tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post644881624469106769..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Recent James White Videos and the Bible Version Issue, pt. 5Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-84384153893850821582015-08-09T14:05:06.380-07:002015-08-09T14:05:06.380-07:00Joe,
It's true. And evangelicals think that&...Joe,<br /><br />It's true. And evangelicals think that's very helpful. You're tongue in cheek, but how does that joke not represent them? Fundamentalists have to go with the same. You can't have it both ways. Mockery from them is not enough for me. Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74980063802634529322015-08-08T21:38:25.495-07:002015-08-08T21:38:25.495-07:00It seems to me that if we can essentially dismiss ...It seems to me that if we can essentially dismiss what the London Baptist Confession says about preservation (and how it applies to textual criticism) because the authors of the LBCF were not aware of Dead Sea Scrolls, et al, then by the same logic we can do the same with regards to the creation account. After all, the writers of the LBCF were not aware of evolution, carbon dating, etc.<br /><br />At what point do we just consider the old confessions useless? After all, we've learned so much in the last 400 years.<br /><br />(said with tongue planted firmly in cheek)Joe Cassadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332557908306763199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-50975398912673019522015-08-07T20:24:52.271-07:002015-08-07T20:24:52.271-07:00Here are the words of Wilbur Pickering, who has ac...<br />Here are the words of Wilbur Pickering, who has actually collated Greek manuscripts, concerning the question of whether there are MSS that are exactly the same:<br /><br />For example, of the 43 family members [of a group of Byzantine MSS] I have collated for the General Epistles, twenty-eight are identical (perfect) for 2 & 3 John, twenty-two are identical for Jude, five for 2 Peter, four each for James and 1 John, and three for 1 Peter."<br /><br />The idea that no two Greek MSS are exactly the same may be true for the tiny corrupt minority of contradictory MSS that are erroneously called a single Alexandrian "family," but it is not true for the overwhelming majority of MSS that are erroneously reduced to a single, allegedly inferior "family" called "Byzantine."KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59488540210944666762015-08-03T11:02:53.960-07:002015-08-03T11:02:53.960-07:00Hi Steven,
In that case, I wasn't saying that...Hi Steven,<br /><br />In that case, I wasn't saying that White was wrong. It was just the way that he said it -- "narrow spectrum" -- stating it in the worst possible manner of textual critic speak, as if TR people started with the Byzantine manuscripts and then narrowed it even further to arrive at their position with the least possible evidence. I took off from there in that paragraph to explain what really happened without reporting what White was doing to shame supporters of the TR.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6203732514298767862015-08-03T10:57:41.162-07:002015-08-03T10:57:41.162-07:00> White says that the text handed down by the p...> White says that the text handed down by the providence of God and received by His churches "is not just a narrow spectrum of the Byzantine manuscript tradition," referring to the textus receptus of the New Testament."<br /><br />James White is accidentally correct here, if he is referring to the Byzantine mss, which is different than the TR of the NT. Edward Freer Hills made this very clear, that the preservation is a combination of the fountainhead Greek mss and the Latin historical lines. Leading to the Reformation Bible expertise working with both, and the ECW and faith-consistent textual analysis. <br /><br />Steven AverySteven Averyhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35727473440496742662015-08-02T05:01:01.208-07:002015-08-02T05:01:01.208-07:00Ross wrote
"I hope that helps. I also hope th...<b>Ross wrote</b><br />"I hope that helps. I also hope that, because of what is involved in the literal interpretation of Rev 22:18-19, you will come join us on the TR side so you can preach an expository series on Revelation and receive the Book's blessing instead of its curse."<br /><br />Are you saying that you preach and teach, and evangelize (show me the Greek tracts you pass out and openly witness to English speakers in Greek) using a TR bible?...<br /><br />Or are you saying that you use the Greek to CORRECT the Holy King James Bible at YOUR discretion when out of the other side of your mouth you tell us that it used the INSPIRED TR text for its translation? So, the Holy King James Bible is not inspired if it was translated from inspired text? Can you please tell us according to Revelation 22:18-19 where the Holy King James Bible errors are so that we will not cursed?<br /><br />Are you saying that if you preach, teach, and evangelize using a Holy King James Bible that you violate Rev 22:18-19?<br /><br />Are you saying that we all need to learn "the Greek and Hebrew" (you STILL avoid telling us which TEXT is "received" by the churches today and PROVE it) so that we are not cursed?The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67526178356130224312015-08-02T04:39:09.108-07:002015-08-02T04:39:09.108-07:00Ross wrote
