Originals (only)

[JimKnox]

Wait... The originals are a myth?

Yep.
Proponents of the "originals only" position speak of the Autographs as if they were available in the same collated form as that which we have in the Protestant Scriptures. Of course that is absurd. This is what I call "the mythical originals".

And quite frankly, I really do not care who agrees or not.

BTW: I made a point of defining Scripture as the Protestant Scriptures because the RCC has a different set than the Eastern Orthodox. And the Eastern Orthodox has a different set than the Ethiopian Coptic. And when we consider this fact, this entire squabble becomes stupid. Don'cha think?

 

[subllibrm]

FYI:
This is NOT about the KJV in any form.
This is about the claim that "only" the mythical originals are inspired.
Deal with that, please.

I already did.

 

[subllibrm]

Yep.
Proponents of the "originals only" position speak of the Autographs as if they were available in the same collated form as that which we have in the Protestant Scriptures. Of course that is absurd. This is what I call "the mythical originals".

And quite frankly, I really do not care who agrees or not.

BTW: I made a point of defining Scripture as the Protestant Scriptures because the RCC has a different set than the Eastern Orthodox. And the Eastern Orthodox has a different set than the Ethiopian Coptic. And when we consider this fact, this entire squabble becomes stupid. Don'cha think?

I do think that it is stupid to argue against a position that no one is making.

 

[Ransom]

Wait... The originals are a myth?

Yep. Never existed. Paul and the Apostles never wrote anything, and it wasn't until 1611 that they were translated for the first time.

 

[JimKnox]

I do think that it is stupid to argue against a position that no one is making.

So you say; but that is exactly what the Critical Text proponents are saying.

 

[voicecrying]

So you say; but that is exactly what the Critical Text proponents are saying.

Critical Text proponents do not say or imply that we have the actual originals. Critical Text proponents say we have a high confidence that the manuscripts we have today accurately represent the originals.

 

[JimKnox]

To be fair to KJVonlyists, believing that only the originals were inspired, and believing in “derivative inspiration” (of the KJV) are both propositions which are matters of faith.

I am pleased to see that at least ONE other person on this site understands the issue.

 

[JimKnox]

Critical Text proponents do not say or imply that we have the actual originals. Critical Text proponents say we have a high confidence that the manuscripts we have today accurately represent the originals.

Same difference my friend.
Because you cannot know that that which you have is an "accurate" representation of that which you have never seen.

 

[Ransom]

Because you cannot know that that which you have is an "accurate" representation of that which you have never seen.

1. In that case, where do we find an accurate representation of what Paul and the other apostles wrote?

2. How do you know this?

 

[voicecrying]

Same difference my friend.
Because you cannot know that that which you have is an "accurate" representation of that which you have never seen.

But those making the copies did see what they were copying. And same with the next one, and the next one.

 

[JimKnox]

But those making the copies did see what they were copying. And same with the next one, and the next one.

Well, that's the story isn't it?
How do you know?

 

[Ransom]

1. In that case, where do we find an accurate representation of what Paul and the other apostles wrote?

2. How do you know this?

Yeah, you can , JimKnox, but once again, you apparently can't answer.

 

[voicecrying]

Well, that's the story isn't it?
How do you know?

Because of the high agreement amongst all the manuscripts. How do you know you have God's word?

 

[Ransom]

Because of the high agreement amongst all the manuscripts. How do you know you have God's word?

Because , that's how.

 

[subllibrm]

To be fair to KJVonlyists, believing that only the originals were inspired, and believing in “derivative inspiration” (of the KJV) are both propositions which are matters of faith.

I believe that the inspiration is in the message itself and exists within the manuscript record.

 

[subllibrm]

Yep.
Proponents of the "originals only" position speak of the Autographs as if they were available in the same collated form as that which we have in the Protestant Scriptures. Of course that is absurd. This is what I call "the mythical originals".

And quite frankly, I really do not care who agrees or not.

BTW: I made a point of defining Scripture as the Protestant Scriptures because the RCC has a different set than the Eastern Orthodox. And the Eastern Orthodox has a different set than the Ethiopian Coptic. And when we consider this fact, this entire squabble becomes stupid. Don'cha think?

I have never heard anyone argue what you claim that they have.

 

[subllibrm]

Same difference my friend.
Because you cannot know that that which you have is an "accurate" representation of that which you have never seen.

By what measure do you know that the KJV is "accurate" without the originals for comparison? You are making the same unprovable claim about the KJV that you derided as having been made by others.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I believe that the inspiration is in the message itself and exists within the manuscript record.

If you look at how most conservative evangelicals/academics who are not King James Only define inspiration, it is not identified in their doctrinal statements as pertaining to “the message”, but rather they usually very specifically state that inspiration only extends to the autographs.

 

[JimKnox]

By what measure do you know that the KJV is "accurate" without the originals for comparison? You are making the same unprovable claim about the KJV that you derided as having been made by others.

Having trouble focusing?
This thread is not about the KJV.

 

[subllibrm]

If you look at how most conservative evangelicals/academics who are not King James Only define inspiration, it is not identified in their doctrinal statements as pertaining to “the message”, but rather they usually very specifically state that inspiration only extends to the autographs.

K