tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post5139547776910772987..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Answering Aaron on the Doctrine of Preservation---Part ThreeKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8938136363082922292010-05-24T21:59:31.726-07:002010-05-24T21:59:31.726-07:00Aaron,
Thanks for the comments. I'm going to...Aaron,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments. I'm going to be answering them. It's my oldest daughters 16th tonight---she's not home yet from orchestra practice---and my son is home from West Point for three weeks until Cadet Field Training, but I will be thinking about your comments here.<br /><br />I've really tried not to bring up things like this:<br /><br />He's arguing a strawman. When I said it before, it upset you, but here you do it with me, except you use obfuscate, strawman, etc. etc. As you said to me, nobody is trying to argue a strawman. It is akin to saying we're being dishonest. You don't like it from me, but if you don't, then I expect the same from you.<br /><br />And you called my Inspiration analogy a "paraphrase" of you. I was in no way paraphrasing you. So that is misrepresentation at least, and unless you clear it up at SI, then it's purposeful misrepresentation. Which I don't think you want.<br /><br />I'll deal with the rest later. I do like you, and if we met maybe you could see things differently.<br /><br />I'll be answering though. If you want to read something in the meantime, I've written two posts at Jackhammer on Isaiah 59:21 and Rev 22:18-19, two passages not in TSKT. I've linked to them in a recent post here to make it easier.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72361472072454367852010-05-24T20:31:06.255-07:002010-05-24T20:31:06.255-07:00Kent,
About your offer to check with me ahead of t...Kent,<br />About your offer to check with me ahead of time: I have asserted repeatedly in the clearest possible terms that God is able to produce something perfect through human beings any time He chooses and that whenever Scripture teaches He has done so in a particular case, we must believe He has done so. There is nothing I could have said in email that would have been more clear than that.<br /><br />As for human limitations, you imagine that the fact that we are capable of doing good proves that <b>a)</b> we are capable of doing something as complex as copy/assemble perfect texts over an over again for thousands of years, and <b>b)</b> we have actually done so.<br />It proves neither.<br /><br />I'm going to keep going back to the real issue: what's necessary for claiming a <i>biblical doctrine</i> of perfect text preservation is a <i>biblical basis</i> for perfect preserving activity by human beings. This is about applying a proper standard for biblical doctrine.<br /><br />If we make the case for a perfect text any other way, we may have a strong conviction, etc., but we do not have a Bible doctrine.<br /><br />You wrote: "you isolate perfect preservation as having extra scriptural argumentation"<br />When did I do that? I have said that it might be possible to make a case for perfect text pres. from external evidence. I'm not really all that interested in whether that kind of case can be made or not at this point time because I believe in dealing with one question at a time and not obscuring the priorities of the debate.<br /><br />The first question is: do we have a basis biblical doctrine that a group of believers is able to always identify every word of the correct text?<br /><br />As for the canonicity question, I'm unlikely to ever go into in much detail. Here's the short version: for me, the belief that the 66 books we have constitute God's inspired word is <i>a priori</i>. It is one of the givens I build all my other doctrine on. Is perfect text preservation an <i>a priori</i> for you?Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83949649116750708342010-05-22T17:22:09.288-07:002010-05-22T17:22:09.288-07:00Aaron,
Let's start with man's sinfulness ...Aaron,<br /><br />Let's start with man's sinfulness affecting believers in all that they do. You spent very little time attempting to establish that. You may have assumed that everyone would just agree. I tend to think of sin as bothering even believers in a big way. However, in Romans 7:21, Paul says that when I would do good. In other words, sin doesn't ruin everything in a believer. He can do good. Why? Because works in Him to will and do of His good pleasure. We have even greater evidence that He can work in men to preserve His Words, because God said He would. So there is an issue with your believers' sinfulness point of view.<br /><br />Second, you differentiate what God says He would supersede through inspiration what He said He would do through preservation. The former is perfect but the latter isn't. You say that you do this by means of Scripture. That's what proves it to you. Well, that is a new position historically, that is, that we only have perfection in the autographa and not the apographa.<br /><br />Third, you isolate perfect preservation as having extra scriptural argumentation. I wrote about this in my "Can You Prove It From Scripture?" post on May 12. That answers that point and maybe you just haven't read it. We believe scriptural things that depend on a second premise truth to come to our conclusion. That's why I keep asking you about your 66 book, 27 NT, 39 OT, Scriptural view. You have refused to comment or answer that as it relates to the point you are making.<br /><br />Last, you act as though I want to misrepresent you. Did I offer to send you my post for you to check ahead of time or not?