Country of Gergesenes...Gadarenes: Where did the pigs run?

Hi,

FSSL said:
a "C" rating, better than the other possibilities. They did not give me a percentage.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the de facto acknowledgement that you are simply a Hortian-->Metzgerite when it comes to the text of the Bible, thus you inherit by osmosis their Vaticanus primacy (proof-text) theories.

Whatever they say is probable (or the most likely, if there are more than two possibilities) you accept as your most likely, uncertain, version text.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Thank you for the de facto acknowledgement that you are simply a Hortian-->Metzgerite when it comes to the text of the Bible, thus you inherit by osmosis their Vaticanus primacy theories.
Click to expand...

Thank you for steering away from my post above. I was afraid you were going to tear it apart!  :D Oops! I see that you did some back editing. Oh well... I still answered it.

...thus you inherit by osmosis their Vaticanus primacy... Whatever they say is probable (or the most likely, if there are more than two possibilities) you accept as your version.
Click to expand...

Nope. I spent many $$$, sweat and even tears learning this stuff. It was DEFINITELY NOT by osmosis. I spent my first three years and $$ under the tutelage of Thomas Strouse* and his Greek Department. Thanks to him and his staff, I was able to test out of Greek 101-102 in Seminary!




*very nice, generous person and probably one of the hardest working profs I knew. Underpaid, overworked!
 
Ahhh! Fun stuff! You had me and half the forum on ignore, certainly you would not know what was going on, besides the few quotes from Coverdale.

You have not demonstrated that there is a serious confusion over the Gerasene territory textual issue. All of the primary sources note that this is not modern Jerash. They clearly identify it with Kursi. The modern versions always note the three names at issue.

The only one confused here is you, who projects the idea that these are two events to solve your problems with the different names. You entered this thread strongly stating this as fact then tried to suggest that it is one of two possibilities for you. On the other forum, you postulated the same confusion about two events.

You suggest that Williams supports your position. However, Williams frames it carefully so as not to be dogmatic, like you.

The confusion is all yours!
 
Hi,

Let's watch the cute attempt to try to hide the swine marathon corruption disaster.  And all the faux apologetics to "explain" what is clearly not the Bible text, the city of Gerasa, the country of the Gerasenes.

Remember, in one article Glenn Miller gave about seven or more conflicting attempts, without defending the Gerasenes corruption. This is a record for version textual confusion.

FSSL said:
You have not demonstrated that there is a serious confusion over the Gerasene territory textual issue.
Click to expand...

Seven conflicting faux apologetic attempts to try to "explain" the corruption is more than sufficient confusion for the century.

FSSL said:
All of the primary sources note that this is not modern Jerash. 
Click to expand...

Right.  They do not literally accept the swine marathon that is the reading of the corruption.

However, many are quite straightforward in pointing out that this is what the variant says.

Gerasa (= modern Jerash) is in Transjordan, about thirty-three miles SE of Lake Gennesaret, a city of the Decapolis in the mountains of Gilead near the edge of the desert to the east. The stampede of the pigs from Gerasa to the Lake would have made them the most energetic herd in history! Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, I-IX, 1982, p. 737

Similarly, the New American Commentary of Robert H. Stein, (1992) while stuck with trying to use the NIV, RSV, REB and NEB corrupt texts and the Hortian-Metzger approach, referenced Fitzmyer and acknowledged:

The problem of the city's name is a classical one and goes back at least to Origen's time. The city of Gerasa lies approximately thirty miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee... There are serious geographical and historical implications involved in this issue that cannot be ignored. Already in the first half of the third century Origen in his commentary on John wrestled with this problem. It is impossible, however, even to be certain about which word Luke actually used when he wrote his text. As a result we cannot be sure that the first alternative (Gerasenes) is the correct one. As for the other two. they do not create as significant a geographical-historical problem. (p. 255-256)
FSSL said:
They clearly identify it with Kursi.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.  Some make that particular false attempt, to say that Gerasa=Kursi. Others do not.

