tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post3717229610782706622..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Is KJVO a Great Danger to Historic Fundamentalism? part twoKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82632513657487387622007-12-15T17:28:00.000-08:002007-12-15T17:28:00.000-08:00One more thing, our view of preservation is the hi...One more thing, our view of preservation is the historic view. Let me take you to a place that will give you some other things I've written online. We also have a book that I'll link to.<BR/><BR/>You can read our position among the posts here: http://www.jackhammr.org/category/king-james-only/<BR/><BR/>And you will see our book here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.pillarandground.org/theobook.html<BR/><BR/>Thanks, and I'll answer your questions above in the future.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9127334667819791892007-12-15T17:24:00.000-08:002007-12-15T17:24:00.000-08:00I'll still be talking to you, Enoch. Thanks. The...I'll still be talking to you, Enoch. Thanks. There is no danger for you talking to me, but for some reason, leaders in fundamentalism find there to be a problem in doing that. You can ignore that last paragraph that I wrote.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80495645324280493862007-12-15T16:57:00.000-08:002007-12-15T16:57:00.000-08:00Kent,I was reading your last comment quickly and m...Kent,<BR/>I was reading your last comment quickly and missed the final paragraph.<BR/>I am actually a public school Latin teacher (though I am flattered by your assumptions). My name actually is Enoch. I thought I was engaging you publicly, especially as I live near Philly--we are not exactly going to get together. I did note, however, that you love a church on my side of the country (Leigh High--about 1.5 hrs away).<BR/>I openly confess I am no Patristics scholar, nor am I well versed in the transmission of the scriptures. I have seen you post over on Pyro and Centuri0n, and after the last little flurry there, I thought I should come see more fully who you are--let you speak for yourself in your environment where you are not responding but rather initiating the issues.<BR/>While here, I found your view of KJVO interesting (I had never encountered it) and thought I might probe more to find out why you believe what you do. I have found you (through your posting) to be a very committed Christian. And while I have not always agreed with your comments, I don't figure you arrive at them ex nihilo. So what better way than to ask/challenge/spur you on "in person?"<BR/>In the process, I have enjoyed looking into the transmission of the scriptures and the thoughts of previous generations.<BR/>I am by no means finished with our discussion, and if continuing to post here makes it difficult, I will gladly give you my e-mail address so we can continue unhindered.<BR/>By the way, I do have my own blog, though it is a (very new) podcast for my Latin 1 students (vox-magistri.blogspot.com)--not much personal info there, but a look into one of my loves.<BR/>I look forward to seeing more posts.<BR/>Enoch StevensonUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128434587412052722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86813116425480218582007-12-15T11:14:00.000-08:002007-12-15T11:14:00.000-08:00Tom (and Kent),Thank you for the article. I have ...Tom (and Kent),<BR/>Thank you for the article. I have quickly looked it over, and I will give it more time later today. My initial response is to know how you understand the words "perfectly preserve" and what constitutes something being "not perfect." Is the addition or omission of a word sufficient, or the interpolation of a verse or phrase enough to make something "not perfect?"<BR/>I look forward to continued discussion.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128434587412052722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76551684569726597812007-12-15T10:59:00.000-08:002007-12-15T10:59:00.000-08:00Enoch,I'm going to be glad to answer your comment,...Enoch,<BR/><BR/>I'm going to be glad to answer your comment, but I'm busy for a little while today, so maybe later today. However, in the meantime, read Bro. Ross paper that he lovingly makes freely available, and also read his "The Canonicity of the Received Bible" at the same time. Brother Ross was a member at our church for a long time and is highly qualified as you will see in the quality of his work. This also gives a good answer to a lot of what you're writing.<BR/><BR/>I will be coming back to engage you. By the way, from the style, etc. of your writing, I see you as potentially a pastor or professor that is writing here anonymously. You're welcome to do that, but why not talk to me publically, Enoch? Is it that much of a risk for you? That would sort of define the peer pressure on this issue in fundamentalism.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12443627523469641632007-12-15T09:54:00.000-08:002007-12-15T09:54:00.000-08:00Dear Enoch,If you would like evidence that the aut...Dear Enoch,<BR/><BR/>If you would like evidence that the autographs were around (and thus a perfect and available Bible around) for centuries in the patristic era, please visit:<BR/>http://thross7.googlepages.com/home and read the essay on the Longevity of the Autographa. The claim of perfect preservation is that all the readings are available, and the saints can know what they are. If they are not today in Scrivener's TR, that under the KJV, we can't know for sure where they are. In the early centuries one could know if he went and examined the autographs. I will let Pastor Brandenburg comment further--I do not intend to do so, but I commend the essay to you.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes,<BR/><BR/>Thomas RossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68888964795036678752007-12-14T18:53:00.000-08:002007-12-14T18:53:00.000-08:00Kent,Hold on just a second. I'll leave off from a...Kent,<BR/>Hold on just a second. I'll leave off from an appeal to the Church Fathers. I think it would be more distracting than helpful. I had meant to see if there is evidence of a perfectly preserved form of scripture through out history. Because if your view is correct, then it should be able to be seen. <BR/>I doubt you are arguing that God providentially preserved his word, but that he skipped the generations prior to the collation of the TR. And I also doubt you are arguing that the Holy Spirit has led us in the last 400 years to recognize the perfect word, but the previous 1600 did not know it, or at least did not appreciate it.<BR/>And yet, the TR is not monolithic--it is a compilation of (fewer) MSS which, if the claim is correct, do not agree with one another in every aspect. Though they may be similar (from one MS family), they are not exact. How is it that the New Testament, assembled as it was by various scholars over many years, fell into a form (which we call the TR) not exactly identifiable prior to the 1500s, and yet is the perfectly preserved word of God?