tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post5075179894707685975..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Answering the SharperIron Article on Preservation part oneKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23082017714581376552010-03-11T07:56:45.640-08:002010-03-11T07:56:45.640-08:00Joshua --
I don't know if this is going to en...Joshua --<br /><br />I don't know if this is going to end up going through but I'll take your challenge. <i> In my year or so of following the posts on this blog, I've seen Kent ask man after man for the historical basis of their view of preservation. I've never yet seen it answered. </i><br /><br />First off this trace only applies to the Western Catholic church and the churches that emerged from it, the Eastern Catholic has an entirely different historical basis. <br /><br />1) The second and third century church fathers believed there was a wide range of scriptures in use within the church. They broke them into 3 groups:<br />a) Those they considered of first century or earlier origin and "authentic" where "authentic" meant that it agreed with their positions. <br />b) Those they considered non authentic<br />c) Those they considered late but in line with orthodoxy<br /><br />Many argued that only those in class (1) should be considered scripture<br /><br />2) The fourth and fifth century church fathers systematized the scriptures and begin doing something very much akin to what modern textual critics do in trying to form a unified basis for scripture. Unifying these works and creating official version.<br /><br />3) By the 12th century the official versions had become corrupted with earlier streams that had gotten embedded into the scriptures by way of the liturgy; the liturgy often representing earlier textual streams. They also began to re-examine many of the judgements made by the earlier church fathers in both choice of books and translation. <br /><br />4) The church held that these earlier version were recoverable, and that some books that had slipped into official versions but never been officially endorsed should be removed (example the Prayer of Manasses). <br /><br />5) The reformation occurs and the apocryphal books are removed, further Jerome's position on original languages gets official support again and the focus is on translation from Hebrew and Greek with less respect for traditional renderings. <br /><br />6) These two major streams:<br />a) less respect for traditional renderings<br />b) an attempt to reconstruct from the "originals" <br />continues to this day. During the late 19th century an understanding that reconstructing the originals means reopening the original choices made by group the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers starts to be raised on the Christian fringe and to this day continues to become more mainstream.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90376850662573313242010-02-06T19:13:21.956-08:002010-02-06T19:13:21.956-08:00Several have asked about historical antecedents fo...Several have asked about historical antecedents for a doctrine of preservation. Although allusions or snatches of reference may be found throughout church history, it was generally assumed and accepted until the advent of Higher and Lower Criticism. Thus, little was explicitly written because it was not an issue. Now that Fundamentalists, who are professed Bible-believers, are supporting the Lower Criticism, which is based on the same Rationalistic methodology as the rejected Higher Criticism, the doctrine of preservation needs to be expounded.paidagogoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638791760487462520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82866844368752196432010-01-23T18:18:40.861-08:002010-01-23T18:18:40.861-08:00Titus,
Actually I think that the original MSS pen...Titus,<br /><br />Actually I think that the original MSS penned by (possibly) Elihu of the book of Job, (the first book to be written in the Bible) all the way through John's original autograph of the Apocalypse are preserved somewhere on the planet - God has kept them hidden because He knows men would be worshipping them today if we knew where to find them. Perhaps in the Millennial Reign of Christ, they will be uncovered.Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-4923658009290819942010-01-23T13:28:54.020-08:002010-01-23T13:28:54.020-08:00Claymore,