In the post mentioning Gundry and others, I pointed out some who even forsake all the faux apologetics.  As another example to add to the many in the two threads, Merrill Unger of DTS, dealing with the textus corruptus, wrote about the RSV text in The Archaeology and the New Testament (1962).

The Revised Standard Version in Matthew 8:28 correctly connects the ministry of Christ to the demoniac with Gadara, but also anomalously and certainly incorrectly connects it with Gerasa (Jerash) in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 (p. 141)

Similarly Theodor Zahn, as given in Wieland Willker's commentary:

Zahn, following Origen, cannot believe that one of the evangelists really used the well known town Gerasa, which is a two day's journey away from the lake. Gerasa is found mainly in the Western and Egyptian tradition, where such a geographical error is explainable.

It is historically unlikely, unto absurdity, to think that a name was given to an invisible city that just happens to match the name of a well-known city. 

What happened was much, much simpler.  There was a scribal corruption by those who were unfamiliar with Gergesenes (e.g. Alexandrian scribes who blundered time and again  on Israel geography.)  Some of those folks simply placed in the easier and recognizable Gerasa, leading to the modern version corruption that is indefensible.

And many writers before Peter J. Williams pointed out that Gergesenes has solid support, and the idea that this was a wildfire Origen emendation fails to logic and textual sense. 

The modern versions know nothing about Gergesenes (unless they are following UBS-1 or UBS-2 like the NEB.) Wait, though, with the modern version confusion, you can never be sure. F. F. Bruce, in the book with the ironic title for anybody with a modern version movable type perspective: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (2003) does place in Gergesenes .. the best texts .. and Luke, probably, 'the country of the Gergesenes'.

Oh, and note that e.g. Gordon Franz actually makes a very solid case for Gadara. Despite your attempted handwave of the Bible words, your false claim that Gadara does not fit the Bible text was fully refuted in this thread. You took the errantist position about Gadara.

FSSL said:
The modern versions always note the three names at issue.
Click to expand...
Of course, since there are three names in various Bible versions, two of them sensible.  The commentaries point out the three names, and then some try to make excuses for the swine marathon.

FSSL said:
The only one confused here is you, who projects the idea that these are two events to solve your problems with the different names.
Click to expand...
There are about ten reasons for this concept, including chronology. It is a good study for those ... who know what is the Bible text. It is irrelevant for you, since you do not even know what is the Bible text, and spend your time making excuses for a corruption. 

And if in fact there is only one event (e.g. the John Lightfoot view) that is very fine by me, I am simply sharing what I think is the best interpretative explanation.  Geography, including over against Galilee and the Decapolis and the two areas separated, is only one component of the issue.  Chronology is similarly important.  And a number of other issues are considered.

FSSL said:
You suggest that Williams supports your position.
Click to expand...
Obviously.  Peter J. Williams supports the TR text, which is the pure Bible reading.  You simply follow the Hortian error, as being maybe, possibly, 51% or 45% or so likely, autographic.

All this bluster just to hide the swine marathon problem.  The weird, false and conflicting apologetics all for an ultra-minority Vaticanus corruption. (e.g. Mark 5:1 is over 95% the Gadarenes, with fine auxiliary support).

And the simple fact that you have no idea what is actually the Bible text.

Typical.

======================

Real students of the pure Bible issues can have a lot of fun going over the two threads.  This is one of the more interesting and entertaining blunders in textus corruptus versions. (There are a couple of dozen hard errors from the Alexandrian mss that actually make the modern version text, there are others that do not pass over the Hort-Metzger high bar of absurdity.)

======================

In summary, here is what makes the corruption particularly interesting.

a) The error is humorously absurd, placing an event that is by the Sea of Galilee 35 mile away, deep into Jordan.  This is a blunder on the level of "synagogues of Judea" (Luke 4:44) when Jesus was in Galilee, again the type of blunder made by the Alexandrian scribes.

