Inerrancy and Autographs

[EarlyActs]

You have my attention... tell me what you know about the coming kingdom... (Act 1:6)
Paul

We must see that by kingdom he meant a reign; he meant that God (himself) was due all obedience. The expression 'it will not come by external signs to be observed' helps here, yet many, many people still look for a chunk of time (and a place, 'from Jerusalem') which is quite far off point.

The resurrection was the Davidic enthronement; there is no other conclusion from the grammar of Acts 2:30, 31. David wasn't looking for something in Jerusalem beyond even us in 2000; the resurrection itself enthroned Christ. The end of 2's sermon says so. 3:19's 'Heaven is holding a reception for him' says so. 4's quote of Ps 2 'today I have begotton you' and 'honor the Son, lest he be angry' all say so.

The point is that he deserves the honor and obedience of rulers and us commons alike. The kingdom is not a segment of time some place or time. This is why we read 'it is near, nigh, at hand, among you (pl.), within you (pl.)

Now, back to the 40 days. This prob adds up to some 300 hours of explanation of the passages which show in Acts as the earliest expounded by the apostles (not counting Stephen's references--a unique presentation). I find about 20. There are other allusions, but I'm referring to those expressly identified (these are the days Joel spoke of) and which a standard Greek NT would print in bold, marking that they are quote.

Ps 2, 16, 110, and 118 are the most frequent. The consistent thing about the NT is that Paul's separate instruction period causes him to quote many of the same 20, as we see from Acts 13's sermon and Galatians.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I want to say that my original post has more to do with the supposed "autographs" as an argument for inerrancy and not inerrancy in and of itself. Whether the Bible is actually inerrant or not, I do not know. I suspect it must be, though, because it comes from God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TB2]

Apologists sometimes say that inerrancy is true even though we don't have the original autographs or scriptures. This, I think, is erroneous for the simple reason that if it is shy of 100% for the transmission of the scriptures, say 99% accurate, then it is not 100% preservation.

You cannot claim 100% inerrancy if you have less than 100% preserved transmissions of the text. Therefore, the argument about the autographs is spurious.

Yes, I think you're original opening statement is spot on

 

[ppierac]

We must see that by kingdom he meant a reign; he meant that God (himself) was due all obedience. The expression 'it will not come by external signs to be observed' helps here, yet many, many people still look for a chunk of time (and a place, 'from Jerusalem') which is quite far off point.

The resurrection was the Davidic enthronement; there is no other conclusion from the grammar of Acts 2:30, 31. David wasn't looking for something in Jerusalem beyond even us in 2000; the resurrection itself enthroned Christ. The end of 2's sermon says so. 3:19's 'Heaven is holding a reception for him' says so. 4's quote of Ps 2 'today I have begotton you' and 'honor the Son, lest he be angry' all say so.

The point is that he deserves the honor and obedience of rulers and us commons alike. The kingdom is not a segment of time some place or time. This is why we read 'it is near, nigh, at hand, among you (pl.), within you (pl.)

Now, back to the 40 days. This prob adds up to some 300 hours of explanation of the passages which show in Acts as the earliest expounded by the apostles (not counting Stephen's references--a unique presentation). I find about 20. There are other allusions, but I'm referring to those expressly identified (these are the days Joel spoke of) and which a standard Greek NT would print in bold, marking that they are quote.

Ps 2, 16, 110, and 118 are the most frequent. The consistent thing about the NT is that Paul's separate instruction period causes him to quote many of the same 20, as we see from Acts 13's sermon and Galatians.

Not sure I understand...

How does this verse fit into your understanding...

1Co 15:25 For He (Jesus) must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1Co 15:27 For HE (Jesus) HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He (Jesus) says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He (Jesus) is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him (God). 28 When all things are subjected to Him (God), then the Son (Jesus) Himself also will be subjected to the One (God) who subjected all things to Him (Jesus), so that God may be all in all.

Paul

 

[EarlyActs]

Not sure I understand...

How does this verse fit into your understanding...

1Co 15:25 For He (Jesus) must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1Co 15:27 For HE (Jesus) HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He (Jesus) says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He (Jesus) is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him (God). 28 When all things are subjected to Him (God), then the Son (Jesus) Himself also will be subjected to the One (God) who subjected all things to Him (Jesus), so that God may be all in all.

Paul

As you can see from the first phrase from Corinthians, he is reigning. This was decreed Resurrection day and preached on Pentecost, that he does reign. I know it is a tough concept, because the first thing we seek is 'proof.' And the first counter is always 'but look at what the devil is doing; what a ridiculous thing to say.'

Instead of saying the kingdom is here or there or now or then, over which people squabble, it is saying that he now deserves to be honored, to be obeyed; that we should 'pay homage to the Son, lest he be angry.' Ps 110 says he reigns until all his enemies are made into a place to put up his feet upon.

This is why Judaizers would hear Christians and say that another king besides Caesar was being claimed, Acts 18. It was, however, unfairly compared to a government king. Christ is no more a government as we know it, than Daniel's precious-metal statue was a mountain.

In Acts 2, 3 and 4, his current reign is declared. All rulers and us commoners are treated as meant to be subject to Him. This is why Rom 13 reads as it does about governments, and why in Acts 26 Paul wants everyone, even the rulers he is speaking to, to be like him--except for wearing chains. All people are meant to be ministers of Christ's gospel because he deserves nothing less.

I hope that helps. My book is THE ENTHRONED KING at Amazon. --M. Sanford, MCS, Regent College Vancouver, 1987.

 

[NetChaplain]

Apologists sometimes say that inerrancy is true even though we don't have the original autographs or scriptures. This, I think, is erroneous for the simple reason that if it is shy of 100% for the transmission of the scriptures, say 99% accurate, then it is not 100% preservation.

