The two fellas you mention (White and Carson) seem to be in the minority. I quoted Daniel Wallace before on this very issue. Wallace is a good, Bible believing Christian but he points out that most who actually work in biblical mss deny the central tenets of the faith they are influencing.
He wrote, "As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I dont know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."
As a fan of presuppositionalism you know that it is impossible to remain neutral on any issue. I would have to say 70% of the Greek and Hebrew must have had some, just a little, non-Christian influence. I find no confidence in this.
Great points brother, and important ones. I would just like to point out that major Bible translations have committees with higher standards than this forum, including background, track record, etc. checks. However, because we live in a postmodern age of tolerance, the potential for tampering is greater in theory, than in ages past where the punishment for such tampering may result in death, where a non-believer would not likely even obtain privlidge to access the mss. Correct me if I am overstating the case. I had William Tyndale a believing translator in mind.
As a weaker brother I must bow out least my faith in the word be shattered. Keep in mind I once attended a Greek Orthodox church where the word has been dogmatically declared and I admit that is a tempting, a flesh pleasing doctrine...may God have mercy!
Apart from God the Holy Spirit working through me, I am nothing but weakness, and seasons come and go. I think I somewhat understand where you're coming, though I have not been exactly there. Part of what makes this difficult, is there is both an objective and subjective aspect to the doctrine of inspiration. God revealed Himself to a chosen people, and superintended His revelations in such a way as to not remove individuality or personality from the speaker and writer, while at the same time by the Holy Spirit led to communicate exactly what He intended for them to write. Remove subjectivity and we are left with a mechanical model of inspiration, remove objectivity and we are left with nothing. It is crucial to recognize the importance of both, even in our interpretation of the Word of God. I suspect those Churches which deny Sola Scriptura, go astray on their doctrine of inspiration, with inconsistancy in equivocating the inspiration of Scripture with the interpretations of the Church, such equivocation claims an inspired interpretation. This is also a problem with kjv-onlism, and the view of inspired interpretation from original tongues and mss into another language. The resolution is Sola Scriptura, where Scripture is in a ultimate catagory of authority over interpretation. Here again you are correct about presuppositions, Sola Scriptura being one, based on the objectivity of our self-revealing Triune God, the self-authenticating Christ, and the self-authenticating work of God the Holy Spirit in confirming the testimony of the objective Sacred Scripture to us. It is beautiful how God works in marvelous ways, through diverse manners!
Btw, if or when you feel stronger, you might check out a little book called "Translating Truth" by Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, John Collins, Vern Poythress, and Bruce Winter, with a forward by J.I. Packer.