Why spend effort defending absurd, obvious corruptions of no merit? This makes the Christian apologist look like a fool.

b) The cause of the ultra-minority blunder is trivially obvious.  It fits scribal proclivities to substitute a well-known name for a little-known name and the Alexandrian scribes continually were making Israel geography errors.

c) When the blunder came into the versions starting in the late 1800s, a whole new field of faux apologetics came forth to try to "explain" the newly printed corruption.  Everything including the kitchen sink was thrown at Gerasa, trying to find an explanation that could "stick".  We see about seven distinct false and failed and conflicting attempts.

d) Today, even the more sound writers like Peter J. Williams and Robert Gundry and David L. Turner make no attempt to defend the corruption.  Williams even, gasp, defends the TR text as the most sensible, by simply going over the evidence anew, using a sound style of thinking and logic.

======================

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
  • Let's watch the cute attempt to try to hide the swine marathon corruption disaster. 
  • And all the faux apologetics.
Click to expand...

You have lost your argument in your illogical poisoning-the-well attempt. How is identifying the textual problem, giving it a level "C" rating, identifying that the modern-city Jerash cannot be the city an attempt to hide anything? The commentaries (good ones), mention the problem and give quite a bit of data on the issue. The Anchor Bible and ISBE encyclopedias lay out the issues in great detail. The UBS/NA texts give the variants involved.

The only hiding going on here has been your attempt to paint the issue as a Vaticanus problem. Even the Vaticanus has mixed readings in the synoptics. This is not that simple. It is a problem when you have EARLY and DIVERGENT witnesses (both Alexandrian and Western). The modern-versionist is completely comfortable accepting the fact that mss do conflict and offer difficult readings. We are not insecure in the idea that God has given us many MSS that differ in minutiae.

You have illustrated well my OP. As the OP stated clearly, the KJVO deal with these variations. They simply cannot deal with the anomalies.

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh to include all KJVOs in this. I am getting posts and messages from others (including KJVOs) that they would rather me kick you off this forum. You know it is going bad when your own community wants nothing to do with your discussions. This is an ironic contrast. I have some on this forum that hate my use and defense of the modern versions. However, lately, they have been very cordial and I enjoy the discussions!
 
E
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

FSSL said:
As far as the UBS being the pure word of God, it is 100% pure. The KJV is 100% pure. The TR is 100% pure.
Click to expand...

This type of self-contradiction is simply par for the cornfusenik course.  Really, how can there be anything to discuss when logic, sense and math are all tossed out the window.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Click to expand...

Because, on this forum, we discuss the meaning of the word "pure" as it is presented in the Word of God. God's self-revelation is ALWAYS exceedingly pure. You foist a wrong meaning on Psalm 119:140 and abuse it for your illogical, nonsensical purposes that simply multiply with your every post.
 
Hi,

And I think it is worth pointing out that many of the better informed Christian writers and sources do not even mention the faux apologetics idea, popular on this thread, that somehow Gerasa is on the Sea of Galilee, or represents Gergesenes on the Sea of Galilee.  You can see that Eerdman, Zondervan, Halley's Bible Handbook, and many other resources don't even try to make that particular pig fly.  They do not even float the boat that there was a lesser-known, or doubly-named, Gerasa on the Sea of Galilee. 

Today, we will look at Darrell Bock, of DTS, who wrote about the geography question in his Luke commentary, p. 155 (1994). Also in Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study, 2005, p. 96 which quotes Josephus, showing a familiarity with the question.

And a paper in :

Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture (2012)
Precision and Accuracy: Making Distinctions in the Cultural Context
Darrell L. Bock
http://books.google.com/books?id=8ijJjfodK5AC
An Example in Geography: Gerasene or Gadarene

Competing references to the Gadarenes and the Gerasenes raise questions about which text is the superior reading in each case and then about the resultant meaning. .... It is important to appreciate that Gadara is the administrative center in the region opposite the Galilee, while Gerasa is another well-known locale in the area. The problem is the locale of Gerasa (modern Jerash in Jordan). It is more than twenty miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee in the Decapolis, too far away to be the scene or the swine running into the sea. So some argue that there is an error of location in either the Gerasa or the Gadara reference.

Now, some manuscripts (Aleph-a or example) and Origen speak of the locale as Gergesa, also known as Kursi, situated right next to the sea. If this is the locale intended, there is no issue. ...