You cannot claim 100% inerrancy if you have less than 100% preserved transmissions of the text. Therefore, the argument about the autographs is spurious.

On the other hand, if some claim that inerrancy is not about the accuracy of preserved manuscripts but rather involves only an ARGUMENT for inerrancy, this can be dismissed as a bad argument. For, it is either 100% without error and preserved, or it is not in reality.

It's a debate argument tactic that is not honest enough with the data to submit to what is real and actually true. Something undeniable, something factual, something objective.

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!

I responded further in a later post I made yesterday.

 

[TB2]

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

When people begin to doubt the Word of God concerning plenary inspiration, it reveals misunderstanding, and entreats disuse of the Word. God has relayed all His Word, and there is nothing more and nothing less for Him to show us in this life!

We are all believers on the same team and I believe we all have the best of intentions. And I believe that a lot of the debate here is motivated by good intentions of wanting absolute assurance. But the manuscripts don't provide it. They get us 98% of the way, but not 100% as @Dave_Regenerated has noted. But no major doctrine is affected nor is the gospel message of salvation affected by this. Perhaps that's the real message here: that God doesn't want us to put faith in manuscripts but faith in God Himself and focus our attention on what matters most: not trying to artificially force that 98% to be 100% (when it can't) to give us personal assurance, but what matters most: the gospel message of salvation (which ~80 times in the NT is referred to as "the Word/the Word of God/the Lord")

 

[NetChaplain]

I responded further in a later post I made yesterday.

Sorry, but I would still need to know the particulars to be certain of what you mean. Thanks and God bless!

 

[NetChaplain]

We are all believers on the same team and I believe we all have the best of intentions. And I believe that a lot of the debate here is motivated by good intentions of wanting absolute assurance. But the manuscripts don't provide it.

We will only short ourselves of God's understanding concerning His Word if we get it wrong; and He has to give us His entire Word, or we will be shorted ourselves. One must understand that all He has presented in His Word is all He wants us to know for now. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."

What is one to think if there is no complete Word?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Sorry, but I would still need to know the particulars to be certain of what you mean. Thanks and God bless!

What do you mean? I said I replied yesterday as a further post.

 

[TB2]

We will only short ourselves of God's understanding concerning His Word if we get it wrong; and He has to give us His entire Word, or we will be shorted ourselves. One must understand that all He has presented in His Word is all He wants us to know for now. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."

What is one to think if there is no complete Word?

God's Word is complete: the gospel message of salvation was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3).

 

[NetChaplain]

What do you mean? I said I replied yesterday as a further post.

I don't know what further post you mean. But that's ok if you don't want to pursue it.

 

[NetChaplain]

God's Word is complete: the gospel message of salvation was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3).

My Friend, it's a lot more than just being saved, that's only the half of it. The other half is about growing from your salvation, so we can be used of God to strengthen the saved and draw the lost.

 

[TB2]

My Friend, it's a lot more than just being saved, that's only the half of it. The other half is about growing from your salvation, so we can be used of God to strengthen the saved and draw the lost.

Amen! And 2% variants in Alexandrian and Western and Byzantine combined do not affect that

 

[NetChaplain]

Amen! And 2% variants in Alexandrian and Western and Byzantine combined do not affect that

I'm choosing to remain secure with the Text that contains the most manuscripts! After all it is the one that most have used for about 600 years now. All others are to late for any true good to develop anyway (it's about to wrap up). I go by usage, not antiquity! I feel too far from the Word of God in any other form, like it's time a wasting.

 

[TB2]

I'm choosing to remain secure with the Text that contains the most manuscripts! After all it is the one that most have used for about 600 years now. All others are to late for any true good to develop anyway (it's about to wrap up). I go by usage, not antiquity! I feel too far from the Word of God in any other form, like it's time a wasting

And no matter which manuscripts we're talking about none are perfectly errant, but it has no effect on the gospel message of salvation

 

[NetChaplain]

And no matter which manuscripts we're talking about none are perfectly errant, but it has no effect on the gospel message of salvation

You mean none are inerrant. The MT has well enough manuscripts to contain the plenary of God's Word (5000 plus) within the translation; which overwhelms the few Alexandrian Text base manuscripts

 

[TB2]

You mean none are inerrant. The MT has well enough manuscripts to contain the plenary of God's Word (5000 plus) within the translation; which overwhelms the few Alexandrian Text base manuscripts

None are inerrant. And it's a simple fact: the Majority Text was not the majority reading for the first 800 years of church history (so those sorry lots were just out of luck I guess). And we haven't even talked about the OT that is demonstrably not based on the majority reading throughout. And the Byzantine manuscripts have not stayed the same but have evolved, and changed over time going from more disparate readings to more harmonized over time. How can that be reliable when the earliest Byzantine manuscripts we start with are more different from each other than the later ones? That doesn't show preservation. That shows editing and altering God's Word.

 

[NetChaplain]

None are inerrant. And it's a simple fact: the Majority Text was not the majority reading for the first 800 years of church history

The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of the main text types. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts of the Greek New Testament . . . Whilst varying in at least 1,830 places, it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era (Protestant) translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages . . . The earliest undisputed Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407).

Byzantine text-type - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Majority Text uses the same manuscripts as the Byzantine Text.

When was the majority text written? Robinson and Pierpont write similarly, "The 'Byzantine' Text form (otherwise called the 'Majority' or 'Traditional Text') predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of the Greek New Testament manuscripts - a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516).
https://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html#:~:text=Robinson and Pierpont write similarly,AD 350 to AD 1516). Look under the heading "Providential Preservation", #2

Also, I will probably only reply to one more message, because we are too far apart in our understanding on this issue. Thanks for your input!