tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post1664294534942574089..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Recent James White Videos and the Bible Version Issue, pt. 1Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19047389209116750642015-07-24T02:47:39.008-07:002015-07-24T02:47:39.008-07:00You aren't wrong.You aren't wrong. LXX 1https://www.blogger.com/profile/06740533927461780711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60907378123708336092015-07-24T02:43:04.096-07:002015-07-24T02:43:04.096-07:00If 1 John 5:7 was an marginal note and was acciden...If 1 John 5:7 was an marginal note and was accidentally added you would discard the whole bible, in spite of the supernatural agreement between all the copies of the new testament we have in Greek, Latin, Coptic, Armenian and others?LXX 1https://www.blogger.com/profile/06740533927461780711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23157076343864933302015-07-23T05:34:45.661-07:002015-07-23T05:34:45.661-07:00It says all scripture is given by inspiration. It...It says all scripture is given by inspiration. It does not say all the originals were given by inspiration. You and others imply that.<br /><br />The Holy Ghost of God would not give scripture in other languages if they are not inspired in the same way as the originals. I know that because the church in the last 700 years NEVER preached a Greek text to the world or even within the body of Christ, the church.<br /><br />No one in the world today has any authorative Greek or Hebrew text that is preached. The only world wide text that is believed and preached that I am aware of is the English of the Holy Bible (could be others). Therefore, the body of Christ considers that text to be inspired as the scripture teaches.<br /><br />It really is not that hard.The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15294037257003687242015-07-22T19:20:07.251-07:002015-07-22T19:20:07.251-07:00I'm the pastor James White was responding to i...I'm the pastor James White was responding to in his post "My Concerns with the Ecclesiastical Text Position" video. My response to James White is here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUl0vNcDB9ARobert Truelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03673668504955360119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80628235677009099512015-07-21T08:19:34.619-07:002015-07-21T08:19:34.619-07:00I'll be very interested in seeing the response...I'll be very interested in seeing the response to the entirety of White's video on the ecclesiastical text position. From about 10:00 on, he highlights some of my own questions on this position. I'll be interacting with this series, at the appropriate times, as it marches on. Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28162352383116518182015-07-20T20:55:03.800-07:002015-07-20T20:55:03.800-07:00I would like to point out that Mr. White's pos...I would like to point out that Mr. White's position actually is to defend the errant critical text, which is much harder to defend and less orthodox than the Textus Receptus. There are a number of places where the critical text jettisons inerrancy (Mark 1; Matthew 1; etc.)<br /><br />Tyler, I would commend to you my essay on Baptist confessions and the TR here:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/baptist-canonicity-textus-receptus/<br /><br />Mr. White is an elder at a Reformed Baptist Church that subscribes to the London Baptist Confession, see here:<br /><br />http://www.prbc.org/about/confession.htm<br /><br />I would like to ask him if he agrees with that Confession's statement on the preservation of Scripture, its citation of verses like 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:16, Acts 8:37, etc. that are not in the critical text, or, in some cases, in the so-called "Majority Text."KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17174794383962415782015-07-20T02:17:01.907-07:002015-07-20T02:17:01.907-07:00Yes, I'm up. I was listening to a sermon by s...Yes, I'm up. I was listening to a sermon by someone and just kept going, checked email one more time and voila.<br /><br />And you're working right now? :-D<br /><br />I believe providential preservation. The hijacking occurred when he equated textual criticism with providence. He made the confession mean textual criticism, read into it that meaning. That was new.<br /><br />Richard Muller, foremost historical theologian, writes:<br /><br />By "original and authentic" text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the "original and authentic text" of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa.<br /><br />And,<br /><br />The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice . . . . rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.<br /><br />Then,<br /><br />A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. . . . Those who claim an errant text, against the orthodox consensus to the contrary, must prove their case. To claim errors in the scribal copies, the apographa, is hardly a proof. The claim must be proven true of the autographa. The point made by Hodge and Warfield is a logical leap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum designed to confound the critics---who can only prove their case for genuine errancy by recourse to a text they do not (and surely cannot) have.<br /><br />And,<br /><br />Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa, not in and of lost autographa.<br /><br />And later,<br /><br />All too much discussion of the Reformers' methods has attempted to turn them into precursors of the modern critical method, when in fact, the developments of exegesis and hermeneutics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries both precede and, frequently conflict with (as well as occasionally adumbrate) the methods of the modern era.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35266284079749706422015-07-20T01:54:14.293-07:002015-07-20T01:54:14.293-07:00I've read the WCF, and the other usual confess...I've read the WCF, and the other usual confessions from the Reformation era. I have always taken them to be advocating a "providential" preservation. I admit this may be because the seminary I went to advocates providential preservation. Perhaps I'm reading into these confessions what I want to see? This is Maranatha's official policy statement on this matter:<br /><br />----------------------<br /><br />“We believe that the Bible teaches the complete preservation of the verbal revelation of God, yet no passage of Scripture specifies the manner in which God preserved His Word. Thus, we hold that God has providentially preserved His Word in the many manuscripts, fragments, and copies of the Scriptures. We hold that the reliability of any text, text type, translation, version, or copy of the Scriptures is to be judged by the autographs only. Thus any translation or version of Scripture in any language is the Word of God if it accurately reproduces what is in the original languages. We believe that the translation of the Word of God from the original languages into the language of common people is a necessary activity and essential for the spread of the Gospel.”<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />Here are some sample excerpts from the Reformation era that I have always taken to be in line with providential preservation:<br /><br />John Symthe:<br /><br />The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & their first donation were without error most perfect & therefore Canonicall.<br /><br />No writings of ordinart men how holy or good soever are given by inspiration, & therefore are subject to error & imperfect & so Apocrypha.<br /><br />No Translation can possibly expresse all the matter of the holy originals, nor a thousand thinges in the Grammar, Rhetorick, & character of the tong.<br /><br />A translation so far forth as it doth truly & fully expresse any thing of the originals may be saide inspired of God & no further.<br /><br />To translate the originals into any mother tong is aswell, & asmuch the work of a mans witt & learning, as to analyse the Scriptures Rhetorically or Logically, to collect doctrines & vses Theologically, to give exposiitions & interpretations of places doubtfull."<br /><br />John Gill:<br /><br /> . . . only the original exemplar is authentic; and not translations, and transcriptions, and copies of them, though ever so perfect:"<br /><br />I've heard you say before that Warfield "hijacked" the traditional meaning of inerrancy and put his own unique spin on it - the idea of "providential preservation." Why do you believe this? I read quotes like those above, and I see the Reformers believing in perfect autographs, and not always so perfect copies. In other words, providential preservation in the mass number of extant manuscripts. This is what White means when he refers to the ecclesiastical text position being at odds with "historical evidence." <br /><br />Of course, this really rises and falls on what the Bible actually teaches about it's own preservation. However, just speaking from the basis of historical theology, I've always taken the Reformers to be advocating providential preservation. Why am I wrong on this one? Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.com