View Single Post
Old 05-30-2009, 02:01 PM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754

Originally Posted by Greektim View Post
I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant. I can also say that I believe the original words and meaning from the originals (I know you hate the originals only view) can be determined from the extant mss data we have. As to what version or combo of versions (what are you referring to as a version?) I am not convinced that the UBS or NA, MT, TR, Byzantine text and so on are perfect. I don't know that we have a Greek compilation of the NT that is perfect in that it reflects 100% the original reading. But that doesn't bother me b/c with the mss data we have, I feel confident that it is easy to determine. But I will also say that I don't believe the W&H text contradicts the TR. It differs textually but it does not contradict (i.e. blatantly teach something opposite).

I should probably shut up for now b/c I know I am going to be lambasted for stating my views. If you want to discuss this in depth (which I am all for), I would ask that we either correspond through email or go to a neutral territory for discussion. Brother Tim and I have tried that before.

At this point, It would help to understand what we mean by inerrant. Is it simply the fact that the text does not contradict itself, science, history, geography, theology, etc...? Or is it something more?

PS - yes I agree that the neo-ortho view is very wrong. I believe that inspiration goes down past the word and to the very letter written (jot and tittle refer to Hebrew letters or markings of letters that distinguish one letter from another; i.e. the KJV translators imply the superiority of the Hebrew language ; doh Tim shut up!)
Tim, thank you for replying to me. I have never debated you or lambasted you, have I? I apologize if you even think I have done either or been impolite to you in any way. But you just said only the original manuscripts are inspired and that all that remains inspired is Barth's theory. Is there a difference between "meaning" and "message"? I don't see one. Is there a difference?

Hey, if I lambaste you or you feel picked on by me don't respond. Brother I know how things can degenerate in even a simple discussion of an inflammatory topic, go read the water baptism thread and see how it has been made into a schoolground slapfight. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, it was in vain. Anyway, thanks for the response.

Grace and peace