tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post6303438315610811997..comments2023-07-08T08:12:28.854-04:00Comments on Oh Taste and See: Eastern Errancy AnsweredFr. Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03489705490983833993noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-4575340534867544272009-08-11T09:00:19.954-04:002009-08-11T09:00:19.954-04:00I agree that this is much more heat than light and...I agree that this is much more heat than light and that we've pretty much said all we're going to say, so I'm closing comments for this post. Thank you for your interest.<br /><br />I'd like to commend John for an excellent final post, in which he shows great fairness for both sides of the debate (although I'd debate whether we can separate a man from his work, but, for Fr. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03489705490983833993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-82092042729473255102009-08-11T01:50:41.642-04:002009-08-11T01:50:41.642-04:00To state the bird problem more succinctly: whether...To state the bird problem more succinctly: whether a bat is a bird is irrelevant. The issue is whether a bat is a הָע֔וֹף. Since the only witness to the meaning of הָע֔וֹף is the Hebrew people themselves, the answer is self-evident that a bat is a הָע֔וֹף.<br /><br />Concerning what Jude thought was scripture - again irrelevant. The issue is not whether Jude the person is inerrant, the issue Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-34397366473711103792009-08-10T20:01:09.615-04:002009-08-10T20:01:09.615-04:00s-p,
I agree with you and I think I'm going t...s-p,<br /><br />I agree with you and I think I'm going to leave off here with this topic. I think we're all getting a little worked up over what really isn't, in my opinion, a very important topic. A better topic, I think would be a broader comparison of the way Protestants and Orthodox respectively treat Holy Scripture.<br /><br />I'Ve asked Rhology, over on his blog, if he'Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-85822095395303043682009-08-10T18:18:11.959-04:002009-08-10T18:18:11.959-04:00I detect the discussion is moving in the direction...I detect the discussion is moving in the direction of "heat" rather than light... But, my question is, "What Orthodox doctrine, other than biblical inerrancy itself, is really changed or altered or supported or not by "Scripture"?" After being in a "Bible Church for over 20 years, teaching Scripture etc etc. for all those years, I cannot name one teaching or Steve Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04319784922747041297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-55473741439513562822009-08-10T15:17:56.585-04:002009-08-10T15:17:56.585-04:00the LXX is mentioned in the footnotes as a "v...<i> the LXX is mentioned in the footnotes as a "variant reading."</i> <br /><br />B/c it mostly agrees with the MT. Like I said, no biggie. <br /><br /><br /><i>Where does he say this and what books is he referring to?</i> <br /><br />I believe it's 3 Macc and he says it in "The Orthodox Church" if I'm not mistaken.<br /><br /><br /><i>So much for the man who Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-37392524067918482052009-08-10T13:50:55.918-04:002009-08-10T13:50:55.918-04:00You apparently don't know that the Prot OT tak...<i>You apparently don't know that the Prot OT takes into acct the Maso AND the LXX?<br />And the diffs between the 2 are not very large.</i><br /><br />The basis of all modern Protestant translations is the Masoretic. Occasionally, the LXX is mentioned in the footnotes as a "variant reading." The LXX is not a "variant reading." It is the Bible of Christianity.<br /><br Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-87029158164206842672009-08-10T13:35:48.188-04:002009-08-10T13:35:48.188-04:00Protestants accept a version of the Bible whose or...<i>Protestants accept a version of the Bible whose origins are explicitly anti-Christian.</i> <br /><br />You apparently don't know that the Prot OT takes into acct the Maso AND the LXX? <br />And the diffs between the 2 are not very large. This is kind of reckless polemics on your part. <br /><br /><br /><i> The problem, of course, is that we don't have the originals of the writings Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-71494322070200315312009-08-10T13:13:31.009-04:002009-08-10T13:13:31.009-04:00The apostles also engaged many enemies. No mention...<i>The apostles also engaged many enemies. No mention of any Canon dispute. But I guess you can just assume.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, we don't have those debates preserved during the time of the Apostles themselves, but we do have them from very early. See St. Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho the Jew.<br /><br />I think it's very telling that the Protestants accept a versionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-3889120740101120092009-08-10T13:02:32.844-04:002009-08-10T13:02:32.844-04:00You (should) know as well as I that the Canon is t...You (should) know as well as I that the Canon is thought of as a group. Law, Prophets, Writings. <br />You know, Christ's enemies engaged Him a lot, and He them, a lot. No mention of any dispute. How convenient for you. <br />The apostles also engaged many enemies. No mention of any Canon dispute. But I guess you can just assume it was there, can you? Kind of like you assume that EOC Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-36454851414779750152009-08-10T12:45:04.012-04:002009-08-10T12:45:04.012-04:00Why didn't Jesus' enemies ever challenge H...