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-46054452295958375392010-05-22T12:02:00.089-07:002010-05-22T12:02:00.089-07:00Kent: "I do see your 'depraved man can...Kent: "I do see your 'depraved man can't preserve scripture' view as limiting what God said He would do."<br />Then you choose to see something other than what I assert and are, therefore, arguing against <i>somebody else's</i> view.<br /><br />Got anything to say about mine? (That I haven't already answered)Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43334909117235149582010-05-22T11:52:32.229-07:002010-05-22T11:52:32.229-07:00Gary Webb... "The critical text position beli...Gary Webb... "The critical text position believes that every word of Scripture is preserved, but no one knows exactly what those words are. Their position is based upon accepting a general statment by passages like Matthew 5:18-19 but they try to show through history that no one has ever known (past the original copies) what the exact words of the OT & NT are. <br />Do either or both of you accept this summarization of the textual argument? <br />My biggest question for the critical text position is, WHAT PASSAGE OR PASSAGES TEACH THE AMBIGUITY OF THE EXACT TEXT OF SCRIPTURE? What passage of Scripure would indicate that the text would ever be unknown?"<br /><br />Sorry, overlooked this one.<br /><br /><b>First question</b> Summarization of the textual argument. "but they try to show through history that..."<br />This may very well be the way many arrive at their conclusion. For me the process different: what does the Bible actually teach? Where it is not specific about form and process, we are forced to either look at external evidence or leave the question open. But we cannot claim it as biblical doctrine.<br /><br /><b>Second question</b> What passages teach ambiguity? My answer is twofold: (1) What passages teach non-ambibuity? and (2) Belief that there will be errors in reproducing copies and assembling texts is based (as I showed in <a href="http://sharperiron.org/article/preservation-how-and-what-part-2" rel="nofollow">part 2</a> of my series) on the doctrine of human depravity and weakness.<br /><br />I've resummarized that argument many times, but I just thought of a new way to do it so, here goes. <br />This time I'll put it in form of two syllogisms.<br /><br /><b>Syllogism one</b><br />A1: Scripture teaches that humans err in all they do<br />B1: Reproducing Scriptures is part of "all they do"<br />C1: Ergo, humans err in reproducing Scripture<br /><br /><b>Syllogism two</b><br />A2: A Scriptural basis is required for believing God has overcome human error in a particular case<br />B2: We do not have a Scriptural basis for believing God has overcome human error in the case of text reproduction<br />C2: Ergo, the Bible does not teach that God overcomes human error in reproducing/constructing Scripture texts<br /><br />Please note that premise B in the second syllogism is the crux of the <i>biblical doctrine</i> of preservation debate.<br /><br />Note also that neither of these syllogisms include any premises from history or any external evidence.<br /><br />And note as well that there is no science or rationalism involved unless you believe, as some do, that <i>reasoning from Scripture</i> is "rationalism" (whenever that reasoning leads to a conclusion they don't like... perfectly OK otherwise!)Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22775364195415520432010-05-14T22:41:50.453-07:002010-05-14T22:41:50.453-07:00Dear Bro Johnson,
Wilbur Pickering isn’t a TR gu...Dear Bro Johnson,<br /><br /> Wilbur Pickering isn’t a TR guy at all. He is a Byzantine priority-type guy. And he says that MSS are identical—sometimes over generations of transmission—because he actually collates manuscripts, something that the overwhelming majority of anti-TR/KJV fundamental and evangelical critics have never done--something that Westcott and Hort never did. Pickering also stated that he was shocked to find out how much similarity among MSS there was—his (weak, non-strong fundamental Baptist) education did not tell him anything about such facts.<br /><br />I agree with you that God did not so move every Greek monk who made copies of the Bible like He did the human writers of Scripture. Now who are the people who believe this?Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78064464495930017042010-05-14T05:19:00.821-07:002010-05-14T05:19:00.821-07:00Well, Kent, it doesn't really matter how many ...Well, Kent, it doesn't really matter how many copies of the whole New Testament there are. And it doesn't really matter that some fragments agree with other documents. What matters is that there are many variations even among the majority text manuscripts. The Lord clearly didn't perform a miracle in the copying of them like he did in the inspiring of the originals.<br /><br />That's all.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-5694597385541237832010-05-13T21:37:40.657-07:002010-05-13T21:37:40.657-07:00Don,
Men say this like it's a huge deal, that...Don,<br /><br />Men say this like it's a huge deal, that is, no manuscripts agree. Thomas shows that it isn't the case, so they shouldn't be saying that.<br /><br />Question for you.<br /><br />How many complete hand-copied manuscripts of the NT are there? I'm talking manuscripts that contain all 27 books of the NT.<br /><br />I think the answer to that will give some perspective to people when they consider fragments agreeing with one another.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-92124390920064540592010-05-13T20:44:18.582-07:002010-05-13T20:44:18.582-07:00Thomas, thank you for the link.