"With the invention of the printin...<b>Ross wrote</b><br />"With the invention of the printing press, though, such was possible, and consistent with God's continuing providential guidance and preservation of His Word, the TR is what He who works all things after the counsel of His will had printed, which was received by His churches as the perfect preservation of the autographs:<br /><br />It was? You mean it was received by the scholars of the day, do you not? Please show any evidence of its use in preaching, teaching, believing and especially evangelizing in the last 400 years among the body of Christ. You will not have any evidence except to show that the Holy King James Bible, inspired by the Holy Ghost and received of the churches IS the English text that replaced all before it (older English inspired text, Latin inspired text, Greek inspired text, Hebrew inspired text, others?).<br /><br /><br /><b>Ross wrote</b><br />"Do we have sufficient historical data to explain how, say, a Waldensian in A. D. 1234 knew where all the Words of God were? No, but God never promised us that we would be able to know how other people centuries ago were able to have certainty. He promised that His people in His churches can in their own day know where the Word is."<br /><br />I amazingly agree with all the above. Therefore, can we with CERTAINITY say the Holy King James Bible is the inspired scripture that we hold in our hands today?The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88336348175193664882015-08-01T23:29:15.286-07:002015-08-01T23:29:15.286-07:00The Textus Receptus “was . . . the Bible of the Mi...<br />The Textus Receptus “was . . . the Bible of the Middle Ages and much more, since it was independent of interpretation by Popes, councils, canon lawyers or university doctors. In one sense both Zwingli and the radicals [such as the Baptists] were uncritical about the Bible in that they made no attempt to go behind the received Hebrew and Greek texts to original manuscripts, and were not concerned that alternative readings were possible — quite the contrary, there was but one text . . . Zwingli and the Anabaptists . . . both accepted the received text, and both agreed that tradition, the hierarchy and any human authorities, however ancient or eminent, must give way to the Word. . . . [the Baptists defended what this unbelieving historian calls] narrow and uncompromising bibliolatry” (Pg. 172-173, Zwingli, G. R. Potter. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976). One of the editors of the modern critical text stated: “It is undisputed that Luther used the Greek Textus Receptus for his translation of the German New Testament in 1522 and all its later editions (although the term itself was not yet in use at the time). . . . [So did] all the translators of the New Testament in the 16th century (e.g., the Zürich version). All the translations of the 17th century, including the King James version of 1611, the “Authorized Version,” were also based on this text. Thus the New Testament of the church in the period of the Reformation was based on the Textus Receptus. It is equally undisputed that in the 16th or 17th century (and for that matter well into the 18th century) anyone with a Greek New Testament would have had a copy of the Textus Receptus. . . . Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus.” Indeed, the Textus Receptus “was regarded as ‘the text of the church’ . . . from the 4th . . . century” (pg. 143, ibid.). It is therefore not surprising that throughout Baptist and Protestant Christiandom in the Reformation and Post-Reformation era the “Textus Receptus . . . was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself” (pg. 11, The Text of the New Testament, Kurt & Barbara Aland, trans. Erroll Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989).<br /><br />Receiving what God has providentially preserved in the manuscripts in use by true churches and then the printed text received by true churches is radically different from the critical text methodology of treating the Bible like a secular, unpreserved book, the best copies of which were not in use until restored by unregenerate men like Westcott and Hort.<br /><br />I hope that helps. I also hope that, because of what is involved in the literal interpretation of Rev 22:18-19, you will come join us on the TR side so you can preach an expository series on Revelation and receive the Book's blessing instead of its curse.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66262311697364159112015-08-01T23:29:03.731-07:002015-08-01T23:29:03.731-07:00Dear Tyler,