<i>Why didn't Jesus' enemies ever challenge His quotations of the OT, then? Just curious.</i><br /><br />I don't know of anywhere in the Gospels that Christ quotes from any of the disputed books. Also, arguing that it didn't happen simply because it's not mentioned is a dubious argument. Christ, as the Apostle John testifies in his Gospel, did and said many more things than Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-49239261515507347112009-08-10T12:23:46.801-04:002009-08-10T12:23:46.801-04:00Why didn't Jesus' enemies ever challenge H...Why didn't Jesus' enemies ever challenge His quotations of the OT, then? Just curious. <br /><br />And I don't really think you understand the inerrantist position, since you're asking whether the Maso or the LXX is inerrant. The AUTOGRAPHA are inerrant, and they are preserved in the manuscript tradition, not in any one manuscript.<br />Finally, "accepting the LXX" isRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-52091365477038395042009-08-10T12:11:06.059-04:002009-08-10T12:11:06.059-04:00But not at Jesus' time. They all agreed about ...<i>But not at Jesus' time. They all agreed about the extent of the OT by then.</i><br /><br />No, they didn't... As I pointed out about the Masoretic vs. the Septuagint, the debates were still ongoing well after the time of Christ's earthly ministry. And even, due to Protestant innovations, still are.<br /><br />This, of course, brings up brand new questions. Which is inerrant: theAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-48645382093084673102009-08-10T11:57:04.888-04:002009-08-10T11:57:04.888-04:00I admitted
The problem isn't your admission...<i>I admitted</i> <br /><br />The problem isn't your admission. The problem is your attitude. Here's what you said:<br /><br /><i>Maybe someone can explain this... or maybe Scripture's science isn't inerrant?</i> <br /><br />The implication is obvious - if someone can't explain it, then it's probably errant. <br />Maybe you just don't understand it. Maybe no one Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-47075162856256640042009-08-10T11:54:39.279-04:002009-08-10T11:54:39.279-04:00Hebrew comes fully equipped with a word that means...<i> Hebrew comes fully equipped with a word that means something like "flying mammal" which could have been used in that place.</i> <br /><br />Haha, kind of like NT Greek has a word that means "cousin/distant kinsman" which could have been used instead of "adelphos" when designating the other children of Mary the mother of Jesus?<br /><br /><br /><i>I'm not Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-12844611613091352162009-08-10T11:50:17.312-04:002009-08-10T11:50:17.312-04:00Of bats and birds: Hey, I admitted I didn't k...Of bats and birds: Hey, I admitted I didn't know the answer to the question. The article you link to, I think, explains it very well, but I've also read (I'll try to find the reference later) that Hebrew comes fully equipped with a word that means something like "flying mammal" which could have been used in that place. Like I said, I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, so I Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-2759652132935302912009-08-10T11:38:09.347-04:002009-08-10T11:38:09.347-04:00This is one of the things that is so annoying abou...This is one of the things that is so annoying about errantists like David. You end up following atheists in making facile objections to the Scripture. You're calling God either incompetent or a liar. <br />Your bat/bird thing <a href="http://unavoxveritatis.blogspot.com/2008/04/of-bats-and-birds.html" rel="nofollow">is laughable</a>. Seriously. <br /><br /><br /><i>Are you really willingRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-74114480436247738902009-08-10T11:27:02.116-04:002009-08-10T11:27:02.116-04:00John brings up a great point in regards to the Gos...John brings up a great point in regards to the Gospels. St. Papias of Hierapolis, a hearer of the Apostle John and friend of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, is one of the earliest (if not the very earliest, ca. 120) witness to how the Gospels were written and by whom. He says this exact thing:<br /><br />"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-57624678949216728412009-08-10T09:59:20.331-04:002009-08-10T09:59:20.331-04:00(cont)
David Bryan said,
I fail to see how, but ...(cont)<br /><br /><br />David Bryan said,<br /><i>I fail to see how, but I do not possess all knowledge, obviously.</i> <br /><br />You seem to be vacillating when it suits you - you were just SURE that the Cross inscription accts were irreconcilably inconsistent, I pointed out you don't have all knowledge, Seth explained it, and you didn't say "I do not possess all knowledge, Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-19244842592455853332009-08-10T09:58:57.596-04:002009-08-10T09:58:57.596-04:00David W,
Howdy! A few comments.