It is certainly p...Thomas, thank you for the link.<br /><br />It is certainly possible that smaller bits of the text could be identical with other bits. I don't think that it is true of the larger portions, but not having the ability to actually test this out for myself it will have to remain a theory. Nonetheless, I think that I'll have to correct the way I state this.<br /><br />But... it would be nice if you had someone other than a noted KJO making the assertion along with a little more detailed analysis, don't you think? Just because Wilbur Pickering says so, is that enough for you? It isn't enough for me.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91189784774357119932010-05-13T10:56:38.868-07:002010-05-13T10:56:38.868-07:00Pastor Webb,
Here is the passage:
Here i...Pastor Webb,<br /><br />Here is the passage:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Here is another one:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Bro Johnson,<br /><br />Here is the website address--look in the Bibliology section:<br /><br />http://sites.google.com/site/thross7Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49187133302925425622010-05-13T05:48:26.870-07:002010-05-13T05:48:26.870-07:00Aaron,
I am guessing that you do not want to answe...Aaron,<br />I am guessing that you do not want to answer my question or that you do not have an answer. Perhaps someone else could give me a passage that states that the text of Scripture would be ambiguous.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18417056422775274022010-05-12T20:55:54.566-07:002010-05-12T20:55:54.566-07:00Perhaps you could provide a link, Thomas?
Maranat...Perhaps you could provide a link, Thomas?<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91324345450890646192010-05-12T18:53:36.623-07:002010-05-12T18:53:36.623-07:00Don Johnson said:
The fact that we don't have...Don Johnson said:<br /><br />The fact that we don't have any identical copies of any manuscripts says to me that the Lord did not choose to preserve his word supernaturally.<br /><br />It is not true that we don’t have any identical copies of any manuscripts. We actually have lots of identical manuscripts. Please see:<br /><br />Is It True That No Two NT Manuscripts Are The Same?<br /><br />on my website. When someone says that no two NT manuscripts are the same, he has shown that he doesn't know a whole lot about textual criticism.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88956855949321170282010-05-11T21:59:46.262-07:002010-05-11T21:59:46.262-07:00Don,
I'm guessing you've read some on thi...Don,<br /><br />I'm guessing you've read some on this issue, but let me critique your comment in a general way, that I think should be problematic to you.<br /><br />First, one would think that those words would at least be available if God was involved in preservation, and the critical text, those 'oldest manuscripts,' we know were not available to believers for 350 years---1500-1850. Those are quite a few generations. I would think that would be an issue for someone who says he believes in preservation.<br /><br />Second, the view that textual criticism equals preservation is a new doctrine. BB Warfield in the late 19th century was when that originated as an application to providential preservation, coinciding quite nicely with the critical text. Isn't it interesting how that doctrine and the critical text started at the same time?<br /><br />Third, I've said that preservation is a miracle, but I call it a miracle of providence, a terminology often used in the history of theology. It's only recently that I hear men seeing providence as something different than a miracle. The bringing together of the canon of 66 books---what would you call that in the realm of the supernatural?<br /><br />As I bring up these three, I also recognize that Aaron might say that these are extra-scriptural, so something he doesn't want to get into, but I don't think so. These are scriptural issues.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43103705252776189522010-05-11T21:25:53.999-07:002010-05-11T21:25:53.999-07:00For the record, my quote goes this way: "When...For the record, my quote goes this way: "When the Lord healed the lame man, did he walk with a limp?"<br /><br />My point in that quote is that if preservation occurred as a supernatural miracle in the same way that inspiration occurred, it would be a miracle of supernatural perfection. The fact that we don't have any identical copies of any manuscripts says to me that the Lord did not choose to preserve his word supernaturally. Instead, he preserved it providentially through a multiplicity of copies produced by men subject to human error and limitations.<br /><br />The result is a body of manuscripts that all differ to greater or lesser degrees. I don't believe the Lord's promises have failed. I believe he has preserved his Word. But he has done it in such a way that we are required to examine the texts carefully and come to conclusions about which readings are original. The fact that we are fallible in this examination has to do with our limitations, not God's.