Continuing the discussion:
(Daniel Chew's words in red)
Antithesis said...
Hi PR,
I'm going back home today (Sing is not my home, mind you), so I'll chat again when I have the time.
I read you post, but I'm not convinced. Anyway, thanks for the effort.
It's a pity I didn't have fun with conservative Joel. Hope he'll have fun in TTC. He'll learn much good there :)
My convictions?
See my brand new blog:
http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/
7/10/08 12:42
Antithesis said...
Dear PR:
I do not have the time to comment fully, but for now, the following will suffice.
1) I wrote, "Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? "
You said, “How about sin, and traditionalism?”
And you claimed that language can convey propositions to man PERFECTLY? Self-contradiction here? You are tacitly admitting that sin and traditionalism had confounded Man’s ability/noetic structure to understand Scripture. There you go – you agree with me!
Conclusion: Language CANNOT convey truths/propositions perfectly to Man.
2) The argument is unsound because the premise "If p, then q" is false. However, my stated argument is soun because the conditional premise IS true.
>Nope. Your primary premise (If P, then Q) is false. So, your argument is unsound. See above.
3) You should go and be a lawyer; words seem to be mere putty to you. Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?
Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.
A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”
A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”
Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?
But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?
4) Appeal to authority?
>That’s logically valid, unless I appeal to the WRONG authority.
4b) For someone who argues against the ability of words to convey truths perfectly …
>Perfectly? I don’t think so. Straw man?
4c) … you sure are using a lot of words to persuade me, as if your words can convey your meaning perfectly.
>It doesn’t, but it does convey meaning albeit imperfectly.
5) I asked, "Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?"
You answered, ‘None of the options. Scripture is fully preserved; if you refuse to understand our position and constantly misrepresent it, then this particular area of discussion is done.”
>Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?
And what is “our” position? Define it and I wouldn’t “misrepresent” it. Thanks.
6) I asked, “That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?”
You said, “Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.”
>Go read your comment again. This is obviously not what you meant, not unless you agree that words can have more than one meaning.
>Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?”
7) Answer: Because the Scriptures tell us that its own words are preserved (cf Mt. 5:18).
>So what kind of “preservation” is that? Again, full versus perfect/imperfect preservation? Are all the words of the autographs preserved for us TODAY in your version of “full” preservation?”
So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect? This is not a false dilemma. There are really only these two options, as ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ are contradictory terms in logic. You like logic, right?
8) I asked, "However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"
You claimed, “Straw man again. I was saying that regenerate Man is able to be logical wrt the things of God, and whether they are so can be seen by them. I DID not say that they WILL always be logical.”
>No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?
Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?
9) Give me a break! Are all KJV users believers in KJVOnly-ism? Or maybe they are all TR only-ists? Or how about the NKJV users? Are NKJV users supporters partially supporting the TR and partially supporting Westcort and Hort? And are all users of Inclusive Language versions like the TNIV egalitarians?
>My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?
I wrote, “Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance.” See the exception clause behind my sentence?
So you could be using the ESV out of ignorance, or for some reasons despite your convictions, chose to continue using the ESV.
And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism.
Any thoughts?
10) Non-belief in the corruption of the Critical Text does not mean that I am a Westcort and Hort supporter, if you just but apply some basic Aristotelian logic to the issue.
>But the critical text is based upon the WH theory. That’s not even Aristotelian, that’s common sense.
It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”
Obviously, if you trust the critical text as the most accurate form of eclectic text, then you must trust the theory behind its derivation/construction – which is the WH theory.
7/10/08 14:13
This is where he starts to get hysterical and illogical. Watch these comments by the Puritan Reformed guy in Singapore:
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
1) "You said, “How about sin, and traditionalism?”
And you claimed that language can convey propositions to man PERFECTLY? Self-contradiction here? You are tacitly admitting that sin and traditionalism had confounded Man’s ability/noetic structure to understand Scripture. There you go – you agree with me!"
LOL. How did you pass your reading comprehension in English language in the first place? I was talking about the irrationality of the creature which has nothing to do with the ability of language (an impersonal tool) to convey truths/thoughts perfectly. Talk about faulting the tool for the ineptness of the person yielding it.
2) "Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?"
No, becuase they are two different sentences! Go brush up your logic!