Thanks for the comment. The article ...Dear Tyler,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. The article I referenced did not just point out that nobody has collated all the MSS but that of the MSS that have been collated a good number of them are indeed exactly the same, at least in the Byzantine tradition. The sloppily copied and corrupt MSS like Aleph and B don't have any other MSS that is exactly the same as them.<br /><br />I believe if you will accept our Scriptural starting point, our conclusion necessarily follows. This starting point requires faith, something Farmer Brown pointed out.<br /><br />God promised to preserve every one of His inspired Words (Mt 24:35; Ps 12:6-7, etc.) in use among His people (Is 59:21; Mt 28:18-20; etc.) so that they could know for certain where they are and live by them (Mt 4:4; Rev 22:18-19, etc.). This was in connection with His institutions for worship, Israel and the church (Rom 3:2; 9:1-5; 1 Tim 3:15, etc.).<br /><br />The only text that any significant group of true churches even claims is perfect is the TR under the KJV. If that is not the perfect text, then God's promises of certainty about where His Words are have failed.<br /><br />With that presupposition, we approach historical data. We see the historical data as consistent with God's promises. Nobody can prove historically that the Words were not available to believers and true churches in every era. Do we have sufficient historical data to explain how, say, a Waldensian in A. D. 1234 knew where all the Words of God were? No, but God never promised us that we would be able to know how other people centuries ago were able to have certainty. He promised that His people in His churches can in their own day know where the Word is.<br /><br />For the centuries after the autographs were composed under inspiration until the time those autographical copies and copies identical to them were lost--which was in all likelihood quite a number of centuries (cf. my essay on how long the autographs were around at http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/ ), a perfect Bible was available. After that time, a perfect Bible was still available because God said so. Furthermore, while quite a number of Greek MSS are exactly identical, millions of exactly identical copies would be difficult with hand copying but would become possible with the printing press. With the invention of the printing press, though, such was possible, and consistent with God's continuing providential guidance and preservation of His Word, the TR is what He who works all things after the counsel of His will had printed, which was received by His churches as the perfect preservation of the autographs:<br />KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73935467023291019442015-08-01T12:29:20.756-07:002015-08-01T12:29:20.756-07:00Farmer Brown,
Faith in the Bible itself is differ...Farmer Brown,<br /><br />Faith in the Bible itself is different from faith in anything else. Why? Because, as we know (although this is also circular before we know what the Word of God is), "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Simply put, then, we need to know what the true Word is before we can have faith in it or in what it says. Otherwise, faith coming from the Koran (also said to be the word of "God" by some) would be enough. That means we need to have some knowledge about which Word is true and which is to be believed before we read it and can get our faith.<br /><br />Now, I believe that God can use his Spirit to convict someone reading his actual Word, but how will that person know that the Word he is reading is in fact the right Word of God? If we read about God or about God preserving his Word from the NIV, what is there to tell us that the NIV *isn't* the preserved Word? There is nothing there that will point us to a specific version. We will know that God has preserved his Word, but not how or where. If we use the argument about what the churches have received, that argument itself is *external* to the Bible, just as arguments from criticism are.<br /><br />Also, while the argument about which version the churches have received sounds pretty strong, we then have to know which churches are good, and we have to trust that even as fallible men, they made the right decision. Or maybe they received a particular version because that's all they had. Since we weren't alive at the time of Jesus or the prophets (who I believe were used to *externally* validate the Word), and we don't have access to the originals, we still, to some extent, have to trust history and the (hopefully) Christian men who came before us to pass on what we then hope is the right Word of God.<br /><br />Unless God himself speaks to us as he did to Moses or Samuel, I believe it is not particularly helpful to just say "have faith" until we know what to have faith in.