comment–the significance of a variance in manuscripts must also be established in the logical conclusions of that addition or omission. If there are no theological differences to be drawn whether someone looks at a translation from the TR vs. one from the eclectic text, we're arguing about this….why?
We have two chapter in TSKT to show the theological differences. There are theological differences between the two texts. That is also a fallacy.
BP: If one passage is seen as making a huge difference, isn't one making a basic exegetical/hermeneutical mistake by basing a doctrine from a single passage, or a tiny part of the Bible?
Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Jesus said the tiny things mattered, the least of His commandments. He said that someone who taught what Bert is saying here would not be great in His kingdom. Take warning Bert.
BP: KJVO theology is not the only movement in the church that wreaks spiritual carnage, but it certainly does, and its insistence on the suppression of logic and evidence is a big reason why.
It's easy to see and prove that the uncertainty about scripture caused by multiple versions and a continuously revised text of the Bible has caused exponential problems. There are problems that come from Ruckmanism or any other belief that denies the preservation of the original text, which is where Ruckman and Bert have commonality. Neither is certain on the original language text. Bert chooses to go with a multiplicity of the manuscripts position, which I don't believe that he believes. Critical text people don't believe any manuscript has 1 Sam 13:1 and I'd guess Bert agrees with them. He would wiggle out of that too though.
"Of all the manuscripts collated, there are identical manuscripts, Bert. Look at Wilbur Pickerings book. Everyone, expect no retraction from Bert. He says a complete falsehood, but he will not retract."
I rarely agree with Bert, but this is hardly a complete falsehood. When we discussed this before, you could never show me two manuscripts that were actually the same. You had some fragments that matched up with larger texts/manuscripts, but they are clearly not identical because one ms has more words than the other. You had some manuscripts that were the same for whole books within the manuscript, but not everywhere, so clearly not identical. Identical means identical, word for word, through the whole manuscript. It would be cool to have that. I don't think it really impacts either of our positions one way or the other. And I would be happy to retract what I said, if proved otherwise, but I don't think you guys have show that.
Andy,
I know we're coming back to the same discussion, but the goal posts get moved in this irrelevant point that is meant to create shock and awe. The wording of manuscripts, albeit fragments, are the same, when a comparison is made between the same text. Yes, the fragments themselves are not the same fragments, but they agree where there is overlap, which is the point, isn't it? I know it is relatively meaningless except as a debate point. You know this doesn't make any different not only to our position, but also to the one Bert would say he espouses, yet it is regularly thrown out there as a talking point.
Thanks for dropping by.
Andy, before defending Bert's point you should look at it in context:
"God preserved His Word in a plurality of manuscripts, every one different from every other ancient manuscript. Copyists make mistakes, and there is no evidence out there for a set of them who did not."
The very sentence after he makes the claim, he draws his conclusion — copyists make mistakes. Obviously, copyists did and do make mistakes. But a different length of manuscript is not evidence of a copyist making mistakes.
If I quote John 3:16 perfectly, and you quote the same plus verse 17, neither of us made a mistake. If instead we wrote it down, neither of us made a mistake. If I wrote verse 17 down, too, and someone tore my page in half and shredded the bottom half, there's still no mistake.
In context, Bert's claim is clearly that there are discrepancies between all mss, not simply that they are of different length in some cases. For him, it's the evidence of mistakes. That demonstrates quite clearly that it's not an accurate comment, but he'll likely go on making it for years and never retract.
It's also irrelevant. Neither Kent nor anyone else that I know of claims copyists didn't make mistakes. I don't even think Ruckman did (could be wrong on that).
It's rather humorous in a sad way that Bert is so free with making accusations of being illogical when he's arguing with a straw man. It was when I began to be aware of how completely illogical the whole construct was that I lost faith (word used intentionally) in the modern "Received" view of textual criticism. I'm thankful for people like Bert who go on making the logical failings so obvious.
Unfortunately, most "believers" never go back to the theological assumptions underpinning the "religion." If they did, they'd suddenly find the theological assumptions underpinning their faith in Christ aren't compatible with those underpinning the modern textual criticism. It's not just about preservation of Scripture, that's just one doctrine.
Kent,
With all due respect, your side is the one moving the goal posts. In fact, I noticed that Thomas changed the “canard” in one of his recent posts:
“By the way, if you have heard the canard that no two Biblical NT manuscripts contain the same text, note that the video displays copies of several MSS that are identical to the letter over the course of entire Biblical books.”