3) "That’s logically valid, unless I appeal to the WRONG authority"
Like the heretic Karl Barth, and all the postmodern deconstructionists? Why am I NOT convinced they are the right authority to appeal to?
4) "It doesn’t, but it does convey meaning albeit imperfectly"
So what makes you so sure that that 1% or around there of imperfectness does not cause your message to be somehow lost or distorted? You may NOT argue from the fact that I understand you because that can be used to support my case.
5) "Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?"
Fully preserved means that the very words of Scripture is preserved for us (which could include being preserved in the plurality of manuscripts). Perfectly preserved refers to any varient of the perfect bible theory which states that God has preserved the very words of Scripture in any single manuscript or tradition.
6) "Go read your comment again. This is obviously not what you meant, not unless you agree that words can have more than one meaning."
So now you know how to read my own words better than me? I think not!
7) "Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings"
So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.
8) "So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect?"
Preservation of Scripture is 'perfect' in the sense that it is fully preserved. It is not perfect however in the sense that it is preserved in any ONE single manuscript or scribal tradition.
9) "No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?"
Oh, so that wasn't a rhetorical question? Perhaps you may care to phrase your questions as questions and not insinuations.
10) "Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"
Irrelevant. The topic is on the instrument of language, NOT on the person, as I have mentioned already earlier. The ability of language is the one YOU are attacking, not the capability of the person using the instrument of language.
7/10/08 18:17
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
11) "My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?"
Irrelevant.
12) "And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism"
Absolute non-sequitur. There is absolutely no logical correspondence between the WH theory of textual criticism and the usage of the critical texts. The critical texts were present even if Westcort and Hort did not examine them.
13) "But the critical text is based upon the WH theory"
Nonsense! Is the Majority text based upon the textual theory of Desiderius Erasmus, or of Theodore Beza or Stephanus? One is a theory; the other is a physical text.
14) "It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”"
False analogy! Unless you are saying that WH created the Critical Text ex nihilo? Anybody who is willing to take the time and effort and expenditure can look up the original texts ie Sinaticus and copies of Vaticanus, Aleph etc and bypass WH altogether.
(Daniel Chew's words in red)
Antithesis said...
Hi PR,
I'm going back home today (Sing is not my home, mind you), so I'll chat again when I have the time.
I read you post, but I'm not convinced. Anyway, thanks for the effort.
It's a pity I didn't have fun with conservative Joel. Hope he'll have fun in TTC. He'll learn much good there :)
My convictions?
See my brand new blog:
http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/
7/10/08 12:42
Antithesis said...
Dear PR:
I do not have the time to comment fully, but for now, the following will suffice.
1) I wrote, "Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? "
You said, “How about sin, and traditionalism?”
And you claimed that language can convey propositions to man PERFECTLY? Self-contradiction here? You are tacitly admitting that sin and traditionalism had confounded Man’s ability/noetic structure to understand Scripture. There you go – you agree with me!
Conclusion: Language CANNOT convey truths/propositions perfectly to Man.
2) The argument is unsound because the premise "If p, then q" is false. However, my stated argument is soun because the conditional premise IS true.
>Nope. Your primary premise (If P, then Q) is false. So, your argument is unsound. See above.
3) You should go and be a lawyer; words seem to be mere putty to you. Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?
Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.
A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”
A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”
Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?
But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?
4) Appeal to authority?
>That’s logically valid, unless I appeal to the WRONG authority.
4b) For someone who argues against the ability of words to convey truths perfectly …
>Perfectly? I don’t think so. Straw man?
4c) … you sure are using a lot of words to persuade me, as if your words can convey your meaning perfectly.
>It doesn’t, but it does convey meaning albeit imperfectly.
5) I asked, "Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?"
You answered, ‘None of the options. Scripture is fully preserved; if you refuse to understand our position and constantly misrepresent it, then this particular area of discussion is done.”
>Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?
And what is “our” position? Define it and I wouldn’t “misrepresent” it. Thanks.
6) I asked, “That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?”
You said, “Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.”
>Go read your comment again. This is obviously not what you meant, not unless you agree that words can have more than one meaning.
>Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?”
7) Answer: Because the Scriptures tell us that its own words are preserved (cf Mt. 5:18).
