Then he Poked the Bear - Peter van Kleeck

[Steven Avery]

Beginning of Chapter 2

to believe the church has that original. Even further
the following arguments aim to show that should
scholars reconstruct the original text (by some
stroke of luck); textual criticism has no stated
mechanism whereby scholars could know that said
text is the original given its slavish adherence to a
broadly evidentialist methodology.
Practically speaking, the question is: Under
the current rubric of text critical practices as
wedded with an evidential methodology, how
would an illiterate Christian, or an 8th-grade-
educated rural mid-Michigan Christian know the
Bible they hear is the word of God down to the very
words? Must they know the evidence? Must they
know about the priority of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
or the reliability of the CBGM? Must they know the
Byzantine text type is relatively unreliable? Must
they know the standards of internal and external
evidence touching each of the hundreds of
thousands of variants? What if the Christian cannot
read? In this case, where does her trust lie? Does
her trust lie in scholarship - text critical scholars?
Perhaps her trust is a mere matter of warrant
transfer from the text to the scholar to the
Christian. If so, do the scholars know what words
are God’s words? By the end of this section, it
should be apparent that the scholars do not know,
and if they do, it is unclear how they do given their
chosen methodology. What is more, writing this
work from the perspective of a Protestant, it is
important to ask, is there any substantial difference
between a Christian trusting the Pope to tell her
what is and is not God’s word, and a Christian
trusting a cadre of scholars to tell her what is and is
not God’s word? In other words, on the point of
biblical authority, have Protestants traded the
college of cardinals for a cadre of scholars?


Later in Ch. 2

 

[Steven Avery]

 

[Steven Avery]

Section on Bodmer Papyri

Berkhof no doctrines changed

Berkhof, “that apart from the relatively few and
unimportant variations, which are perfectly
evident, we are in possession of the verbally
inspired Word of God.”^ More vociferously
Berkhof opines that “no one doctrine of religion is
changed, not one precept is taken away, not one
important fact altered, by the whole of the various
readings collectively taken. Again, in similar

Similar Wallace and Geisler and Roach

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

So how much of the NT text do Evangelical Greek scholars and theologians admit is compromised? One figure claims about 150,000 variants and approximately nineteen-twentieths of these readings are viable candidates which affect the meaning of Scripture.[93]

[93] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 159. “Nestle speaks of 150,000 in the New Testament, but adds that about nineteen-twentieths of these are devoid of real authority, and that of the remaining 7,500 nineteen-twentieths do not alter the sense of Scripture in any way.”

....


Berkhof admits that 7,500 variants have some authority but of that number “nineteen-twentieths do not alter the sense of Scripture in any way.” Put in more manageable terms, Nestle admits that there are approximately 375 variants which alter the sense of the NT text which averages out to 13.89 such variants per book of the NT. Again, these are only the ones of which scholars admit they are currently aware. If we accept these figures, it is important to ask whether a few missing or added words here or there is a problem for warranted belief in the Scripture. What person or scholar has the authority to determine which words are major words and which are minor? What authoritative academic rubric gives Berkhof et al the authority' to speak in terms of major and minor variants?

 

[Steven Avery]

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

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

That alternative is
found more broadly in Reformed Epistemologv and
more particularly in a modified version of Alvin
Plantinga’s Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model which
I discuss in volume one of this series.

 

[Steven Avery]

Footnote 28 about millions and tens of millions of variants was just a really dumb blunder by Geisler et al. where 100 mss. with a variant count as 100 variants. It does not belong.

Spelling - Richard Bently should be Bentley - at 16%.

Buck Daniel
Steven Avery It looks like it passed spellcheck but wasn't proofread much beyond that point. He confuses demure and demur, which the dictionary says you should never do.

Steven Avery
Chapter 2
Even further the following arguments aim to show that should scholars reconstruct the original text (by some "stroke of luck); textual criticism has no stated mechanism whereby scholars could know that said text is the original given its slavish adherence to a broadly evidentialist methodology.
This is a KEY point. You can see it above. All they have is a probability text. They MUST be always searching.

2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning,
and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Snapp, Rowe, Hixson, et al. could NEVER know if they hit the pure and perfect word of God. Simply IMPOSSIBLE.
===========

Steven Avery
Here is a rather major error from Peter.
So how much of the NT text do Evangelical Greek scholars and theologians admit is compromised? One figure claims about 150,000 variants and approximately nineteen-twentieths of these readings are viable candidates which affect the meaning of Scripture.[93]
[93] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 159. “Nestle speaks of 150,000 in the New Testament, but adds that about nineteen-twentieths of these are devoid of real authority, and that of the remaining 7,500 nineteen-twentieths do not alter the sense of Scripture in any way.”
Peter actually does have the numbers right in his head, a moment later he writes accurately:
Berkhof admits that 7,500 variants have some authority but of that number “nineteen-twentieths do not alter the sense of Scripture in any way.” Put in more manageable terms, Nestle admits that there are approximately 375 variants which alter the sense of the NT text which averages out to 13.89 such variants per book of the NT. Again, these are only the ones of which scholars admit they are currently aware. If we accept these figures, it is important to ask whether a few missing or added words here or there is a problem for warranted belief in the Scripture. What person or scholar has the authority to determine which words are major words and which are minor? What authoritative academic rubric gives Berkhof et al the authority' to speak in terms of major and minor variants?

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

Steven Avery
Last sentence
"That alternative is found more broadly in Reformed Epistemologv and more particularly in a modified version of Alvin Plantinga’s Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model which I discuss in volume one of this series."
I think we should have more knowledge as to this Volume One.

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

Steven Avery
First there is a little apostrophe problem in this Kindle edition.
===================
Consider the words found in John’s Apocalypse, “
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall
take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out the book of life, and out of the holy city, and form the things which are written in this book. [75]
[75] Admittedly, Revelation 22:18-19 has come under scrutiny as to whether it is original to the apostle John or not. If it is, my question still stands. If is not, then its omission would significantly affect one’s understanding of the inerrancy of the originals and its immediate copies depending on the person’s acceptance or rejection the passage.
===================
However, I do not know of any challenge to Rev. 22:18-19 being orginal, more simply there is a question on book of life and tree of life.

https://www.facebook.com/bro.daniel.50/posts/10220349147507388

"“I’m not knowledgeable enough in this area to make an informed decision, but I know that God has used and blessed the KJB/TR so I know that’s safe and I’ll use it”, then there’s no conflict."

Except I was reading the NIV and NAS, until I started to study the Westcott-Hort and Critical Text theories. (One book was by Daniel Segraves, quite good!) They were crapola, obviously. I even called Maurice Robinson to help understand a few issues. The more I studied the more worthless became theories totally abused like shorter reading and harder reading that are at the core of Vaticanus-primacy apologetics.

Any theory that ends up giving the omission of the Mark ending an A for certain