I’ve never said, and I don’t recall anyone trying to make the point, that “no two Biblical NT manuscripts contain the same text.” I don’t think anyone disputes that. I said this before, but the reason I bring it up when I teach on this subject is because it helps people understand the need for textual criticism. We have a great volume of extant manuscripts, but even with that, God has not been pleased to prevent copying mistakes of his Word. Inspiration refers to the words, letters, and ideas of the original documents – those original documents were what God breathed out. Copies reflect that inspiration to the degree they correspond to the originals. By saying no two manuscripts are identical means we need to use textual criticism to weed out the false readings and deficiencies that exist among the manuscripts. I think it is important to say this because it helps set expectations. The good thing is, and I attribute this to God’s intention to preserve his word, is that it IS true that many manuscripts contain the same text and that helps confirm the true reading.
But I know you disagree…
Andy
I checked out this Sharp Iron place that was mentioned in the comments above. What does a political site have to do with Bible doctrine or Bible versions? That site is nothing but a political site. I didn't see much talk of doctrine; it is all politics. I don't know a thing about them other than what I've read in a few minutes of reading their site, but they are probably the most fearful people I have come across in some time. The main purpose of the site seems to be a place to share their extreme fear of the corona virus and how they can be as fearful as possible of it. They appear to be the most effeminate group of people I have come across in a long time. They cower in fear of going to church on Sunday unless the entire congregation, all 20% of them, is dressed in hazmat suits like they are going to a nuclear power plant that just sprung a major leak. You really want to take anything a group like that says seriously?
By the way, I have lots of gay friends, so I'm not making attacks of that site for being the way they are. If they choose to live that way, who am I to judge? All I'm saying is that I wouldn't go to a Black Lives Matter meeting to get insights on knitting tips, or I wouldn't go to a dog food company to get a new camera. You know, the old apples to oranges thing. Why go to a political site for information or to debate about Biblical things?
Wait a sec, in the post above, BP is clearly quoted as stating that every manuscript is "different from every other ancient manuscript."
If the only way two MSS are different is that one is a longer fragment, but in the places where they overlap they are identical, then it is misleading to imply that the two are "different" in the sense that one of them has "mistakes" as BP wrote in the very next sentence: implying that the "difference" (actually in some cases just being different length but completely agreeing in the overlap) he is talking about implies a "mistake"! It is unmistakeable that BP links the so-called differences to existence of "mistakes" in the very next sentence, even though this is not the case.
Just because one has an extra verse that the other abruptly ends at doesn't mean they are different to the extent that one has a mistake in it… One fragment being more complete than the other does not automatically indicate a mistake in either, which was the implication by BP.
Anonymous,
Well said.
The point of no manuscript the same is supposed to bring shock and awe. For what point? Andy says there is a point, but his point is speculative at best. It doesn't come from scripture. The real point is, look God didn't preserve every Word, deal with it, and now adjust scripture to this "reality" or just ignore scripture and take your "doctrine," if it could be said to be an actual bibliology, from "science." This is "using your reasoning," which honors God, to love Him with your intellect. This reason though contradicts scripture.
The news that they have no settled text, a constantly revised text, and no belief that we have the knowledge of what the very words of God, that's what is supposed to be accepted. If you don't, then you got your view from Benjamin Wilkinson, a seventh day adventist, a lie like that. This is Bert territory too. And then going so far as TOvermiller, who says that this believe brings spiritual devastation. I would like to see the spiritual devastation, except that his authority is questioned because someone believes in preservation and he doesn't, so he thinks this is devastating, because they stop trusting him as their authority. Instead, they believe scripture, about scripture.
I guess the reader who trusts him is supposed to conclude that since every single last manuscript has "mistakes" in it according to his wording, it is better not to even bother investigating this subject any further, they're supposed to just thank Bert for filling them in about this before bothering to actually investigate such hopelessly error filled manuscripts any further; to just trust everything else he says to you as the "expert" on this subject; and rather to be allured as many have into the multiple version-only, believing/making-the-Bible-say-whatever-you-want philosophy. Because, everyone truly knows, despite any amount of posturing that Something that's so mutable as a changing text subject to revelations of Tischendorf and others, is not really worthy of respect in the first place, and the only danger to that kool-aid festival— a full scale three-ring circus—, would be, someone with the idea that it is unchanging and eternal: and that these latter day revelations are adulterations and corruptions of the Greek originals, as it mentions in 2 Corinthians 2:17 wherein the Apostle Paul speaks, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." And furthermore, His oath is an immutable thing, by Hebrews 6:17-18. Furthermore, this word shall not depart out of any generation, according to Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Matthew 24:35 etc. And furthermore this word is trustworthy according to Proverbs 30:5.