Theologian

Here is the video.

Both Green Baggins and Gomarus blog about the PCA rejecting FV, etc.

Well, i am back from a serious study in the area of textual criticism and matters pertaining to it. And here for all to see is an update on my beliefs regarding the preservation of God’s word and the biblical text in general.

My Belief on Preservation

God has perfectly preserved His word in the extant manuscripts, but textual criticism is not to the point yet where we can perfectly extract it. As textual criticism grows and more extant manuscripts are discovered i believe that it will be possible to come to a perfect text.

What to term my belief on preservation

• Theoretical VPP (Verbal Plenary Preservation)
• Practical EPP (Essentially Pure Preservation)

-OR-

• EM-VPP - Extant Manuscript Verbal Plenary Preservation (to distinguish from KJV/TR-VPP)
• CT-EPP - Critical Text Essentially Pure Preservation (not referring to any particular critical text)

So that the VPP is theoretical and not confined to a specific text family, but to all extant manuscripts.

EPP is what we practically have and this essential preservation is found in a critical text.

I purposefully kept my belief on the underlying texts separate from my belief on preservation as these beliefs are exclusive to each other to a degree.

My Belief on Specific Underlying Text

The Critical Text (Nestle-Aland/UBS) best represents the original texts.

In the tradition of the Received Text, it considers all available documents to ascertain the original reading. It does not limit itself to one particular family of manuscripts, but considers all the manuscripts God actually has providentially preserved.

Although there are early Byzantine readings, there is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text type was known before the 4th century.

Although it is possible that scribes may have removed sections based on theological prejudice, the evidence shows that scribes were more likely to harmonize and add to the text. And if they would have removed sections based on theology they would have been more consistent in carrying it out.

It has been a year today that BibleMemory.us was released.

They’ve now started to let people sign up for free, so please give it a try. It’s a good way to keep up with your Bible memory.

They have the following Bible versions that you can get your memory verses from…

• KJV
• NASB
• NIV
• ASV
• ESV
• TNIV
• MSG
• NCV
• NKJV
• HCSB

I’ve been using the program for a while now, and i love it!
I want to thank Robert Parmelee for all of his work at BibleMemory.us

There is an awesome list of Scripture references to the doctrines of Grace over on Reformation Theology.

Why is the Latin version so different in its translation than others? Most that i have seen have “in labor” but the Jerome’s Latin has “corrupt.”

If i’m not mistaken the word itself can mean either, but why does Jerome only (as far as i can tell) translate it as such?

Television Evangelist Falwell Dies at 73

Pretty interesting blog article on the ESV Bible Blog.

The main idea is that difficult passages change depending on historical, cultural, and personal context.

The Sadducees had a very different Bible from the Pharisees…they only believed that the first 5 books of Moses were God’s word. Yet you never see Jesus trying to convince them otherwise.

When Jesus corrected their mistaken view on the resurrection He did not do so with what would be clear texts from Scripture that they did not believe to be God’s word. Instead, He quoted from the books that they held to be Scripture (Mat 22:31-32)

Does this example have a place in the Bible version debates?

Does it have a place in the debates over the apocrypha?

Sad indeed…
‘Lord’ is fading at some churches

Vatican panel condemns limbo to eternal dustbin

This was funny…
Get Your Doctorate at The Ruckman University of Street Preachers

Why does Florida prosecute people who hand out Bibles?

Election Violence Claims at Least 21 Lives in Nigeria

New Believer Jailed in Mexico for Receiving Christ

I don’t like the way the ESV translates this verse…

For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers

The “one origin” really bothers me.
I think that verse 14 of the same chapter sheds light on what the Bible is really saying here…

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil

The sanctified and the sanctifier are of one…flesh and blood. It is speaking of His taking on human nature, not of His origin.

The ESV seems to go against one of its principles here and seeks to interpret rather than translate.