<br /><br />FWIW<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11113988570368451262010-05-11T16:17:46.620-07:002010-05-11T16:17:46.620-07:00"He sees a problem with how Mt 5:18 meshes wi..."He sees a problem with how Mt 5:18 meshes with his view of history."<br /><br />Wrong. That's not what I said. My comments are appraisal of where the views leave us after arrival. <br /><br />I don't assert authoritatively that preservation doesn't limp. I used Don's quote to show that both Aaron's (which Don shares, I believe) and Kent's must be viewed as limping by Don's own standard. <br /><br />If I'm right, it only makes sense that history seems to fall in line. I'm not saying it would be impossible for history to seem to contradict a biblically based belief. In this, I think the evolution analogy Bro B. likes to use is apt. We (including me) accept Biblical authority over scientific "fact" and don't bat an eye. <br /><br />If I believed the promises say what Kent believes they say, I'd have no problem disbelieving what seems to be established history.d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3165539230735404752010-05-11T13:27:04.866-07:002010-05-11T13:27:04.866-07:00Aaron,
This relates to D4, so D4, tune in here. B...Aaron,<br /><br />This relates to D4, so D4, tune in here. By all means, if you listen to D4, you can start with history, then move to scripture. He sees a problem with how Mt 5:18 meshes with his view of history, so he chooses history over the clear meaning of Mt 5:18. Do you see where we get the rationalism tag from this? Isn't it earned? By the way, history is what actually happened in the past, so we are still talking about a version of history, because we can only go by historical reports made by men, and, therefore, subject to the depravity of man, something that seems to have bothered historical accounts less for D4, then it actually has for scripture. Of course, in your case Aaron, you believe that depravity has bothered them equally.<br /><br />I've got to think that when you say we "leap" to conclusions that you are making some kind of Kierkegaardian point there---just letting you know that I caught that.<br /><br />What you call obfuscation happens to be how I see what you wrote. I do see your 'depraved man can't preserve scripture' view as limiting what God said He would do. You say that God has the ability, He just didn't say He would preserve. So if I say that He did say that, you can see how I believe you are elevating man's depravity above God's sovereignty. No obfuscation happening.<br /><br />Now you say you weren't making any point about the necessity of "oral words" coming from the use if rhema. That seems to obfuscate yourself. You were making that point. It is true that there was no point to be made, but you made the point.<br /><br />If you look at Greek grammars, you find that there isn't any continuous action sense to be made out of the present tense usage of 'speaking' or 'saying' verbs. Wallace calls this an instantaneous present, the normal verb for speaking. The act itself is completed at the moment of speaking. So it really is just the opposite of what you are saying. I'm not giving you examples because it is found hundreds of times in the NT (cf. Jn 3:3). The use of the future isn't intended to show anything through contrast. You would need to show me some examples of this supposed contrast in the NT. You give this as an "exegetical basis," and just saying it is not showing any exegetical basis. For instance, I gave you the Eph 6:17 usage of rhema, that you just ignored, as an exegetical basis. That's an example of providing exegetical basis.<br /><br />It seems that you just ignored the understanding of oida, "hast known" in 2 Tim 3:15. Yes, I believe that Timothy knew the whole Old Testament. He heard all of it read. That is sufficient as regards the word oida. Oida doesn't mean "memorized" or "hast known by heart."<br /><br />I understand your logic. I've taught first year logic a couple of times. But you aren't setting up the syllogism properly. Only all Scripture is throughly furnishing to every good work. If only all Scripture does that, then it follows that some cannot do that. All is required.<br /><br />Only all Scripture is throughly furnishing to every good work.<br />I have only some Scripture.<br />Therefore, I am not throughly furnished to every good work.<br /><br />That's how you should understand it.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21341640999272857452010-05-11T12:30:06.345-07:002010-05-11T12:30:06.345-07:00Verse 16, however, does specify that “all Scriptur...Verse 16, however, does specify that “all Scripture” is theopneustos (an adjective rendered “given by inspiration” in the KJV). Paul’s point is that the Scripture Timothy knew was powerful and sufficient because the Scripture that was inspired was powerful and sufficient. He does not say that what Timothy knew included every word originally given.<br />Third, even if Timothy had had access to a word-perfect copy of the Old Testament, what would this prove about what we have today?