Let us assume that the reading is distributed in a manner whereby Gadara and Gerasa are present in the different versions. What is happening? We do not know for sure, but one option is that the man was from one locale and the healing took place in a locale tied to that region, since we know that the man had left his home to roam in the countryside. Remember the references are regional, since the texts speak of the country of the locale (Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26). So the authors or their tradition may have selected different names for the same regional locale. This is no different than identifying where you are from in terms of a well-known city in your general vicinity rather than the exact but lesser-known town. It is analogous to someone telling you that an event took place in Dallas-Fort Worth when it occurred in Denton, Texas. One is a better-known locale than the other, and yet the smaller city is thirty miles from Dallas while still in the region of the event. We commonly do this sort of thing when we are not sure someone will be able to place the lesser-known locale. Measured against intent and a popular manner of communicating, one reference may be slightly less precise, but regionally accurate and even more informative. The Gerasa reference is more informative in showing the association of the man with the Decapolis and not just with Galilee.

In the land of faux apologetics, one error competes with another for absurdity and embarrassment.  Bock is actually claiming, totally falsely without an iota of historical justification, that Gerasenes in Transjordan is somehow "regionally accurate and even more informative."  Our poster here takes an opposite position of absurdity, trying to place Gerasa on the Sea of Galilee.

Both are errant, and simply the result of trying to defend the error of man, that is not the word of God.  The Dallas analogy is a hand-wave, hoping readers do not understand the geography and history. And is similar to the Milwaukee blunder of James Patrick Holding.  There is no way to place Jerash, deep in Transjordan, as relating to the Sea of Galilee.  The closest connection is that Jerash and Gadara were both Decapolis cities, and that is no help at all. This is like calling Niagra Falls, USA as "New York City" because they are part of New York State. Nonsense. The deliverance event simply did not take place in the land of the Gerasenes.

It is interesting to see the layers of faux apologetics that are fabricated ... all for an obvious modern version corruption.

btw, in another book, Darrell L. Bock specifically takes the scribal error approach, masked as "variously rendered or confused".  This idea is simply that the modern versions are errant, because they are not the autographic Markan and Lukan text.

This is offered as the one alternative to the faux "region" argument above.

"Various solutions are proposed .... One is that Gergesa is an alternative to Khersa (= Kursi) and has been variously rendered or confused in the subsequent textual tradition. Another is that Mark and Luke. in choosing the more distant Gerasa, are naming not the exact locale but the region's most prominent locale." Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (2002), p. 164

Note that Bock still does not give the mistaken unto absurdity idea that Gerasa represents a city on the Sea of Galilee.

Incidentally, in another paper, The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex? published in Jesus under fire: modern scholarship reinvents the historical Jesus Bock shows some familiarity with chronology issues, but does not go into the geography question.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Hi,

FSSL said:
Even the Vaticanus has mixed readings in the synoptics.
Click to expand...
Are you really of the opinion that "mixed readings in the synoptics" is wrong?  That the autographs were all one reading and both the Received Text and the Critical Text are errant?

================

Just to be clear (not expecting a straight answer) ....  mixed readings is the autographic truf.  Gerasenes is the Critical Text swine marathon blunder and was never written by Mark, Luke or Matthew. The ultra-minority error arose from a scribe unfamiliar with Israel geography, likely in Egypt.

That is how it got into Vaticanus.  It would have stayed inconsequential except the Hortian blunder of Vaticanus primacy moved it in from Vaticanus to a modern version corruption. 

Today it is consequential as a very vivid example of a hard error in the Vaticanus-->modern version text.

FSSL said:
Even the Vaticanus has mixed readings in the synoptics.  We are not insecure in the idea that God has given us many MSS that differ in minutiae.
Click to expand...
While there are many corruptions that are far more doctrinally imposing, the blatant error of a city 35 miles away from the Sea of Galilee is far from minutiae. 
Especially not if a person purports to believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures.

