to the critical text theorist - "no verse is sure" - ( Jeffrey Riddle "every verse in the Bible is up for grabs, at least theoretically" )

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jeffrey Riddle
Debate Follow Up: The Two Most Shocking Things Said By James White in Our Debates
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2020/10/the-two-most-shocking-things-said-by.html?m=1
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/747290249450173/

Yes, this is an excellent point.
To the critical text afficianado:

"every verse in the Bible is up for grabs, at least theoretically"

"no verse is sure"

It is good to see this emphasized in a public debate.
And I used to bring it up frequently on now-defunct or purged forums, CARM and FFF (Fundamental Forums), since 2010, also later on the Facebook textual forums. One major discussion involved "ethereal inerrancy" and a number of verses were discussed.

Here the point came up on a textual forum.

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...id=827647507322251&offset=0&total_comments=19

If a verse like Mark 1:41:
.
Mark 1:41
And Jesus, moved with compassion,
put forth his hand, and touched him,
and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
.
is unsure as to its basic sense and meaning, despite massive support in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and every Biblical language and every ECW who referenced the verse for the NT consistent sense of compassion (yes, we can add the simplicity of the corruption, as pointed out by James) ... then my question to you is simple ... Why would you, following the Ehrman-Wallace lead, be fully sure of any verse in the NT?
.
The next change in textual theory, the next redaction or primitive corruption theory, the next revelatory analysis quirk, the next rubbish dump dig in Egypt or Oshkosh, could surely rewrite your "no verse is sure" pseudo-scripture pseudo-scholarship version.
.
If Mark 1:41 is not sure, then no verse is sure.
.
(I do not ask you this flippantly, I believe that this is a good fulcrum example for demonstrating that today's modern "scientific textual criticism" so-called acts as a front for forces that seek to place the vagaries and prideful imaginings of man over and above the sure and perfect word of God. A part of this is by initiating a new class of dupes into a pseudo-science that seeks to dissect the word of God through imaginings and mind-readings, ... rather than imparting and offering exposition from the pure word of God. The goal is to set up a new priestly, pharisaic class .. the textual critics.)

Steven Avery

=========
 
Last edited:
Top