Quote:
Originally Posted by solabiblia
We all agree that the witness of the Biblical texts shows remarkable tenacity.
|
There is a vast difference between believing that the Word of God has been generally preserved in a vast number of copies (and translations), all of which differ slightly one to another, as opposed to those who believe that while God has been able to keep His Word, He has also been able to providentially manifest it exactly correct in one particular version. Therefore, we all do not agree upon "all".
Quote:
Originally Posted by solabiblia
If you were to approach the subject without presuppositions, would you not conclude that the copyists would be more likely to expand the text than to delete passages?
|
All objective data is interpreted. We always approach the subject with presuppositions, but if our starting point is belief in the Scripture itself, and we then apply Scripturally-consistent scientific and natural methods to interpret how the Scripture has come to us, we are going to get to correct conclusions, as opposed to a view which does not start with Scripture being in one's hand, but relagates truth to some ancient age when it was first inspired (therefore deemphasising the truth of what is in our hand).
Quote:
Originally Posted by solabiblia
What if you were not a KJO? Would you still be able to assert that no insertions took place, only deletions? How would you defend such a position?
|
The problem is more primary. If you are not KJBO, you do not have any Scripture in your hand which you can rely upon to begin with. Once you start from Receiving God's Providentially Appointed Word, you then believe what the Scripture says about itself. You then understand about the originals, about copies and about history in line with that. Finally, you then examine whether or not deletions or additions have taken place in various texts, and you judge so, not only on the basis of scientific hypotheses (e.g. dittography, aural conditioning, etc.) but also on the firm foundation that you actually have the Word of God which claims to be the Word indeed, and incorrupt. In this self-authenticating reasoning, you will find that the King James Bible always matches up exactly, and that there are no unresolvable problems.
If you start with natural reasoning only, and start from a modern version in your hand (which was made by natural-only reasoning), your whole inquiry will collapse and fail, and you will come to the unbelieving conclusion that the King James Bible suffers from deletions and additions.
Of course, the KJBO view is smeared as "circular reasoning" (rather than as a self-evident truth), but the modern view is just as "circular", viz., 1. error exists, and all things are subject to error. 2. this is a Bible which exists, and error is exhibited in the past in copies, and we observe errors being made in the present. 3. therefore all Bibles are to some degree erroneous.
You can start with a KJB in your hand and yet have the modernist naturalistic thinking, and come to the wrong conclusions. Unless you view that God is able to work despite error, and is able to THWART error in history, you will always come to the wrong conclusions in this matter.
The Puritan view is that God is able to work against error in history, and would do so by manifesting truth. The King James Bible, that Bible which was made the official Puritan Bible in the 1650s, is true: "But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." (Daniel 7:26).