Thank you for bringing up the issue of ...Claymore,<br /><br />Thank you for bringing up the issue of the Masoretes. This methodology didn't just exist in the 10th century AD - there's evidence that it extended back into the BC too - which means that they literally might well have preserved the mss. that Jesus Himself read and said were the very Word of God, from which one jot or tittle would not pass. <br /><br />Another interesting thing - the Dead Sea Scrolls, which Critical Texters love to refer to in the textual debate, are themselves largely Masoretic in form. However, even the best one (an Isaiah scroll that is *almost* identical to the Bomberg Masoretic Isaiah underlying the KJV) has a few errors in it. <br /><br />E.L. Sukenik originally proposed that the Dead Sea repositories were a type of genizah - a place where the Jews "retired" manuscripts that had been copied incorrectly per the methodology you described, or were otherwise found to have transcription or other errors.<br /><br />More recently, scholars became enamoured with the DSS as a source for "correcting" the biblical text. I think they are incorrect to do so, since I think Sukenik's original thesis - while not as "interesting" as other theories - is correct. The DSS library is a repository of messed up mss. of all types that the Qumran community (who were probably not actually Essene, btw) rejected because they were corrupt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-34826253598902778212010-01-22T20:56:44.853-08:002010-01-22T20:56:44.853-08:00An example of perfect preservation:
The Hebrew Sc...An example of perfect preservation:<br /><br />The Hebrew Scribes had to follow careful instructions in copying the Scriptures: the writing material could only be from the skins of clean animals. The ink must be black and prepared according to a specific recipe. The scribe must have a kosher copy of the book he was copying before him, and must sound out each word audibly as he writes it. If one page had an error, it must be torn out and a new page started from the beginning. If more than three pages needed revision, the document was condemned and a new copy must be started. I would say this demands perfect preservation.Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3051838334256728342010-01-22T18:33:37.087-08:002010-01-22T18:33:37.087-08:00Reforming Baptist - The question you asked, and wh...Reforming Baptist - The question you asked, and which I answered, was a "what" question. Before we can deal with the mechanics of preservation, we first have to agree that there has, indeed, <i>been</i> preservation. Your question appeared to me to be asking for confirmation from "authority" that preservation (as a "what") was held in church history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2510313262830119772010-01-22T12:45:52.233-08:002010-01-22T12:45:52.233-08:00Quinctius,
Jesus' point doesn't deal with...Quinctius, <br />Jesus' point doesn't deal with the "how" it deals with the "what" and the "how" is where the debate is. <br /><br />Kent, <br />I'm working on the Ferguson article and I'll read up on the Jackhammer article too. Thanks!Reforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-41024650124091146022010-01-22T11:36:14.268-08:002010-01-22T11:36:14.268-08:00Reforming Baptist - "can you point me to some...Reforming Baptist - "can you point me to some references to writers in church history who hold the perfect preservation view?"<br /><br />In all fairness, one has to admit that Jesus did,<br /><br />"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)<br /><br />In that light, it doesn't really matter what Calvin, councils, or anyone else in Romanoprotestant history said, does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-48223656288226972992010-01-22T09:15:15.047-08:002010-01-22T09:15:15.047-08:00Aaron, your comment about the fool is completely m...Aaron, your comment about the fool is completely moot because the Hebrew language demands that it be interpreted this way: the fool has carefully considered the evidence for the existence of God and willfully rejected it - Dr. Ferguson makes this clear in his book "God and the Atheist." If you read Jeff's comment above, you will find that it is by faith we know Scripture is truth, and Paul plainly tells us that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Why should God spend 1700 years inspiring His Word only to have it lost over a period of 1900 years, or until two apostates and occultists (Bishop Westcott and Prof. Hort) compiled the Gnostic-mutilations that came from Clement of Alexandria? I find it was no accident that the bible (lowercase as it is not the true Bible) that Arius used to attack the Deity of Christ was the same which underlies the CT versions today. I believe that Orton Wiley also mentions this in his "Introduction to Christian Theology" - I cannot quote exactly what he said because my copy is in storage, along with the rest of my library. Dr. O. Talmadge Spence has also a few good books on the subject, as does Dr. Cloud. I recommend that you see what they have to say on the subject - if you do not believe in perfect preservation after reading them, I suspect you are in denial.Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-64775810966379632302010-01-22T07:00:28.353-08:002010-01-22T07:00:28.353-08:00Aaron,