That is why we see seven conflicting attempts to "explain" the minority corruption, each one weaker than the next.  Now you have added another attempt that is essentially:

Look, its an error, ok, in the scriptures, but really, it is not that important, since it is the message that counts, not accuracy in God's word.

=============

In a post on another thread, where you request that I do not respond, you make a funny map that distorts the Greek mss placement.  However, you raise a real issue, there is in fact Latin support for Gerasenes, Old Latin and Vulgate, in all four verses.  On top of some ultra-minority Greek support that is basically localized to the Alexandrian mss. (Remember the 95% Greek support for Gergesenes in Mark 5:1.)

However, I doubt anybody would put much stock on the Latin translational harmonization as particularly significant (including Bezae=D, the Latin-Greek duplex).  Especially on a city name, especially when the harmonization in the Latin was clear.  Even more so when you remember that Latin translations were some distance away, Gerasa and Gadara would be well known, Gergesenes would be a puzzle at best.

The only issue that could be raised is whether the Latin might have been translated in places other than Egypt, such as Rome.  Surely possible, whatever was in the Greek exemplar. 

Note that the Syriac does similar, harmonizing onto Gadara, and that is similarly of little note.

FSSL said:
identifying that the modern-city Jerash cannot be the city
Click to expand...
 
As I showed right above, the more honest and astute writers stuck with that understanding, yet still seeing Gerasenes in their text, fall back on the two ideas consistent with the Gerasene text:

1) Markan and Lukan geographical ignorance
2) scribal confusion after Mark and Luke

Either way, the modern versions you are promoting as the word of God are errant, in one case apostolic error, in the second scribal error because your text is not properly representing the apostolic authors.

You may not mind having an errant "Bible" or "word of God", however at least the truth should be acknowledged, and those are the two Gerasene swine marathon truths.

Granted, there are a number of other embarrassing attempts around a huge Gerasa region. Or an invisible and unknown lesser Gerasa around the Sea of Galilee.  Or maybe a Gerasene man living in Gadara.  And various similar ideas (see the Glenn Miller summary post, nothing that he gives many of those en passant without a serious apologetic attempt).

Generally, these are only given by vapid modern version apologists, a new, recent phenomenon. (And they fail precisely because the real Gerasa was so well known, there really could not be a mix-up.) Such attempts are devoid of understanding and sense, and usually given as a hand-wave rather than an earnest and serious historical-geographical argument. 

Remember, the gentlemen giving the absurd arguments do not even know if the Bible text actually had the Gerasenes they are trying to cover for, they can go this way and that. They are only giving the vapid apologetics because of their concern not to reject the Hortian blunder. 

While the skeptics understandably laugh at the nonsense attempts to defend an obvious error. They are big fans of the modern version duck-shoot text, which gives them so many blunders to attack.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Look, its an error, ok, in the scriptures, but really, it is not that important, since it is the message that counts, not accuracy in God's word.
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to the ipsissima vox approach.
I don't assume that we have all of the data regarding geography in 30a.d.

I am comfortable, since it is not a matter of doctrinal importance, in allowing Gergesa to stand as an option because it has as much MSS support as the other readings.

In a post on another thread, where you request that I do not respond, you make a funny map that distorts the Greek mss placement.  However, you raise a real issue, there is in fact Latin support for Gerasenes, Old Latin and Vulgate, in all four verses.  On top of some ultra-minority Greek support that is basically localized to the Alexandrian mss. (Remember the 95% Greek support for Gergesenes in Mark 5:1.)
Click to expand...

Which is why I didn't want you to comment over there. I gave a very accurate charting of the variant, "Geresenes" in Luke 8:26. We need our "Avery Space" so that not all threads drone on an on.

I have heard from a large number of posters, including our KJVO brothers/sisters, are of the opinion that you are not going to rampage/dominate this forum.

You may not mind having an errant "Bible" or "word of God", however at least the truth should be acknowledged, and those are the two Gerasene swine marathon truths.
Click to expand...

It is precisely because of my commitment to inerrancy that I reject an attempt to automatically exclude MSS evidence that does not match a particular edition of a singular version translated in English by Anglicans in the 1600s.