<br /><br />AARON, IT WOULD PROVE MUCH. IT WOULD PROVE THAT THE IMMUTABLE GOD PERFECTLY PRESERVED HIS WORDS UNTIL THE 1ST CENTURY. WHY WOULD HE STOP AS SOON AS 2 TIMOTHY WAS PENNED? IF HE DID, THE MAN OF GOD COULD NO LONGER BE COMPLETELY EQUIPPED TO DO EVERY GOOD WORK, ETC.—THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY NICHOLS WOULD FOLLOW.<br /><br />The sufficiency argument based on 3:17 remains. Nichol’s reasoning is that if “all Scripture” is sufficient, missing any words would render it insufficient. But the reasoning is faulty. If I say “all of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger,” I’m not denying that “some of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger.” Granted, if the “some” is reduced to a small enough subset of “all,” it eventually becomes insufficient. But it is far from obvious that the discrepancies we find in the MSS cross that threshold.<br /><br />I DON’T KNOW IF I EVEN NEED TO COMMENT ON THIS. DOES NOT THE BELIEVER WHO IS WALKING WITH GOD FEEL REPULSED BY THIS? GOD, AARON WOULD HAVE IT, GAVE THE ENTIRE INSPIRED CANON TO MAKE THE MAN OF GOD PERFECT, COMPLETEY FURNISHED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK—BUT NOW WE ONLY HAVE FRAGMENTS OF THIS CANON LEFT, AARON WANTS TO CONCLUDE, SO HE SAYS THAT THE TATTERED FRAGMENTS—AND HE CANNOT GIVE US CERTAINTY ABOUT ANY SINGLE PORTION THEREOF, SO WE CANNOT BE SURE ABOUT WHICH PARTS WERE INSPIRED AND WHICH ARE CORRUPT—ARE AS GOOD AS THE COMPLETE INSPIRED CANON! THE DILUTED AND CORRUPTED FRAGMENTS CAN STILL MAKE US PERFECT!<br /><br />I AM SO GLAD I DON’T NEED TO DEFEND AARON’S POSITION FROM SCRIPTURE. PRAISE THE LORD!<br /><br />. . .<br />Notes<br />1 “Text” here means a complete Hebrew and Aramaic OT and complete Greek NT.<br />2 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Matt. 4:4).<br />3 Of course, not all manuscript differences are so minor, but a vast quantity of them are. TSKT’s preservation argument here requires that every pronoun and qualifier be preserved in order for God to judge justly.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-61152324803239047122010-05-11T12:30:06.346-07:002010-05-11T12:30:06.346-07:00“Thou hast known the holy scriptures”
In ch. 6, Ch...“Thou hast known the holy scriptures”<br />In ch. 6, Charles Nichols argues that “inspiration implies preservation,” based on 2 Timothy 3:15-17.<br />15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.<br />Nichols summarizes his claim as follows:<br />2 Timothy 3:15-17 strongly suggests perfect, available, verbal and plenary preservation of Scripture just as it establishes God’s inerrant, verbal, plenary inspiration. (p. 68)<br />His argument asserts that “holy” (v.15) indicates “unadulterated, and pure from defilement” (p. 65). He argues further that the primary meaning of grammata (“scriptures” in v.15) is “letters,” therefore, Paul was pointing out to Timothy that Timothy had grown up having access to a letter-perfect Old Testament text (p. 66). On the basis of the relationship between v.15 and v.16, Nichols observes, “what God inspired is perfect. Therefore, the Old Testament was perfectly preserved to Timothy’s day” (p. 66).<br />Based on the sufficiency of Scripture expressed in 3:17, Nichols concludes that “Sufficiency depends on every writing God breathed” and “the availability of every writing is an obvious ramification of ‘all Scripture is profitable’” (p.67). His conclusion is that “the unadulterated Words, recorded up to or more than a thousand years earlier, were available to Timothy.”<br />A closer look<br />Several problems exist with this line of argument as well. First, “holy” (hieros, which Nichols says is synonymous with hagios) does not always mean completely pure. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:14 describes the children of believers as hagios.<br /><br />CERTAINLY—BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN HERE? AARON NEEDS TO PROVE THAT THE “HOLY SCRIPTURES” HERE ARE NOT REALLY TRULY HOLY, BUT FILLED WITH ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS, ETC. AND ARE STILL HOLY. CAN HE GIVE OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE CORRUPT SCRIPTURES LIKE THIS ARE CALLED “HOLY” IN THE BIBLE? SHOULDN’T HE CITE VERSES WHERE SCRIPTURES ARE CALLED HOLY BUT ARE CORRUPT, INSTEAD OF A TEXT WHERE CHILDREN ARE SET APART/HOLY? THE OT EVEN USES THE WORD “HOLY” FOR THE CENSERS OF MEN THAT WERE BURNED UP BY FIRE FROM HEAVEN AND WHOSE COMPATRIOTS HAD THE EARTH OPEN UP AND TAKE THEM ALIVE TO HELL—BUT DO PEOPLE REALLY THINK THAT SCRIPTURES ARE “HOLY” BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION? PERHAPS AARON’S CRITICAL TEXT IS, IN ITS CORRUPT 7%, HOLY IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION, BUT I DON’T THINK THAT IS WHAT PAUL MEANT, OR TIMOTHY THOUGHT, WHEN HE READ “HOLY SCRIPTURES” IN 2 TIMOTHY 3.<br /><br />Second, the passage does not say that Timothy “had access to” or “possessed” the “holy scriptures” but that he knew them. Unless we suppose that young Timothy knew every single inspired word of the Old Testament, “holy scriptures” in v.15 cannot have that meaning. Rather, it refers to the subset of the Scriptures Timothy had personally learned.<br /><br />AN AMAZING THING—TIMOTHY KNEW THEM, BUT HE DIDN’T HAVE ACCESS TO THEM. I WONDER HOW HE DID THAT.