Tue Apr 2 19:23:56 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr  2 19:23:56 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA12225; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:23:56 +0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960403002015.0067ca44@mail.vantek.net>
X-Sender: mbrownfield@mail.vantek.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b12 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 18:20:15 -0600
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: Marty Brownfield 
Subject: Re: autographs versus archetypes
Content-Length: 1170
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

At 12:30 PM 4/2/96 -0500, Mark E. Burrill wrote:
>At 09:05 AM 4/2/96 +0800, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
>>Here indeed is a double standard:  to
>>accept that everyone else makes (unintentional) errors when composing
>>longer documents, but not the NT authors!  The view that the autographs
>>themselves were completely free of (unintentional) errors is itself a faith
>>statement.
>
>This is interesting indeed and from a purely human point of view would be
>accepted without reservation. BUT...doesn't this theory necessarily
>presuppose the denial of even the possibility of the THEOPNEUSTOS?
>
It does no such thing.  I find it amazing that normally intelligent people
will believe that they have the Word of God only if the autographs are
infallible, even though the autographs no longer exist.  Instead, what we
have are fallible preachers and teachers using fallible translations based
on fallible manuscripts.  Everyone agrees on these points; but somehow the
inspiration of the Word is compromised unless the non-extant autographs are
infallible!

Marty Brownfield
mbrownfield@vantek.net  or  mpbrownf@fedex.com
http://www.vantek.net/pages/mbrownfield/index.html

Back