<br />Dave Barnhartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32831145133114340672015-08-01T11:53:00.763-07:002015-08-01T11:53:00.763-07:00"None of those are the right or Biblical plac..."None of those are the right or Biblical places to begin on this issue. The only right position on this and any other issue is faith."<br /><br />Not true, for ye would not know faith unless the scriptures define the CORRECT faith, which is "the faith OF Christ". Therefore, the right position is to know what the word of God is a where it is found.<br /><br />Other than that, you will have a misplaced faith.<br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-57477853917929168882015-08-01T07:03:59.748-07:002015-08-01T07:03:59.748-07:00Tyler, I understand your disappointment. You are ...<b>Tyler</b>, I understand your disappointment. You are not the first person to be disappointed by faith alone. Naaman felt just what you are feeling. He wanted something great, but he had to settle for faith. It is good enough for ICR, though. They do tell people to believe by faith, and they believed by faith before any evidence was available.<br /><br />You will never find the evidence you desire to prove a Biblical position. You cannot "prove" spiritual things, except by faith, which is the evidence of things not seen for the Godly. Faith is the first answer and the first step in any spiritual discussion. This is the case no matter what the issue; child training, creation, preservation, marriage, money, church, family, etc.<br /><br />If you want to come to the right position by evidence, it will never happen. The reason for that is the right position is not understanding word for word preservation, TR, CT, mind of God, etc. None of those are the right or Biblical places to begin on this issue. The only right position on this and any other issue is faith. <br /><br />Once you are willing to trust God alone you can please him, and perhaps he will reward you with sight. Perhaps not though. Abraham never received sight, neither did Isaac or Jacob. They lived their entire lives as strangers, but they pleased God because they believed by faith. They did not seem disappointed, though.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-34123944852626615222015-08-01T07:01:58.057-07:002015-08-01T07:01:58.057-07:00Bro(s). Brandenburg and Ross:
I realize that you ...Bro(s). Brandenburg and Ross:<br /><br />I realize that you weren’t “dodging” my question. I also realize that several of the folks who comment here, who are obviously pro-KJV, do not represent your own position. My most basic question has to do with the manuscripts. If we can stick to this particular issue for the moment, we may make some headway:<br /><br />1. There are a lot of manuscripts. Not all of them agree. I know you and Bro. Ross have pointed out that nobody has collated every single manuscript. That doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. The manuscripts we do have generally differ from one another in minor respects, all over the place. I hope we can agree on that for the moment. <br /><br />2. Because many manuscripts have subtle differences as a result of hand-copying, anybody who produces ANY printed Greek text has to decide between the different readings. I want to know what your position has to say about this matter. If you advocate the TR, how do you escape that exact same charge that the editors of the NA28 do? Didn’t the editors of the TR collate their manuscripts and filter out variant readings? Unless you believe that all the manuscripts underlying the TR are identical, they had to do that, didn’t they? There are also many different printed editions of the TR, which each differ in some ways from the other. The folks at the Trinitarian Bible Society acknowledge this; “[t]hese editions differ slightly from one another but still are regarded as the same basic text.” <br /><br />3. I’m not trying to erect a strawman – I genuinely want your explanation. <br /> <br />There is more which could be said. I’ll keep it at this for now.<br />Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75248870337791895862015-07-31T23:25:27.904-07:002015-07-31T23:25:27.904-07:00Dear Tyler,
I'm not entirely clear on what we...Dear Tyler,<br /><br />I'm not entirely clear on what we aren't answering. Could you repeat that?<br /><br />Also, could you please exegete Rev 22:18-19 and show how it is consistent with receiving some words in the book that are not those that John wrote?<br /><br />Finally, before ICR and Answers in Genesis put together a lot of good arguments for a young earth, would the Bible alone have been sufficient to adopt that position?<br /><br />Thanks. KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-64918695657456977712015-07-31T10:05:25.581-07:002015-07-31T10:05:25.581-07:00Hello Everyone,
