[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew and Will already pointed out a couple of major flaws in the Brian syllogism attempt. If only such efforts would actually be used in defending the purity and perfection of the word of God rather than trying to claim imperfection.

Originally Posted by BrianT

Consider the alternative (which takes us full circle): if a textually inerrant, complete, pure and perfect Bible is the necessary definition of "the word of God", then "the word of God" did not exist prior to the publication of such a Bible.

Since we live today, not 1000 years ago, it is always hard to say. As far as I know there was not a single volume before 1500 which actually had every book of the Bible in one volume. Why would this be a difficulty ?

Let me know where you disagree with this logic:

A. The original words were "God-breathed" and inerrant

In terms of Bible text, we can never see those "original words" nor do we know for sure what languages they were written in, nor what dialects. So "A" as a theory is of no import.

Perhaps Mark wrote in Latin or Graeco-Latin. Perhaps Paul (the very possible author) spoke Hebrews in Hebrew and a friend put it into Greek. In such cases, which words were "original" ?

What is of import is Scripture today -- alive, active, sharp.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Ahh, now this is a reference to inerrant Scripture, present tense, referring to what we have in our hands today.

B. God cannot lie
C. God, who cannot lie, said in those original inerrant words that his words are pure and they (as "the word of God") will be preserved
D. We no longer have those original manuscripts (or at least have failed to recognize them if we do).
E. Fallible man was involved in copying and translating throughout the centuries

Much like fallible man was involved in writing those pure words. Did the providential element exist only for a second when pen met ink ? I trow not. And Hebrews 4:12 and many other scriptures say not.

Inspiration without preservation is a doctrine of no substance. The scriptures at the time of Jesus were pure and unbroken, every jot and tittle, even though many dialects or languages may have been involved over many hundreds of years. When pure, holy Scripture was referenced (e.g. to Timothy) what was referrred to was the Bible he read as a child, not writings from centuries back.

F. The writings of scripture were not combined into a single volume until decades or centuries after the original writings were finished.
G. Given F is true, a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist at least until after the writings were collected and collated.
H. Given G is true, there was a time in Church history when a pure, perfect complete Bible did not exist yet God's promise of pure and preserved words was still true

All of this is based on your theory that Psalm 12 only applies to God's word being historically preserved in one full, single, collated volume. Since that is not at all my understanding of preservation of the word of God, the attempted syllogism does not apply. Some words could easily be scattered and gathered, and the Reformation Bible and the advent of printing were the major tool of God's gathering, fully refined and focused in the King James Bible.

I. Given H is true, then the meaning of God's promise was not about a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant volume, but about something else

Actually in a sense you are right here, by the stopped-clock syndrome. The promise of Psalm 12 was generally about preservation and refinement of the words of God. The fulfillment in an available single volume was only clearly achievable with the advent of the Reformation Bible and printing.

J. Given I and F are true, the meaning of God's promise in C was that "the word of God" existed and was preserved in what the Church did have during that time, namely a range of incomplete texts and imperfect volumes.

That was not the "meaning of the promise" that was the aspect of the promise that yearned to be fulfilled on a world-wide scale. The promise was fulfilled through the providential hand of God through the Reformation Bible and its majestic and pure and perfect result, the King James Bible.

K. Scripture does not change meaning
L. Even if scripture did change meaning, nobody on earth has the authority to dictate to the Church what these changes would be.
M. Given J, K, and L are true, what scriptures meant when a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible did not exist are what those scriptures mean today.

This is full muddle. All you are trying to say is that if there was no tangible full one-volume scripture available before the Reformation, the Reformation Bible could not then be pure and perfect. You would like to shorten the hand of God.

N. Given M is true, "the word of God" (the existence of his pure preserved words) does not require a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible to exist

You have to be very specific here. Are you saying the "word of God" can be imperfect ? Errant ? Contradictory ? In the past you have taken that position, then you pulled back, now you are taking it again.

O. Given N is true, a Bible can have textual errors in it and still rightfully be called "the word of God"

Can an error be the perfect and pure word of God ? Or are you simply saying there is no pure and perfect word of God today ? Choose one.

P. Given O and K are true, it is unbiblical and unauthoritative to say that "the word of God" must exist as a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

Let's get the language straight. Our assertion is that such a volume does exist today. Your assertion is that it cannot exist today.

Q. Given P is true, it is further unbiblical and unauthoritative to claim any particular translation is a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

Now you have switched to "translation" ? Why ? Speak of the Bible as a whole. Do you believe it is wrong to speak of any Bible as pure and perfect and complete and inerrant ? E.g. Would you be happy with the assertion that Scrivener's Greek is pure and perfect and not the King James Bible ?

R. Given Q is true, it is yet further unbiblical and unauthoritative to claim any particular translation is exclusively a pure, perfect, complete, textually-inerrant Bible

Same problems as above. This is not worth addressing (even ignoring all the difficulties leading up to this point) until you make clear why you switched to talking about "translation" rather than Bible text, in any language.

I'm not saying the above logic is bullet-proof,

Quite obviously.

Shalom,
Steven