Inspiration without preservation is irrele...Aaron, <br />Inspiration without preservation is irrelevant. I think that is what Claymore was trying to communicate (which btw, I agree with him on that. Claymore can correct me if I am wrong). I do agree with you about how things are so, with or without our knowledge or recognition of such things.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42790664502543921092010-01-21T19:15:45.947-08:002010-01-21T19:15:45.947-08:00"Logically speaking, perfect preservation is ...<i>"Logically speaking, perfect preservation is implied by verbal/plenary inspiration. The two beliefs are twin sisters....To say that God did not preserve His Word negates the idea that He inspired it. If it is not perfectly preserved, how do we know that we have the true Word (and Words) of God? According to the rule of English law..."</i><br />"Logic" is claimed here, then abandoned. The reasoning here seems to be "Inspiration only exists when we know it exists." My response to that is a. where is inspiration defined this way in Scripture and b. since when is God's power to do something (and the reality of what He has done) dependent on whether we "know" or not?<br><br />The fool says in his heart "there is no God." What if <i>everyone</i> said the same? Would God cease to exist? <br />No, the miracle of inspiration exists 100% independently of anyone's knowledge of or belief in it. If there were no human beings on the earth at all, inspiration would remain a reality. It simply does not depend on our recognition of it in any way, shape or form.Aaron Blumerhttp://sharperiron.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74271312995943308712010-01-20T21:31:53.695-08:002010-01-20T21:31:53.695-08:00Will,
Read P.S. Ferguson's article. It has a...Will,<br /><br />Read P.S. Ferguson's article. It has a ton of the history. Have you read that?<br /><br />Then at Jackhammer, there's this:<br /><br />http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/quotes-quotes-quotes-we-take-the-historic-position/Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1319917887944499242010-01-20T19:11:59.836-08:002010-01-20T19:11:59.836-08:00So, are there any specifics or just "what the...So, are there any specifics or just "what they believed agrees with me" ?Reforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-33314787649893909892010-01-20T14:51:24.446-08:002010-01-20T14:51:24.446-08:00Joshua,
Kent actually didn't ask me for hist...Joshua, <br /><br />Kent actually didn't ask me for historical proof of my view of preservation. He asked me why I would accept a change in this doctrine if indeed his view is the historic one. I believe I gave an answer to that, provided the theory (that his view is the historic one) is correct. Whether that theory is or not I'm not really arguing. So, you asked, is this a concession? Perhaps. I don't come here with an agenda, I'd like to iron these things out. Personally I think the history is more complex than that, but again, if it is true that verbal plenary perfect preservation is the historic belief of the believing church, then I'm also ok with saying it was a view in need of tweaking, that the believing church, for the most part, has come to grips with, and pending a tarried Second Coming for a few hundred years, might one day be considered historic as well :)<br /><br />You quoted me and provided commentary: "From the 19th century onward, there was a greater cultural and historical awareness of what Christians had in regards to the scriptures."<br /><br />"That reads to me like "no one from history agrees with us because they didn't know what we know now." Correct me if I'm wrong please."<br /><br />Sort of. But I wouldn't say "no one" just yet, either. But, if you're a dispensationalist, believe in the pre-trib rapture, hold to any particular hermeneutic model (Covenant theology, dispy, Christocentrism, etc.), etc. you might as well agree with that statement. We find things in seed form in history, but isn't it true that by now, in 2010, we have a more developed view of church discipline, creationism, eschatology, etc? I'm not trying to divert the issue, but I do wonder why we can allow these things to be so in other areas of theology but not this one.<br /><br />Kent,<br /><br />Ok no problem. I will look at PS's work in due time. We've talked about this before. And I'm still a little unclear as to how this applies to the KJV, being that you've said that your view of preservation is carried along through history by a 'general accesibility', yet that 'general' became a 'very particular' thing in 1611, and I don't know what changed. That's still 1600 years removed from the close of the canon, and it's quite possible if that's the view you espouse, I'm no different. I guess for me, my 1611 moment hasn't happened yet. But I carried on too much. I just came back to say thanks for the Owen recommendation and here I am continuing this debate that we've been on before! So, I'll bow out (at least in THIS post!) and watch you answer more of these things in your next posts.Damienhttp://biblicism.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36771214106063057512010-01-20T09:31:36.654-08:002010-01-20T09:31:36.654-08:00What we read of men on preservation agrees with th...What we read of men on preservation agrees with the perfect preservation position that I believe and teach. It makes sense to me, because that is also what I see in the Bible. I've found that they have also believed in inspiration, like to which Claymore is referring, and so they didn't allow human reasoning to affect their faith there either, despite other sorts of biblical criticism.