<BR/>You see, I am not arguing that the TR is a bad set of MSS. But the weight you give them--the perfectly preserved originals, the exact words of the autographs--goes beyond what they can possibly represent. <BR/>And you are hoisted on the petard of the argument you both doubt and decry as not pertinent: there are no two identical MSS. Because the TR is included in this sweeping statement. They, too, are ancient manuscripts. And if they do not agree perfectly, then how can God be said to have perfectly preserved the actual words of the autographs?<BR/>Does this make sense?<BR/>You can't appeal to interpretation of scripture here, because your interpretation must have a locus. And if the basic argument is about the perfection of that locus, and when examined, it is found not perfect, the interpretation is undone.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128434587412052722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90404760337937912152007-12-14T16:45:00.000-08:002007-12-14T16:45:00.000-08:00Enoch,I base what I believe on Scriptural presuppo...Enoch,<BR/><BR/>I base what I believe on Scriptural presuppositions; in other words, I go to Scripture to find my position and then interpret history based upon that. What I see with eclectic/CT men is that they go to history and then go to Scripture to figure out how to explain away passages on preservation and availability.<BR/><BR/>My position on preservation isn't any more a miracle than mine on inspiration. God said He did both and I can't produce physical evidence for either. Without seeing, I believe.<BR/><BR/>A major point to understand is that God said He would preserve His Words, not paper and ink. God inspired the original, physical writings, but He preserved the letters and Words. How do I know which ones are the right ones? God the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. The churches canonized the Words and agreed on those Words for hundreds of years. These were people that believed in perfect preservation as seen in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession.<BR/><BR/>I can't be certain of what the ante-nicean fathers wrote word-for-word, and God didn't promise to preserve them. Many of them were obviously unconverted baptismal regenerationists. I know that in their writings there is evidence of TR readings that are not part of the CT, like the last twelve verses of Mark and 1 John 5:7. Just because we read differences in their writings doesn't mean that God didn't preserve every Word.<BR/><BR/>My evidence that the TR is the right words is that the CT wasn't available for at least 400 years. Believers didn't make copies of that text. It was essentially the textus rejectus. I don't believe God has put us in charge of restoring a lost text, but of receiving a preserved one.<BR/><BR/>What do you believe is the Scriptural view of preservation of God's Words?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12319623827277336032007-12-14T15:55:00.000-08:002007-12-14T15:55:00.000-08:00Kent,I did read your whole post--and the one befor...Kent,<BR/>I did read your whole post--and the one before. As I understand, you believe God has providentially preserved his word in the received text from which the KJV is translated--that the KJV itself is not inspired, but that its original language antecedents have preserved the complete writings of the original authors without error.<BR/>If I am correct in the first part, I do not see how you are exempt from the issue of the state of ancient manuscripts. <BR/>No, there is not one single manuscript which is THE preserved, perfect text. We agree. But, if no manuscript is EXACTLY the same, how is it that, despite the differences between the earliest know MS and the received text, it is the received text which is the correct one? That argument (which is what you are reduced to having to make) amounts to your pronouncing one form "right" with no real reason to think so other than it is the one you have.<BR/>Or do you have concrete reasoning for why the received text is the right one? <BR/>An even more interesting set of questions, though, would be about your view of the early Church Fathers. Do you accept them (or certain of them) as being true Christians? When they quote scripture in their writings, do their quotes of the same passage match in every way? Or more importantly, do they match with the received text in every way? Or were they, too, without the perfectly preserved word of God?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128434587412052722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73587192638449431732007-12-14T12:35:00.000-08:002007-12-14T12:35:00.000-08:00Enoch,Thanks for helping me understand the argumen...Enoch,<BR/>Thanks for helping me understand the argument. If you kept reading, which I should assume you did, you saw that I believed that eclectic/critical text credo was not applicable to a Scriptural view of preservation. No one is arguing for preservation in one physical copy. I've never argued that.<BR/><BR/>I don't happen to have any need to find matching manuscripts. Since it is the point that those guys and perhaps you are making, don't you think you should be able to show that there are none matching? Why do I need to do your work for your point? If people don't actually know. They shouldn't say it. It's a moot point. They should say something like this: We haven't seen two identical manuscripts. Follow up question: How many have you actually seen? "Oh, about 7." Hmmm, nice work. Isn't it disingenous to keep bringing this up like they have actually looked? Please answer that question.<BR/><BR/>The point itself is a strawman that I don't have a need to answer. It was a point concocted to use against people who believe that God did what He said He would do, perfectly preserve His Words in the language in which they were written.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for coming over Enoch. Your name reminds me to walk with God today.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54604581030124665812007-12-14T11:59:00.000-08:002007-12-14T11:59:00.000-08:00I think we should stick to the King James Bible.I think we should stick to the King James Bible.Matthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68323950194915964022007-12-14T07:50:00.000-08:002007-12-14T07:50:00.000-08:00Ken, On the questions of there being no identical ...Ken, <BR/>On the questions of there being no identical manuscripts, you can either say "no one has seen them all, so no one can make the claim " and in doing, argue from the negative, or go out and show ONE example where the ancient manuscripts do match perfectly.<BR/>And I recognize that you are not bound to the results (God perfectly preserves, and any differences are from man), but I'd think the onus is on you to demonstrate what should be simple--One set of perfectly matching manuscripts.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07128434587412052722noreply@blogger.com