Inerrrancy is a term that applies to the originals, not its copies.
 
Hi,

When I was showing that the more informed writers do not give any of the faux apologetics attempts, there is one that should be added.

Gerasa was a city of the Decapolis (modern Jerash in Transjordan) located more than thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee and, as Origen perceived (Commentary on John, v, 41 (24)), is the least likely of the three places. - Bruce Metzer,  A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,

Metzger does allow that Gergesenes would be a correction, without directly pointing out that he is talking about a correction of a Markan or Lukan error. 

And you can find a bit more of the textual analysis on this post.

[TC-Alternate-list] swine marathon - the textual theories
Steven Avery - Sept. 13, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/3118

Please, understand, FSSL.  Your ideas of ethereal inerrancy are not historic Christianity, and they are not my concern.  The purpose here is not to convince you, it is your forum, you can make any claims or insults you like.

The purpose, as a forum guest,  is simply to work with the fascinating information on the swine marathon blunder.  With the hope, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, to expand it into a little article or web section, available to those concerned with the purity and accuracy of the Bible they read. And I make sure I keep a copy of the material handy  :).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Hi,

admin said:
At least you (following Letis) are careful to recognize that your position does not allow for inerrancy.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect.  I both respect and critique Letis on his positions on inerrancy. You can probably find that in FFF threads and I even placed a summary post here:

Theodore Letis - infallibility - inerrancy - Warfield
Steven Avery - 05-19-2010
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/84117-inerrancy-case-study-kjvo-redefinition.html#post1749774

And I defend the tangible, readable Bible, the pure AV, as infallible and inerrant.  And I do not get involved in defending ethereal inerrancy, since there is no meaning in defending a malleable, unknown text.  (Warfield humorously went so far that he even insisted that the critic would have to demonstrate what is the original errant text.  Thus he would not have to defend the Gerash swine marathon.)

It is par for the course that you accuse tangible inerrantists of not believing in inerrancy.  This goes along with your idea that contradictory texts can be 100% pure.  A Wonderland approach.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
And I defend the tangible, readable Bible, the pure AV, as infallible and inerrant.  And I do not get involved in defending ethereal inerrancy, since there is no meaning in defending a malleable, unknown text... It is par for the course that you accuse tangible inerrantists of not believing in inerrancy.
Click to expand...

You do not get to redefine the terms. Warfield beat you to it. He applied it to the originals. Fundamentalists interjected and defended the term "inerrancy" as ONLY referring to the originals to battle modernism. Find another term.

This goes along with your idea that contradictory texts can be 100% pure.  A Wonderland approach.
Click to expand...

David called his Bible "pure." I will not change its meaning and usage. I have laid out, with biblical support what is meant by the term. Calling it a wonderland approach just shows the forum you are not interested in the usage and meaning of Scripture.
 
Hi,

FSSL said:
You do not get to redefine the terms. Warfield beat you to it. .
Click to expand...

Warfield played games in his redefinitions, such as his absurd idea that the critic of inerrancy has to declare and demonstrate and prove the original errant text.  You don't get much dumber than that.

If you read and understood the history, you would agree, and that is why I pointed you to the earlier discussions.

Ironically, you are taking the false Theodore Letis position that Warfield invented concepts and use of inerrancy, when they had long existed for the pure Bibles that we can read.  Warfield was the confused interloper.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Warfield played games in his redefinitions, such as his absurd idea that the critic of inerrancy has to declare and demonstrate and prove the original errant text.  You don't get much dumber than that.
Click to expand...

If the critic makes an allegation, it's up to the critic to show that he can support the allegation.

It's called "burden of proof." I'm not surprised that you are apparently unfamiliar with the term, and find it to be "dumb" when it is explained to you. After all, you're a KJV-onlyist, and you expect us dumb people just to believe whatever you say, right?
 
Hi,

Ransom said:
If the critic makes an allegation, it's up to the critic to show that he can support the allegation.
Click to expand...

Some ideas are so dumb that they do not require much in the way of additional exposition.  The Warfieldian idea that the critic of inerrancy must find and demonstrate the precise autographic, original non-inerrant text clearly qualifies.