<br /><br />Damien, I'm talking about what men wrote on preservation, explaining what they believed. I'm not talking about our still photos of Tyndale, Erasmus, the KJV translators, etc. I'd rather not talk about that at the moment, because it muddies the water. I recognize your jump to what this means as to the English Bible we use.<br /><br />Please look at P. S. Ferguson's article. It's good work. I have some more material at Jackhammer distinctly on history that I'll link here, but I've got to go teach.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-46273031406452152852010-01-20T05:21:07.307-08:002010-01-20T05:21:07.307-08:00Logically speaking, perfect preservation is implie...Logically speaking, perfect preservation is implied by verbal/plenary inspiration. The two beliefs are twin sisters. This was why I asked about the Graf-Wellhausen theory (or JEDP) with SI (As I have never been there, that was an unknown). However, this belief about the Pentateuch came contemporary to textual criticism (incidentally a poor word for Bible scholastics). To say that God did not preserve His Word negates the idea that He inspired it. If it is not perfectly preserved, how do we know that we have the true Word (and Words) of God? According to the rule of English law, one false statement negates the entire testimony - therefore, if one word of the Bible was lost, the whole of the perfect canon is made imperfect.Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28980634125305814982010-01-20T05:04:26.139-08:002010-01-20T05:04:26.139-08:00I don't wish to blow my own trumpet, but I hav...I don't wish to blow my own trumpet, but I have set forth fully the historical documentation on the perfect preservation view in this article:<br /><br />http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol15_2b.htm<br /><br />The CT people have the eclectic views of apostate Enlightenment scholars and the Church of Rome to back them up. Interesting company to keep!PS Fergusonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-7712685575760208402010-01-19T20:55:17.243-08:002010-01-19T20:55:17.243-08:00Hey Kent,
I've probably asked this before, so ...Hey Kent,<br />I've probably asked this before, so forgive me for being either thickheaded or forgetful, but can you point me to some references to writers in church history who hold the perfect preservation view? Like, what books or articles or confessions of faith are there that make such a case. I want to know if that is really the historic position. You can answer me by email if it's better than posting it here..if you have time. <br />Thanks. <br /><br />Will<br />crusader1611@sbcglobal.netReforming Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14846318789174330210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-70187047733902651462010-01-19T18:53:24.890-08:002010-01-19T18:53:24.890-08:00Hi Kent. Appreciate your response to my article.
...Hi Kent. Appreciate your response to my article. <br />Amazon tells me a copy of your book is in the mail. Looking forward to a closer look.<br />As for the lacking history... it's true I didn't include any. Have to stop somewhere.<br />I'll be doing a more thorough response down the road, but for now I'll just point out that your post here doesn't explain how including historical context would change anything.<br />That is, my thesis was, in part, that "there are two views" today. Whatever may have existed yesterday doesn't altar what we have on the scene today. <br />But I understand that you are trying to set up a "source of the idea" argument and the history is supposed to establish that a dispersed view of pres. has a recent and tainted source. <br />That's fine. I can work with that.Aaron Blumerhttp://sharperiron.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43322948483467268522010-01-19T18:37:40.465-08:002010-01-19T18:37:40.465-08:00In my year or so of following the posts on this bl...In my year or so of following the posts on this blog, I've seen Kent ask man after man for the historical basis of their view of preservation. I've never yet seen it answered. The same goes when he asks for their Scriptural basis.<br /><br />I won't say much, but I will keep score. So far we have two replies from those who disagree. So far we are zero for two on the original claim: Where is the history for the modern view of perservation pre late 19th C?<br /><br />Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but is this a de facto confession of the accuracy of Kent's argument?<br /><br />"From the 19th century onward, there was a greater cultural and historical awareness of what Christians had in regards to the scriptures."<br /><br />That reads to me like "no one from history agrees with us because they didn't know what we know now." Correct me if I'm wrong please.