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40025966003171387362010-05-11T12:28:53.980-07:002010-05-11T12:28:53.980-07:00How would someone be judged differently if Luke 9:...How would someone be judged differently if Luke 9:3 reads m?te ana duo chit?nas, “not two tunics apiece” (Textus Receptus), rather than simply m?te duo chit?nas, “not two tunics” (Nestle-Aland 27th ed.)?3<br /><br />I WILL JUST BELIEVE MATTHEW 4:4—IT IS ENOUGH FOR ME. ALSO, PERHAPS AARON WILL TELL US HOW WE CAN KNOW WHICH WORDS TO LIVE BY IN THOSE CASES WHERE HE THINKS IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE (SINCE MATTHEW 4:4, HE TELLS US, DOES NOT SHOW THAT IT ALWAYS MAKES A DIFFERENCE).<br /><br />AARON PICKED THE WRONG VERSE WHEN HE USED LUKE 9:3 TO SHOW CT VARIANTS THAT DO NOT MATTER. THE CT IN THIS PERICOPE IS ERRANT, WHILE THE TR IS INERRANT. NOTE:<br /><br /><br />Mt 10:10; Mr 6:8; Lu 9:3 (ASV):<br /><br />no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, NOR STAFF: for the laborer is worthy of his food.<br />and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, SAVE A STAFF ONLY; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse;<br />And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, NEITHER STAFF, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.<br /><br />In the CT, there is a plain contradiction in these verses. Matthew 10:10; Lu 9:3 has the Lord forbid taking a staff, while Mark 6:8 allows a staff. The CT is an errant, not an inerrant text. Fundamentalists and evangelicals who hold to the CT are inconsistent—they are affirming that a text with errors has no errors. The TR is inerrant, and is the text for those who believe in Biblical inspiration; the CT is errant, and is the text for theological liberalism.<br /><br />The KJV says:<br /><br />Matt. 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet STAVES: for the workman is worthy of his meat. <br />Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, SAVE A STAFF ONLY; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:<br />Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither STAVES, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.<br /><br />There is no contradiction in the KJV, or in the Scrivener 1881/1894 Received Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society; Christ forbids taking more than one staff.<br /><br />AARON DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB IN PICKING LUKE 9:3 AS AN INSTANCE WHERE CT VARIANTS DON’T MATTER.<br /><br />What Jesus says in John 17:8 is simply that He has faithfully passed on the words He was given. Turning this into “every single one of the words of Scripture” is reading into the text. Even if we suppose that Jesus meant exactly that, the conclusion that He promises a word-perfect text for every generation does not follow.<br /><br />AGAIN, ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE CONCLUSION—JOHN 17:8 MUST NOT, CANNOT, PROMISE THAT THE WORDS THE FATHER GAVE THE SON WOULD BE RECEIVED AND AVAILABLE TO ALL BELIEVERS. THIS CONCLUSION MUST BE REACHED EVEN IF IT RENDS THE CANON TO PIECES, INTO PARTS THAT ARE GIVEN BY CHRIST THROUGH THE SPIRIT TO THE SAINTS, AND PARTS THAT ARE NOT GIVEN SO; EVEN IF IT MUST OBLITERATE THE CONTEXT OF JOHN 17:8; WHATEVER IT TAKES, JOHN 17:8 MUST NOT TEACH PRESERVATION.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-10614105301345512602010-05-11T12:28:53.981-07:002010-05-11T12:28:53.981-07:00SO WHICH WORDS OF THE CANON DID THE FATHER NOT GIV...SO WHICH WORDS OF THE CANON DID THE FATHER NOT GIVE TO THE MEDIATOR TO GIVE TO THE SAINTS? THE OT CANON WAS GIVEN BY CHRIST THROUGH THE SPIRIT:<br /><br />1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.<br /><br />IT SEEMS AARON ACCEPTS THAT THE WORDS OF THE GOSPELS WERE GIVEN BY THE FATHER TO CHRIST AS WELL—SO I GUESS THE EPISTLES WERE GIVEN IN A LESSER WAY—AND THE COMFORTER WHO WOULD GUIDE THE SAINTS INTO ALL TRUTH, WHICH INCLUDED THE REST OF THE NT, IN JOHN 14-16, DID NOT RECEIVE THE WORDS OF THE EPISTLES FROM THE FATHER THROUGH THE MEDIATOR TO GIVE TO THE SAINTS.<br /><br />LET US SAY THAT THIS (RIDICULOUS) CONCLUSION WERE TRUE. IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT ALL THE GENERATIONS OF BELIEVERS, ALL THOSE INCLUDED IN CHRIST’S HIGH PRIESTLY PRAYER, HAD PERFECTLY PRESERVED GOSPELS, OLD TESTAMENT, AND WHATEVER OTHER PARTS OF THE CANON AARON WISHES TO CONCLUDE ARE IN VIEW IN JOHN 17. I HOPE HE CAN TELL US WHAT PARTS THOSE ARE, AND WHERE WE CAN FIND AND HOLD IN OUR HANDS THOSE PARTS OF THE CANON PRAYED ABOUT IN JOHN 17. I HOPE HE, AND HIS FRIENDS ON SI, WILL PUBLISH AN EDITION OF THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETY’S CRITICAL TEXT SOON THAT HAS THOSE PORTIONS THAT ARE PRAYED FOR IN JOHN 17 IN BOLD PRINT, OR HIGHLIGHTED, OR SOMETHING, SO THAT WE CAN KNOW THAT THOSE PARTS ARE GOD’S WORDS FOR SURE.<br /><br />Other passages may expand on the content of what men will be judged by, but can we reasonably argue that every word of Scripture must be preserved, recognized and accessible in order for this judging to be just? <br /><br />YES—SEE MATTHEW 4:4 ABOVE.