Okay, so now that I think I understand, I would ask, which were the original texts? And do you really believe that God would not protect the authenticity of the translations? Are the variations in each different translation obvious?
IOWs, when I read II Tim 3:15 and it's statement that
all Scripture is given by God's inspiration, I consider Scripture to be that of the Gospel delivered by Jesus orally. So, are you arguing that only those who were the first to put Jesus' words in writing to be those who were inspired by God?
Where would one find information regarding your assertion here? I would like to read up on it if you can point me to any web-links.
Any good conservative links on inspiration and textual variants would be good . . . there are too many to number.
But Metzger is a good place to start:
http://books.google.com/books?as_au...=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en
Okay, so now that I think I understand, I would ask, which were the original texts?
We don't have any of the original texts . . . what we do have is very early MSS that aline with later extant MSS that represent translation schools (Byzantine and Alexandrian mainly). These schools approached the texts in similiar ways that we approach their's now . . . dynamic equivalence, paraphrase, etc. The Alexandrian philosophy saw the best way was to translate striaght across . . . no clarifying remarks . . . no additions or references. The Byzantine line of thinking was to meld all the information of the available texts and create a rendition that compiled all the variants into a cohesive whole.
The earliest MSS that we have are Alexandrian in nature. We can be sure of what was earliest because what comes later ALWAYS adds . . . what comes earliest would always be the text with NO addition.
IOW, if we have a fragment dating to 125 AD and it says "Jesus came to Galilee," and we have another from 250 AD that says in the same place "The Lord Jesus Christ came to Galilee" it is more probable that the second is a scribal insert (probably for clarity) and represents the addition to the early text, than that the earlier text is the less trustworthy witness.
And do you really believe that God would not protect the authenticity of the translations?
I do believe in providence . . . and in God's hand keeping the text . . . BUT nothing in Scripture addresses it (so it is an arguement automatically from silence) . . . and the history and evidence that we do have says differently. Otherwise we all need to be in a frantic search for which would essentially be . . . the "untainted" version.
Are the variations in each different translation obvious?
The large majority are not. But a few ARE blatantly obvious. Mark 16 for instance. From V9 and ff . . . NONE is in the earliest MSS.
Or John 8 and the pericope adultery. Again, NOT in the earliest MSS . . . 1 John 5:7, the Johannine commata.
So, one is wrong and one is right . . . one was written by the author . . . one was not. Herein lies the conundrum.
Where do I land . . . we have what God wants us to have. I will stand on the earliest MSS for authoritative teaching . . . and view the later insertions as thoughtful insights into early Christian Tradition . . . something to be considered . . . but not reckoned authoritative.
IOWs, when I read II Tim 3:15 and it's statement that all Scripture is given by God's inspiration, I consider Scripture to be that of the Gospel delivered by Jesus orally.
The 1 Tim 3 passage, if interpreted correctly in the passage would refer to the OT . . . for that is what Paul has in view.
Systematically one could apply this passage to the NT ONLY through Peter's statment about Paul's writing and Paul's citation of Luke's Gospel.
Even so, the rendition about the Scriptures would only apply to what was written by them . . . for that is what the word "scripture" (graphe) means . . . written marks . . . not oral anything.
I don't see the Gospel and Scripture as synonomous terms . . . certainly ALL of Scripture is in the Gospel . . . but the Gospel transcends Scripture . . . the Gospel goes forth when I witness to someone at work . . . but I may not have ever even opened my Bible.
Even at that, the presentation of the Gospel that I give is still fallible . . . and that is the Gospel going forth . . . but the Scripture is NOT fallible.
So, are you arguing that only those who were the first to put Jesus' words in writing to be those who were inspired by God?
If graphe means "marks, writ" then Scripture is ONLY what was written . . . NOTHING ELSE.
The process for determination of what was and what was NOT inspired was a fairly mundane issue. Apostolic authority (an Apostle himself or one delegated by him), early witness (meaning it goes back to the earliest days), ecclisiastical usage (something that the Church had affirmed as authoritative . . . NOT THAT THE CHURCH GAVE IT AS AUTHORITATIVE [so I am not misunderstood by our other brethern here] . . . but that it was ALREADY operating as authoritative evidenced by the church's usage), doctrinal integrity (not some of the Nag Hammadi and Jesus turning clay pigeons into real ones on the sabbath), and I may be missing a few here.
But essentially this was the process. We affirm God's providence in guiding this process . . . but not in the same way as the process of authoring Scripture.
There may have been others who wrote Jesus words that were not inspired . . . like perhaps Simon Magus (rumored founder of Gnosticism). And there were even those who wrote on the heels of the Apostles who did not consider their own writings as authoritative as that of the Apostles . . . but rather appealed time and again to the Scriptures as the authority.
So that is where I land . . .
To be honest . . . what the Lord has been leading me in working on lately has been the way that the NT gift of prophecy works in with Scripture and authority . . . as the phrase "Word of God" contains more than just what is written.
To make what you said true, though, there must be transformation within those who espouse these "ideas".