jriccitelli wrote:You have argued ‘well the bible doesn’t speak of the bible being preserved in Greek, Hebrew, or in some other ‘specific’ form either’. You are correct, God doesn’t specify ‘one’ sort of translation or language Greek, Hebrew, or English. God promised the preservation of his Word – that’s all the specifics He gave.
So while the Bible neither says "English is it" nor "Greek is it", it does indicate that despite the existence of His word in various languages, that there should be knowledge of what His Word actually says/is. Therefore, ultimately, in time, there must be one exemplar.
jriccitelli wrote:You have argued that Gods Word is not trustworthy because of variations in some texts.
I most certainly have NOT argued that. I have argued that God's Word has come through time and is present, regardless of variations. The reality is that a bad Latin translation might have been all that someone had in 800 AD. This, of course, is the Word of God. The Word of God is not in the measure of its inaccuracy, but in the measure of God's grace to ensure its sufficiency.
The problem is that today, modernism is pointing to the variations, and then attempting, through a human-based effort, to so-called "remedy" the problem, which, in effect, makes the entire Bible suspect for the enshrining of the principle that error has prevailed and continues to do so, as if modern criticism was lately the best solution to a long and ultimately unresolvable problem.
jriccitelli wrote:Do you do understand this well-known example of comparing biblical texts, when differences occur:
Say there are 6 manuscripts,
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
If he foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
If the foundations be destroyed, when can the righteous go?
If the foundations be destroyed, where can the righteous go?
If the foundations not be changed, what can the righteous do?
This is how manuscripts may vary, do you understand that this is not a major cause for worry, rather the ‘more’ manuscripts you have the easier it is to verify the original intent? (And that the multiple manuscripts are the best way of verifying the better translations, or copies)
A brilliant piece of human reasoning. Instead of going to the "earliest" "most reliable" copies, now you want to turn to a majority.
I do not doubt that God has given man a mind to use in this way, but as soon as you put your method above the idea that God actually is providing the Word, you have created a falsehood.
This reduces God's truth to trawling through extant copies in the original languages, as if the sum of present knowledge will indicate a higher percentage of truth. This, while perhaps correct broadly, should not be the guiding principle of the matter. And by making this human exercise the way by which the nearest to possibly accurate can be obtained, it instantly assumes that there can never be a fully accurate copy, for that infinite unknowns exist, including the fact that we are restricted to available and incomplete copies, and that early copies are lost.
In other words, it is a backwards looking principle of attempting to ascertain from available data what Paul REALLY wrote, rather than a method of relying that God has brought about the right conditions and circumstances in time for proper reception of what Paul really wrote, and that we have it today.
According to this same principle of going to the multiple, we should have a means for resolving correct doctrine, and that democracy is the form of the Millennial government... but since this relying upon the multiple is flawed, so likewise its conclusion.