>So what kind of “preservation” is that? Again, full versus perfect/imperfect preservation? Are all the words of the autographs preserved for us TODAY in your version of “full” preservation?”
So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect? This is not a false dilemma. There are really only these two options, as ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ are contradictory terms in logic. You like logic, right?
8) I asked, "However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"
You claimed, “Straw man again. I was saying that regenerate Man is able to be logical wrt the things of God, and whether they are so can be seen by them. I DID not say that they WILL always be logical.”
>No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?
Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?
9) Give me a break! Are all KJV users believers in KJVOnly-ism? Or maybe they are all TR only-ists? Or how about the NKJV users? Are NKJV users supporters partially supporting the TR and partially supporting Westcort and Hort? And are all users of Inclusive Language versions like the TNIV egalitarians?
>My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?
I wrote, “Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance.” See the exception clause behind my sentence?
So you could be using the ESV out of ignorance, or for some reasons despite your convictions, chose to continue using the ESV.
And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism.
Any thoughts?
10) Non-belief in the corruption of the Critical Text does not mean that I am a Westcort and Hort supporter, if you just but apply some basic Aristotelian logic to the issue.
>But the critical text is based upon the WH theory. That’s not even Aristotelian, that’s common sense.
It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”
Obviously, if you trust the critical text as the most accurate form of eclectic text, then you must trust the theory behind its derivation/construction – which is the WH theory.
7/10/08 14:13
This is where he starts to get hysterical and illogical. Watch these comments by the Puritan Reformed guy in Singapore:
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
1) "You said, “How about sin, and traditionalism?”
And you claimed that language can convey propositions to man PERFECTLY? Self-contradiction here? You are tacitly admitting that sin and traditionalism had confounded Man’s ability/noetic structure to understand Scripture. There you go – you agree with me!"
LOL. How did you pass your reading comprehension in English language in the first place? I was talking about the irrationality of the creature which has nothing to do with the ability of language (an impersonal tool) to convey truths/thoughts perfectly. Talk about faulting the tool for the ineptness of the person yielding it.
2) "Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?"
No, becuase they are two different sentences! Go brush up your logic!
3) "That’s logically valid, unless I appeal to the WRONG authority"
Like the heretic Karl Barth, and all the postmodern deconstructionists? Why am I NOT convinced they are the right authority to appeal to?
4) "It doesn’t, but it does convey meaning albeit imperfectly"
So what makes you so sure that that 1% or around there of imperfectness does not cause your message to be somehow lost or distorted? You may NOT argue from the fact that I understand you because that can be used to support my case.
5) "Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?"
Fully preserved means that the very words of Scripture is preserved for us (which could include being preserved in the plurality of manuscripts). Perfectly preserved refers to any varient of the perfect bible theory which states that God has preserved the very words of Scripture in any single manuscript or tradition.
6) "Go read your comment again. This is obviously not what you meant, not unless you agree that words can have more than one meaning."
So now you know how to read my own words better than me? I think not!
7) "Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings"
So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.
8) "So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect?"
Preservation of Scripture is 'perfect' in the sense that it is fully preserved. It is not perfect however in the sense that it is preserved in any ONE single manuscript or scribal tradition.
9) "No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?"
Oh, so that wasn't a rhetorical question? Perhaps you may care to phrase your questions as questions and not insinuations.
10) "Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"
Irrelevant. The topic is on the instrument of language, NOT on the person, as I have mentioned already earlier. The ability of language is the one YOU are attacking, not the capability of the person using the instrument of language.
7/10/08 18:17
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
11) "My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?"
Irrelevant.
12) "And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism"
Absolute non-sequitur. There is absolutely no logical correspondence between the WH theory of textual criticism and the usage of the critical texts. The critical texts were present even if Westcort and Hort did not examine them.
13) "But the critical text is based upon the WH theory"
Nonsense! Is the Majority text based upon the textual theory of Desiderius Erasmus, or of Theodore Beza or Stephanus? One is a theory; the other is a physical text.
14) "It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”"
False analogy! Unless you are saying that WH created the Critical Text ex nihilo? Anybody who is willing to take the time and effort and expenditure can look up the original texts ie Sinaticus and copies of Vaticanus, Aleph etc and bypass WH altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment