A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
A better title might be: “My level of textual certainty”
ReplyDeleteOn a scale of 1% to 100%, what level of certainty do you have?
DeleteIt's just a joke… not an invitation to debate.
DeleteIt's just a question...not an invitation to debate.
DeleteI enjoy maximum certainty (i.e., all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, and all the certainty that we need).
DeleteWould "maximum certainty" be equivalent to 100% then?
DeleteThe biblical doctrine of God’s absolute transcendence precludes the possibility of any “100%” epistemological experience for finite man.
DeleteSo man cannot be 100% sure they know anything?
DeleteI’d really like to see this conversation completed; it never is. It ought to be possible for TR proponents who don’t believe they have *absolute* certainty to enumerate the places of uncertainty they acknowledge in Scrivener’s TR and then provide a percentage. Instead their rhetoric almost always promises absolute certainty until the moment when they are, quite understandably, asked if their view implies absolute certainty. Then they back off, retreating to an E.F. Hills quote that he, too, did not explain.
DeleteIt is similar in a way to the Roman Catholic insistence that we must submit to their Magisterium in order to have one hundred percent doctrinal certainty.
DeleteI am certainly willing to complete the conversation, but this is probably not the right time or place. The post, and my comment, were simply meant to make people smile on National Atheists’ Day. Let’s honor the intent.
DeleteFurther, Dr. Hills did enumerate specific differences and difficulties in the TR tradition before asserting his “maximum certainty” position (cf. KJV Defended, pp. 220-224).
I offer you the last word here and invite you to contact me through the website linked in my initial comment if you want to continue this discussion.
Enjoy a blessed sabbath.
In other words Mr. McShaffrey would like the option to delete any comments unbecoming of his position that he deems necessary. Perhaps the mods. could give Christian the authority to censor any comments to his benefit for the day...A rather fitting day at that.
DeleteAnonymous, was there a time when you used to be TR only?
DeleteI am maximally certain that the Comma Johanneum is not in the original.
DeleteI am "maximally certain" that, if one has not seen the "original", one can not pronounce, with "maximal certainty", what was in that original.
DeleteLooks like we both had the same idea this year.
ReplyDeleteApril Fools!
ReplyDeleteOkay...
ReplyDeleteEcclesiastes 7:6
ReplyDeleteI was half expecting you to come out with an article saying you were dropping CBGM in favor of the method used by Dr. Robinson. Missed opportunity 🤣
ReplyDeleteI was rather expecting the OP to have been "The Case for the CBGM", with pictures of cats included....
Deleteyes! 100%
Deletehttps://youngtextlessreformed.com/2023/04/01/100-reasons-to-believe-the-critical-text-position/
ReplyDeleteVery inventive…
DeleteDr. Gurry, you made my day, that was hilarious!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest another one for next year? A vast number of pages showing all contradictions between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and then a conclusion running like this: “behold the two best manuscripts in the world underlying the word of God”.
ReplyDelete