The burden of proof is on the one claiming infallibility and inerrancy for the Bible text.  It is especially their responsibility to show the text for which they are claiming these attributes, else the claim is vapid, a chimera.

So in that reverse sense you are right about burden of proof.  And the Warfieldian crew flunks because they do not identify a text. 

We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired. No "error" can be asserted, therefore, which cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the text. 

By this Warfieldian absurdity, Gerasenes cannot be asserted as an error, unless the one who sees error in the swine marathon also proved that Gerasenes was the autographic text.  Gerasenes is the blunder in the corrupt versions that you call the "word of God' and is not autographic.

Presbyterian Review (1881)
Inspiration - Benjamin Warfield, Archibald Hodge
http://books.google.com/books?id=OUk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245

We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired. No "error" can be asserted, therefore, which cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the text.

And then, like a shell game.

The inerrant autographs were a fact once; they may possibly be a fact again, when textual criticism has had its last word on the Bible text. (Inspiration and Criticism p. 423)

So for now, since textual criticism is confused and does not know what is the Bible, there is no possible error, since nobody knows what is the text.

This was explained to you earlier.

==================

Warfield's ethereal original autographs
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/84117-inerrancy-case-study-kjvo-redefinition.html#post1750017

The Popperian unfalsifiablity of Warfieldian inerrancy is quite obvious.
Ernest Robert Sandeen (1931-1982) was one of the early scholars to point out the shell game.

Warfield... phrased his defense of the inerrancy of the original autographs in such a way that no further discussion was possible. In retreating to the original autographs, Warfiield, whether intentionally or not, brought the Princeton apologetic to a triumphant conclusion... Since in order to prove the Bible in error it now became necessary to find the original manuscripts. Warfield might have concluded... by announcing that inerrancy could never be denied.' (Roots of Fundamentalism, Ernest Sandeen 1898 p. 129-130 quoted in Worship as Meaning, Graham Hughes 2003)

Simply put, Warfield plays you for a fool.

Scott, you should know enough about Popper and faslifiability to at least understand Sandeen, who laid it out straight.

Here is a bit more as Sandeen continued, with a spot of humor:

The original manuscripts had been lost, and therefore the critic might just as well turn his attention to Homer or the Koran for all the effect his work would have upon the followers of the Princeton orthodoxy. This was the shape of the Princeton doctrine of the Scriptures ­ one of the forms of biblical literalism in late nineteenth-century Protestantism. The problems raised by biblical criticism demanded a new formulation of the doctrine of the Scriptures. Both conservatives and liberals worked at the theological task, but the Princeton professors' insistence that they were doing nothing new,, while creating a unique apologetic which flew in the face of the standards they were claiming to protect, cannot be judged as a historically honest or laudable program. Although he continued to remark, with apparent sincerity, that every biblical scholar must continue to examine the evidence turned up by critical investigation, he so defined the problem that no possible error could be discovered.

In fact, the straitjacket requirements from Warfield are even more extensive, and more humorous, by the grace of the Lord Jesus I will share a bit more on this later.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 
[quote author=Steven Avery]Some ideas are so dumb that they do not require much in the way of additional exposition...

...The burden of proof is on the one claiming infallibility and inerrancy for the Bible text.  It is their responsibility to show the text for which they are claiming these attributes...

...So for now, since textual criticism is confused and does not know what is the Bible, there is no possible error, since nobody knows what is the text...

...The Popperian unfalsifiablity of Warfieldian inerrancy is quite obvious...[/quote]

Strange arguments from someone advocating a KJVO position...
 
Steven Avery said:
Some ideas are so dumb that they do not require much in the way of additional exposition.
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, these are all the ideas that Avery doesn't hold to, which are obviously self-evident to anyone who isn't dumb like us! *snicker*

The burden of proof is on the one claiming infallibility and inerrancy for the Bible text.  It is especially their responsibility to show the text for which they are claiming these attributes, else the claim is vapid, a chimera.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you prove that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top