Hi Steve,
Quote:
|
And one can see how this could be his reasoning to undo the import of the Tyndale-King James Bible differences, even if Brian hesitates to express it here.
|
I do not hesitate to express it. I've readily expressed it many times in the past. I hesitate to express it
to Will, for reasons already stated. The King's speech is still the King's speech even though it is not translated equally by all translators. A man is still made in the image of God even though he may have warts or scars. Textual errors do not equal doctrinal errors. Doctrinal errors are the result of misinterpretation, regardless of if the text is "perfect" or not.
I note that at least one KJV-only supporter in this thread has claimed (and I have heard it claimed numerous times in the past) that Luther's translation is "the word of God". Yet it has similar textual differences (e.g. Luther's translation does not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36 and 1 John 5:7, it is "missing" entire phrases from John 19:38, James 4:6, 1 John 2:23, Revelation 18:23, and Revelation 21:26, it has "morgenstern" (morning star) in Isa 14:12, etc.). Some editions have "fixed" some of these things since Luther's death (i.e. without his knowledge or approval). My view on Tyndale's (and Luther's) translation is no different than other KJV-only supporters view on Luther's (and others).
Quote:
|
Notice that Brian does not simply "accept both" as true doctrine (insipid and false as that would be) Brian actually "accepts both" as the word of God ! For this to be true, God would have to be behind the variant, deliberately and consciously augmenting the "inerrant autographs" (one of the two readings) with an auxiliary God-breathed alternative complementary Scripture (the other reading).
|
Either you misunderstand my position, or your are deliberately misrepresenting me. I do not believe both variations are God-breathed. I believe one of them is a textual error. I am simply saying that both can be understood in a doctrinally correct way, and thus both convey the King's message. Jesus is Son, Jesus is God, Jesus is begotten.
Quote:
|
Thus it helps to understand the Brian mindset. Brian believes that two grossly contradictory readings, even on a major doctrinal battleground verse (same on 1 Timothy 3:16) are both the word of God, applying a Brianian dialectic.
|
I often spend time discussing "contradictions" in the Bible with atheists and skeptics. Their approach is always the same: they start by interpreteting the text in the most contradiction-supporting way the words themselves will allow. For example, when they see "hearing a voice" in Acts 9:7 and "heard not the voice" in Acts 22:9 as undefendable contradiction. Same with Exodus 15:3 vs. Rom 15:33, Deut 24:16 vs. Isa 14:21, Gen 32:30 vs. John 1:18, Gen 22:1 vs. James 1:13, etc., etc., etc. They are so intent on finding "contradictions" that they are unwilling to consider any explanation that reconciles such passages. They prefer to see things in the most faithless way possible. And you know what? I see
the exact same approach used by KJV-only supporters when they discuss differences between translations. It's astonishing how a KJV-only supporter can come up with the most inventive explanations to reconcile "contradictions" within the KJV, but ask them to reconcile a "contradiction" with another translation and they suddenly turn off their reconciliation abilities and revert into the skeptic mindset. What's even worse is that I've seen atheists and skeptics take note of this hypocrisy, solidifying their rejection of Christian reconciliation explanations in general.
God bless,
Brian