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-77095299082615502162010-05-11T12:28:53.982-07:002010-05-11T12:28:53.982-07:00He was emphasizing our dependence on the Father as...He was emphasizing our dependence on the Father as well as the Father’s sovereign control over our lives. In Matthew Henry’s words:<br />It is true, God in his providence ordinarily maintains men by bread out of the earth (Job 28:5); but he can, if he please, make use of other means to keep men alive; any word proceeding out of the mouth of God, any thing that God shall order and appoint for that end, will be as good a livelihood for man as bread, and will maintain him as well.2<br /><br /><br />AN APPLICATION MADE BY MATTHEW HENRY OF MATTHEW 4:4—HIS COMMENTARY HAS LOTS AND LOTS OF GREAT APPLICATION—IS SUPPOSED TO ESTABLISH THIS TOTALLY ANTI-CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF MATTHEW 4:4?<br /><br /><br />Jesus’ statement here does not communicate that He had access to an Old Testament text that contained every word originally inspired. The statement is even further from teaching that every generation of believers will have access to such a text.<br /><br />AH—HERE IS THE DESIRED CONCLUSION. AS LONG AS THIS CONCLUSION IS REACHED, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE EXEGESIS IS AS DRY, BARREN, EMPTY, AND TORTURED AS THE WILDERNESS ISRAEL PASSED THROUGH ON THE WAY TO THE PROMISED LAND.<br /><br />“They have received them”<br />For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:8)<br />In ch. 4, Strouse takes up the case once again, this time emphasizing the concept of a “received Bible.”<br />This essay will demonstrate that…the Lord Jesus is the Author of the received Bible mindset and expects His followers to be united around the received Bible movement throughout history. (p. 52)<br />The chapter’s argument is based in part on the view that “the words” Jesus says the Father gave Him are the entire “Bible canon,” and the same as the “all Scripture” of 2 Timothy 3:16—the same words Jesus said would never pass away (Matt. 24:35, p. 53). Furthermore, since all will be judged by these words (John 12:48), all of the “canonical Words” must be written and preserved. To judge men by anything less than “perfectly preserved, inscripturated Words” would be unjust (p.53).<br />Strouse then cites several references to believers “receiving” the word (pp. 54-55) and, in the process, gives “receive” a special meaning: something along the lines of “to get a hold of a copy of the entire Bible that you know is a word-perfect copy” (my words, not his).<br />A close look at the text, however, reveals that it does not support the conclusions Strouse draws from it. That Jesus is referring to the entire canon when He says “the words which thou gavest me,” is far from “presumably” true (p. 53), especially since much of the canon had not yet been written at the time. Plus, the words Jesus says His hearers will be judged by (John 12:48) refers most naturally to those He had been speaking to them personally.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66063190532310797092010-05-11T12:26:44.607-07:002010-05-11T12:26:44.607-07:00Second, Jesus describes the “every word” He has in...Second, Jesus describes the “every word” He has in mind as coming from the “mouth” of God, and uses the Greek rh?ma (????) for “word.” Rh?ma normally indicates spoken rather than written words.<br /><br />COME NOW—MEN ARE SUPPOSED TO LIVE BY EVERY SPOKEN WORD THAT, I SUPPOSE, IS NOT RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE? IS THAT WHAT THE LORD JESUS IS DOING IN QUOTING THE BIBLE TO SATAN IN MATTHEW 4? IS THAT WHAT MOSES IS COMMANDING IN DEUTERONOMY 8:3? IS THAT WHAT EPHESIANS 6:17 MEANS WHEN IT SAYS THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT IS THE WORD OF GOD? ISN’T IT OBVIOUS THAT THE MOUTH + PROCEEDING IDEA EXPLAINS WHY RHEMA IS USED? THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL TO THIS ARGUMENT.<br /><br />Third, “proceeds” is in the present tense. The sense is “every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.” Though continuation is not always part of the meaning of a present tense verb, the fact that “shall live” is future almost requires that sense here. <br /><br />GREAT—THEN BELIEVERS MUST LIVE BY WORDS THAT HAVE THE BREATH OF GOD ON THEM, THAT ARE INSPIRED—SO THEY MUST LIVE BY ALL THE WORDS OF THE AUTOGRAPHS, WHICH ARE, THEREFORE, PERFECTLY PRESERVED, AND AVAILABLE TODAY. I HOPE AARON CAN TELL US WHERE THEY ARE.<br /><br />“Man shall live now and in the future by every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.”<br />Finally, the context is also significant. Deuteronomy 8:3, which Jesus quotes here, is a reminder to the children of Israel that they are dependent on God’s decrees for their well being. <br /><br />DEUTERONOMY 8:3 ISN’T ABOUT LIVING BY SCRIPTURE? CONSIDER 8:1-6:<br />8:1* ¶ All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.<br /> 2* And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.<br /> 3* And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.<br /> 4* Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.