After having it pointed out to me, and having researched your publications I have some deep concerns regarding your and and Wilbur Pickering's stance with respect to the doctrines of inerrancy and preservation of Scripture.
"We can see that the accepted doctrine of the Protestant Church was that God kept His Scripture pure in all ages. That is how preservation was defined. Now before we go much further, let’s look at what the word "pure" means. To be pure is to be complete, without fault, free of foreign elements.1 This gives us an excellent idea of what the Westminster Divines were telling us in this passage of the Confession. They believed that the Scriptures in their original languages were pure and perfect in the apographs (copies), not solely in the autographs."
"How great is the accuracy? I’ve heard scholars suggest numbers from 98% to over 99% (Bruce Metzger et al), but never 100%. The statement of faith also shows that they look on the apographs as being the Word of God only to the extent that they represent the original. This is an interesting statement, as the originals do not exist. Logically speaking, since we do not have the originals this statement of faith confirms a belief that they do not know to what extent the Scriptures that we have are the Word of God since it is impossible for them to see how closely they represent the original."
Dr. Pickering, member of the TNARS oversight board writes:
"In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the Textus Receptus were the best available until 1979 and 1982. In 1979 Thomas Nelson Publishers brought out the New Testament of the NKJV, and in 1982 a critical edition of the Traditional Text (Majority, "Byzantine")—in it we have an excellent interim Greek Text to use until the full and final story can be told."
Also in his book available online, Dr. Pickering writes:
"So, how does my belief that God has preserved the N.T. text square with the evidence? I see in the Traditional Text ("Byzantine") both the result and the proof of that preservation."
Lastly, the TNARs Textual Criticism course here seems to strongly favor the King James translation of the Bible.
From review of these published materials, it appears to me that you and Dr. Pickering are advocating a TR only position, one very close to KJOnlysism. I would like to understand the extent to which your and Dr. Pickering's views are adopted by TNARS. Are TNARS students required to adopt the positions you and Dr. Pickering have espoused?
I recognize that in an academic setting students should be exposed to a wide variety of views, including very controversial ones. I applaud these approaches as long as no imposition is placed on the student requiring the student to assent to views that would be considered outside the bounds of commonly accepted views. Given that the leadership of TNARS has some very specific views with respect to Textual Criticism that I and others believe are at odds with commonly accepted understandings of Bible translation, I would appreciate your insights with respect to my concerns.
Is it the official position of TNARS that the only proper translation of the Bible is one based upon the TR?
The issues raised in the materials AMR cited by way of links are rather more technically complex than can be answered by "best choice" in the RTI verse pop-ups selection. They deal with "majority text,""textus receptus,""apographa perfection," and approved text critical methodology as suggested in the TNARS Textual Criticism course. And they are in part further prompted by the work of Dr. Pickering, a member of the TNARS board, which work AMR cited by on-line link. If you have not done so, I urge you to read the linked materials carefully in order to get a deep grasp of the crucial fundamental issues involved.
The issues raised in the materials AMR cited by way of links are rather more technically complex than can be answered by "best choice" in the RTI verse pop-ups selection. They deal with "majority text,""textus receptus,""apographa perfection," and approved text critical methodology as suggested in the TNARS Textual Criticism course. And they are in part further prompted by the work of Dr. Pickering, a member of the TNARS board, which work AMR cited by on-line link. If you have not done so, I urge you to read the linked materials carefully in order to get a deep grasp of the crucial fundamental issues involved.
In Christ
Lyncx
Thanks - I am somewhat familiar with the controversy and will try and dig deeper, just thinking, in my uncomplicated manner, that someone would have to fairly inconsistent or not very self-aware to make this statement if they are KJVO. _________________ Blessings,
As I indicated in my post, I have no issue, indeed I welcome, exposing students of theology to radical departures from orthodoxy. Clearly I disagree with the published positions of Drs. Bray and Pickering. I am only interested in how far their views permeate TNARS and the expectations upon its students, given that we have partnered with TNARS to host their discussion forums. RTI is presently "my baby" that I want to nurture as a forum that is unashamedly Reformed in its content. I don't want RTI to become an object of ridicule or embarrassment if it has aligned with an institution that requires its students to submit to a position that I (and others) feel is contrary to acceptable standards of textual criticism.
I have every confidence that Dr. Bray will set my concerns to rest and we can move past this issue amicably.
