"Where are the autographs?"
"Nowhere? Then how can you say that you have the perfect Word of God."
Let me rephrase the argument this way.
A man asked an abandoned child, "Where are your biological parents?"
"Don't know? Then you must never say that you have parents"
Absurd? But that's how the dean of FEBC presents his argument for the inspired apographs. Remember what he said: apographs must exactly be like the autographs in order to claim that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant. Read previous posts.)
So the dean asks, "How can a non-existent authority serve as our final authority? An authority must be existent, tangible, available right now, at this time, or else it can be no authority at all."
When the pope speaks ex-cathedra, he issues a bull. This is the bull from the FEBC dean.
An authority be "existent, tangible, available right now, at this time" in order that it may be authoritative.
If that's the criteria to go by, then the invisible and intangible God would fail as an authority in the eyes of the dean.
God is existent to be sure. He is also omnipresent -- available right now. But God is not tangible. He is not visible.
Question: Is God's authority in anyway diminished because He is neither tangible nor visible?
For Bible-believing Christians, God's authority is absolute even though we can neither see nor handle Him.
For the FEBC dean, God's authority is diminished because in his bull, he states that for an authority to be authoritative, it must be "existent, tangible, available right now, at this time."
Friday, 11 May 2007
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
FEBC defends Westcott and Hort
If the apographs were not inspired, how can we say that they are inerrant and infallible?
God has said that He would preserve His Word. How? In what form? we do not know. We merely accept God's word by faith, which is, btw, why we do not write dissertations on things which we do not know.
Words have meanings. Words must only mean what they say. Otherwise, they are useless.
The Scriptures in the "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 must only mean the autographs in order to claim verbal and plenary inspiration.
If "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 also describe the apographs, the dean is saying that the apographs were also verbally and plenarily inspired.
If that were so, then the Scriptures would have multiple inspirations because every time a copy is made in the original languages, it would have to be verbally and plenarily inspired.
And if the dean is right, then any ancient biblical text (apographs) found written in the Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek must be divinely inspired.
Why? Because they are written in the original languages.
And the irony is that these apographs would comprise the TR and other non-TR Greek manuscripts, including those used by Westcott and Hort (Yipes!)
After all, Westcott and Hort were accused of, found guilty and condemned by the dean (he being the accuser, jury and judge all in one) for leaving out words in their Greek NT Text. They were never accused of adding words!
But consider this: whatever Westcott and Hort did not have in the Greek NT Text, they did not have.
And whatever Westcott and Hort had in the Greek NT Text are similar to the parts that are found in other apographs. They are all in the original languages. Ergo: they must be inerrant and infallible.
Why? Because -- as the dean says -- they are in the original languages, what.
By a strange twist of logic, the dean of FEBC becomes the defender of his long departed enemies.
God has said that He would preserve His Word. How? In what form? we do not know. We merely accept God's word by faith, which is, btw, why we do not write dissertations on things which we do not know.
Words have meanings. Words must only mean what they say. Otherwise, they are useless.
The Scriptures in the "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 must only mean the autographs in order to claim verbal and plenary inspiration.
If "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 also describe the apographs, the dean is saying that the apographs were also verbally and plenarily inspired.
If that were so, then the Scriptures would have multiple inspirations because every time a copy is made in the original languages, it would have to be verbally and plenarily inspired.
And if the dean is right, then any ancient biblical text (apographs) found written in the Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek must be divinely inspired.
Why? Because they are written in the original languages.
And the irony is that these apographs would comprise the TR and other non-TR Greek manuscripts, including those used by Westcott and Hort (Yipes!)
After all, Westcott and Hort were accused of, found guilty and condemned by the dean (he being the accuser, jury and judge all in one) for leaving out words in their Greek NT Text. They were never accused of adding words!
But consider this: whatever Westcott and Hort did not have in the Greek NT Text, they did not have.
And whatever Westcott and Hort had in the Greek NT Text are similar to the parts that are found in other apographs. They are all in the original languages. Ergo: they must be inerrant and infallible.
Why? Because -- as the dean says -- they are in the original languages, what.
By a strange twist of logic, the dean of FEBC becomes the defender of his long departed enemies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)