<br /> 5* Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.<br /> 6* Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.<br /><br />IT IS PEREFECTLY OBVIOUS THAT ISRAEL WAS TO “LIVE” BY THE WORDS OF THE PENTATEUCH, GOD’S COMMANDMENTS TO THEM, V. 1, 3, 6, ETC.—AND TO LIVE BY “ALL” THE COMMANDMENTS, V. 1, REQUIRES PERFECT PRESERVATION. THE LORD JESUS WAS RIGHT ON WHEN HE QUOTED DEUTERONOMY 8:3 IN MATTHEW 4:4 AND REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE WORDS GOD INSPIRED.<br /><br />And in the immediate context, Jesus is responding to pressure from Satan to turn stones into bread (during a long fast).<br />These details do not prove that Jesus was referring to unwritten words, but together they do strongly suggest He was speaking of God’s continual commanding of what we need to “live.” <br /><br />THIS CONCLUSION IS SO BIZZARE, AND SO OBVIOUSLY NOT A LEGITIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE MEANING OF MATTHEW 4:4, THAT I AM AMAZED. I ALSO DON’T THINK AARON CAN REALLY MEAN WHAT HE SAYS HERE, FOR HE IS NOT A QUAKER OR A RADICAL CHARISMATIC WHO BELIEVES UNWRITTEN DIRECT COMMANDS ARE EQUAL IN AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. WHAT A CONTRAST AARON’S CONCLUSION IS TO WHAT THE LORD ACTUALLY DID IN THE CHAPTER—QUOTE SCRIPTURE, OVER AND OVER!Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11022380326740914742010-05-11T12:26:44.608-07:002010-05-11T12:26:44.608-07:00Brethren, I put my off-the-cuff comments on Aaron...Brethren, I put my off-the-cuff comments on Aaron's article in ALL CAPS below. I put the comments in before I read Pastor Brandenburg's response (though I then did read it). In material below here, most everything not in all caps is Aaron’s article, and all caps material is my response.<br /><br /><br />Does the Bible teach that God’s people will always be able to point to a particular text1 of the Bible and know that it is the word-perfect, preserved text? . . .<br />Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that God has preserved His Word for us in some sense. Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches God will preserve forever, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words He inspired and that some believers will always have access to Scripture in some form.<br /><br />DOES “SCRIPTURE” HERE MEAN ALL THE WORDS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION? IF SO, THIS IS A TREMENDOUS CONCESSION—IF NOT, HE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT CORRUPTIONS THAT GOD DID NOT INSPIRE, AND THAT HE HATES, ARE “SCRIPTURE.”<br /><br /> God’s ability to use imperfect sinners to perfectly preserve His Word is also not in dispute, nor is the fact that we should accept what the Bible reveals to be true regardless of the claims of the “science of textual criticism” or any “high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5, KJV). . . .<br />Passages handled previously<br />TSKT has chapters devoted to several of the seven popular preservation texts I examined earlier in this series: Psalm 12:6-7 (TSKT, ch. 1), Matthew 5:17-18 (TSKT, ch. 3), Matthew 24:35 (TSKT, ch. 5) and 1 Peter 1:23-25 (TSKT, ch. 7). These passages clearly affirm a concept of preservation, but do not tell us to expect a word-perfect text to be available to every generation.<br /><br />FALSE—THEY DO TELL US TO EXPECT THIS. THE AFFIRMATION OF PSALM 12:6-7 IS VERY EXPLICIT, FOR EXAMPLE.<br /><br />Though all of these passages would be consistent with the idea that we will always be able to access word-perfect copies of Scripture, “consistent with” is not strong evidence that God has chosen to overcome the human fallibility the Bible clearly teaches us to expect. . . .<br /> “Every word that proceedeth”<br />But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt. 4:4)<br />Thomas M. Strouse handles this passage in TSKT’s second chapter and concludes the following:<br />The Lord clearly stated His belief in the availability of Scripture by assuming the accessibility of every Word. The Savior clearly stated His belief in the verbal, plenary preservation of God’s Words since they had been and were still preserved intact in His day. (p. 39)<br />But Strouse’s case proves to be weak on several grounds. First, the perfect tense of “it is written” (gegraptai), does not indicate anything about the future of what is written, as he asserts (p. 38). Rather, the tense indicates an action that occurred in the past and has produced a state that continues in the writer’s (or, in this case, speaker’s) present. The idea here is simply “it stands written.”<br /><br />SO THE OT WORDS HAD BEEN PERFECTLY PRESERVED FROM THE DAYS OF MOSES TO THE TIME THE LORD JESUS SAID MATTHEW 4:4—BUT THEN THEY WOULD STOP BEING PEFECTLY PRESERVED?Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-7470705393267457272010-05-11T11:00:27.779-07:002010-05-11T11:00:27.779-07:00Aaron,
I am hoping that you will not overlook my p...Aaron,<br />I am hoping that you will not overlook my previous question about "AMBIGUITY". You may have not had time yet, but I really would like a definite answer to this.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.com