<br /><br />JoshuaJoshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80046808226329263352010-01-19T16:32:53.336-08:002010-01-19T16:32:53.336-08:00first, I apologize for my being misleading - I did...first, I apologize for my being misleading - I didn't put historic in quotes to signify any sort of insulting tone or to imply I don't think your position is historic. I was actually trying to come up with a label for your approach to the subject and somehow was only left with the word historic, and left the quotes there. Sorry.<br /><br />anywho. . .<br /><br />1) Yes, obviously. 2) if it is true that the believing church held to a doctrine of perfect preservation, akin to the one you hold, from the close of the NT canon until the 19th century then it would be a simple matter of developing doctrine. I'm for catholicity, in fact, I'm more for it than I ever was, but I also believe that aspects of doctrine need to be held against the standard of the scriptures and Christ. Though there may be offshoots and consequences of the 19th century textual theories, conservatives who hold to those theories still have a bibliology that aligns itself with the fundamentalists, the Puritans, the Reformers, the early church, and the apostles. In subsets of that doctrine, including preservation, things are subject to be tweaked.<br /><br />And why? Because if William Tyndale held to this view and Martin Luther held to this view and John Owen held to this view and Erasmas held to this view and Wycliffe and so on and so forth, all in different regions, and different tongues, then they couldn't all be right in regards to how it applies to the versions of the scriptures to which each had access. From the 19th century onward, there was a greater cultural and historical awareness of what Christians had in regards to the scriptures. To pick one, the KJV (or an edition of Erasmus' Greek NT), and claim it as the standard is not consistent with that data.Damienhttp://biblicism.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-41111542191989096682010-01-19T15:19:48.745-08:002010-01-19T15:19:48.745-08:00Damien,
Hello. First, why historc in quote marks...Damien,<br /><br />Hello. First, why historc in quote marks? I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. You'll have to stomp all over Muller (and me).<br /><br />I think I'll answer your questions in upcoming post(s). Question for you though. Do you think that men who continued believing the historic position in the 16th and 17th centuries also knew there were textual variants in hand copies? In anticipation of your answer, since it is somewhat rhetorical, why did this not start becoming a stumbling block to the historic view until the 19th century?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-131834328097022172010-01-19T13:08:31.998-08:002010-01-19T13:08:31.998-08:00If we were to take your 'historic' approac...If we were to take your 'historic' approach to this, and substitute individual textual variants in place of the doctrine of preservation, would it still work? In other words, what has the church historically believed about the Comma Johanneum, and how do we make a determination to accept or reject it?Damienhttp://biblicism.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-10120029371675061072010-01-19T09:34:58.873-08:002010-01-19T09:34:58.873-08:00When I say "someplace fundamentalists would g...When I say "someplace fundamentalists would give credit," I mean a parachurch organization, and a place of scholarship. He's also published by big-time, credible publishers in their opinion. My saying things as a pastor of a church do not hold much for fundamentalists. There are other reasons too, but everyone would get the picture. There is a system of accreditation that often is disconnected from the truth.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-79113342304696741342010-01-19T09:32:19.388-08:002010-01-19T09:32:19.388-08:00Claymore,
SI would not believe the Graf-Wellhause...Claymore,<br /><br />SI would not believe the Graf-Wellhausen theory. Fundamentalists don't believe that. Some may be leaning that way, but I don't know of anyone that has gone that way. You may think, and I could agree with you, that they treat the preservation issue like that, however.<br /><br />Don,<br /><br />I knew I wasn't writing any history in the article. I'm only criticizing his article. I assumed people could go over to my sidebar and read many articles on history that I have written. You make a true point---I did not write a history in my critique. I have written many of those, however, and I don't want to be too redundant here at WIT. I also point people to Muller, because I'm assuming people won't believe me, even though I'm saying exactly what Muller is saying. He's just saying it from some place fundamentalists would give credit.<br /><br />In my second article, I'll be dealing with the how and what part of the criticism. I'll write it soon because it's high interest to me.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.com