As I indicated in my post, I have no issue, indeed I welcome, exposing students of theology to radical departures from orthodoxy. Clearly I disagree with the published positions of Drs. Bray and Pickering. I am only interested in how far their views permeate TNARS and the expectations upon its students, given that we have partnered with TNARS to host their discussion forums. RTI is presently "my baby" that I want to nurture as a forum that is unashamedly Reformed in its content. I don't want RTI to become an object of ridicule or embarrassment if it has aligned with an institution that requires its students to submit to a position that I (and others) feel is contrary to acceptable standards of textual criticism.
I have every confidence that Dr. Bray will set my concerns to rest and we can move past this issue amicably.
AMR
Thanks, gentlemen - again, not trying to answer for Dr. Bray, nor delving deeply into the technical issues, as I am no textual critic. I am, however, trained to tie seemingly unrelated information together into meaningful data and this seemed like a "low hanging fruit".
Patrick, I certainly understand and resonate with your position concerning the the alliance.
With that, I humbly withdraw from the conversation. _________________ Blessings,
I suppose I should share some of my views on this topic, which I will state up front that some here will disagree with in part or in whole.
Let's first clarify the distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy.
Inerrancy relates to the truth contained in a statement.
Inspiration relates to the Scriptures' wording.
Infallibility relates to the truth of any of the teaching of the Scriptures.
Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.
2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
Should we translate this verse “every inspired Scripture is also profitable” with the possible implication that some Scripture is not inspired, or should we translate it “every Scripture is inspired and profitable,” in which case the inspiration of Scripture is directly asserted? My conclusion was that “inspired” in 2 Timothy 3.16 was indeed a predicate adjective. A predicate adjective would be translated as an assertion (“every Scripture is inspired”) while an attributive adjective would be translated as a qualification or assumption (“every inspired Scripture”).
If something is God-breathed (theopnuestos), and God is perfect, then what He has delivered is also perfect. Inspiration is not just a stirring of the mind of the author, it was the very means by which the author's wrote, and accurately wrote, exactly what God wanted written.
2 Peter 1:20-21: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
The authors were supernaturally influenced, and divinely superintended for the exact words that they used. The authors clearly wanted to communicate God's messages to His creation, e.g., "I have put my words in your mouth (Jeremiah 1:9), "Thus says the Lord" (Exodus 4:22), "The word of the Lord came to him" (Genesis 15:4), and many,many more.
There are literally thousands of occurrences in the OT clearly stating that the explicit words of God are being communicated. Moreover, God certainly wanted to preserve His own words, for in many places we find Him saying things like, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.'" ( Exodus 17:14)
It is also evident that Christ treated the Scriptures as the very words of God, quoting them often and reminding others, “is it not written”.
Paul gave Christ and the Spirit the credit for his teachings:
…since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. (2 Corinthians 13:3)
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13)
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37)
For me, from the above, if God is speaking, and God is not prone to error, then inerrancy is an inevitable deduction from the teaching of Scripture concerning its inspiration.
Copies of Scripture can certainly be inerrant. For example, we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist. It has just not happened yet.
I take issue with desperate attempts to link inspiration of Scripture with preservation and claims that if a person denies one they have denied the other.
The Evangelical Theological Society affirms: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
So, when I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.
The bottom line is that the viable textual variants that exist, i.e., the variants that may legitimately represent the original wording, in many manuscripts we have in our possession do not jeopardize any salvific doctrine.
The infallibility of the Scriptures is not in doubt by any evangelical Christian. The inerrancy of the original manuscripts is also believed by the same. We possess 99% of the original text of these manuscripts, but not the manuscripts themselves. The remaining 1% are obvious transcription errors that have zero impact on doctrinal truths. In other words there is no error in all that the Bible teaches (including history and science), and is thus the infallible rule and final authority for all believers.
If you receive a telegram stating: "You ha#e w#n a mil#ion dollars!", I am quite certain you are able to grasp the truth of the message, despite its obvious errors. Likewise the obvious transcription errors in Scripture do not obscure the infallible truths contained therein.
So let me be clear one more time by saying the Bible we all possess is God's infallible and inerrant word as long as it has been copied accurately. Has it been? YES! It has been copied so accurately as to assure us that none of the Bible's essential messages have been lost. See, for example, A General Introduction to the Bible, N. Geisler and W. Nix.
Some KJVonlists (Peter Ruckman) have went so far as to claim that the original Greek and Hebrew should be changed to reflect the KJV. This is an example of the KJVonlist fanaticism that all should reject. _________________
I once asked a person (online ID: brandplucked) to make his case in support of KJVOnlism. Below is the response in its entirety.
-------------------BEGIN QUOTE----------------------------
I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.
"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16
The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.
See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:
If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.
I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/archive/2006/04/12/694.aspx
For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Interesting RTI Poll
Who is "the seed" of the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15