this nothing inj...David W,<br /><br />Howdy! A few comments.<br /><i>this nothing injures the truth of what they have said.</i> <br /><br />Except this: They got stuff WRONG. And it becomes simply a question of fideistic special pleading to say, "Well, they got some things over there wrong, but on the stuff that's really important to me, they <b>totally</b> got it right!"<br />AKA reshaping God&#Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-54428239363979758192009-08-10T05:22:22.638-04:002009-08-10T05:22:22.638-04:00The gospels don't even pretend that they are p...The gospels don't even pretend that they are presenting a chronological account. That may be the expectation of 21st century man: that chronologically is the appropriate way to lay out a story, but it wasn't necessarily the expectation in ancient times. Luke generally is more chronological, but Matthew clearly follows a thematic approach. Once a particular theme is broached he puts down Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-28452659649634867032009-08-10T00:15:14.006-04:002009-08-10T00:15:14.006-04:00Well. Quite a discussion. Thanks, y'all, for...Well. Quite a discussion. Thanks, y'all, for chiming in.<br /><br />John, I must say, your patristic quotes speak well to the topic at hand...really, though, I won't add to anything David W. said (incidentally, I'm a "David W.," too, so that's rather funny to me), as he said almost exactly what I was going to. <br /><br />I must also side yet again with s-p in his Fr. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03489705490983833993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-37827541299998983512009-08-09T09:44:16.049-04:002009-08-09T09:44:16.049-04:00Concerning Augustine, I believe the oldest survivi...Concerning Augustine, I believe the oldest surviving manuscript of the church calendar is Codex Epternacensis, dating from 700AD, and Augustine is celebrated on the normal western date of August 28. So the statement that the Church never celebrated him till 1950 seems to be demonstrably wrong.<br /><br />As you allude to, all the Fathers have their own idiosyncrasies. I don't know why nobody Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-45485089192003223922009-08-09T00:04:40.826-04:002009-08-09T00:04:40.826-04:00I thought I should add a note here on Augustine, s...I thought I should add a note here on Augustine, since I seem to have introduced the issue.<br /><br />Let me state first off that I do not doubt that he is a Saint and a Father of the Church. As I said originally, the Church has never said otherwise and so I will not.<br /><br />However, there is no doubt that he held heretical opinions. Even the other Fathers who cite him or speak about him Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-87932393809544633622009-08-08T23:14:08.779-04:002009-08-08T23:14:08.779-04:00Darlene,
I think that you're splitting hairs ...Darlene,<br /><br />I think that you're splitting hairs at this point, but:<br /><br />I would say that Adam was not considered "perfect" in God's sight because, as Fathers like St. Maximos the Confessor make clear, he was not yet deified, therefore, not yet perfect. "Good" is the word that Scripture itself uses in Genesis to refer to pre-fall Creation, not "Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10336499.post-55817352830517618032009-08-08T23:12:14.748-04:002009-08-08T23:12:14.748-04:00>> Chrysostom said that there is "disco...>> Chrysostom said that there is "discordance which seems to exist". Yes, clearly there "seems" to exist discrepencies. Everybody knows that. Whether the "seemingly" discrepencies are in fact discrepencies is the actual argument.<br /><br />DW: How do you reconcile the example above?<br /><br />>> Concerning 1Cor 7:12, you seem to imply that an apostolicAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00265468732588320935noreply@blogger.com