Sorry I haven't been posting ...Hello Everyone,<br /><br />Sorry I haven't been posting your comments. I was out in the woods in the mountains without a computer for the last four days for our church family camp, but I posted most of them, except for one of George's because I tire of this series being derailed by the off subject, that I already said was off subject to George. What George's comments should tell people though is that his KJVO, which is generally the type that James White addresses, truly KJVO, opposes our biblical and historical position. As I've said though, White and George have more in common than George and me, because they both reject preservation of scripture. White may say that he doesn't, but that is in fact where he's at on this. I have never read scriptural presuppositions from a CT guy, the ones that guide them in their understanding of this issue. Why? They didn't start with them. They don't have them. Instead, what you get are attacks like "reformed scholasticism." Just wow. And his supporters just let that go, among many other very strange points like that.<br /><br />Tyler,<br /><br />As far as answering questions. I've never dodged a question in my life here, and among the many, many posts either here or at Jackhammer, I've answered them. You can't expect TSKT to answer the historical questions, because that wasn't the point of the book. We've intended for awhile to write the second book that does that, but what will it matter if someone rejects what the Bible says about its own preservation? We purposefully set out the scriptural position first. What I found is that people then critiqued the book we didn't write. They wanted that book, because the actual book is problematic.<br /><br />A lot of the questions I get asked do relate to not following the scriptural position. For instance, for a reason never explained, the only legitimate means of preservation for CT people is a hand copy. It's got to be manuscript or it doesn't count. And then second, that manuscript itself must be around today. If the manuscript is not around, God didn't preserve as far as they're concerned. God didn't promise to preserve manuscripts. He promised to preserve Words, and that is the historical position too. The questions are based on, show me the manuscript available today, that at its root says God didn't preserve and then we're back to book number one, TSKT, again.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-85184780729430337112015-07-30T20:11:21.457-07:002015-07-30T20:11:21.457-07:00Dear Tyler,
The questions you asked deserve consi...Dear Tyler,<br /><br />The questions you asked deserve consideration. However, our primary concern is grammatical-historical exegesis of Revelation 22:18-19. "trouble seeing how this has worked itself out in history" is not a factor in exegesis of Scripture. This is the sort of argument that modernists use to reject the resurrection, old-earth "creationists" use to oppose the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2, etc. I trust you are willing to get your position from what Rev 22:18-19 means, since we are to live by faith, not by sight, and Scripture is more sure than anything (cf. 2 Pet 1:16-21). So, I would like to ask again, how can someone who doesn't know what the right words of Revelation are avoid the curse of 22:18-19? Whatever God says in His Word "squares with the facts," and we analyze history from the perspective of faith in God's promises, rather than doubting those promises because of what our finite minds see in history.<br /><br />The answers below are secondary to what I stated above, but I will give them also.<br /><br />1.) Actually, it is a myth that every manuscript differs from every other one, a myth perpetuated by people who don't collate manuscripts. See "Is It True that No Two NT Manuscripts Are the Same?" at:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/<br /><br />People who argue for this myth, such as James White, might want to do a bit more study, or perhaps collate a few manuscripts themselves.<br /><br />2.) There is a huge difference between a mindset of "let's see what God's people and His churches are using and let us receive what He has preserved," which was the mindset of Baptist and Protestants when the TR was the text, and the mindset of "let's treat the Bible like a secular book and do godless textual criticism." The two are not the same at all. The type of text in the TR fits the promises of God that true belivers and churches would be using the text from generation to generation (Is 59:21; Mt 28:18-20; 4:4, etc.). The NA28 text was not in use by anybody for c. 1500 years. It doesn't fit God's promises at all. If one calls both the latter and the former "textual criticism," the words are being used in very different ways.<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3727041507449668582015-07-30T18:56:08.516-07:002015-07-30T18:56:08.516-07:00Folks - I'm disappointed. I don't say that...Folks - I'm disappointed. I don't say that in a sarcastic or deliberately rude way. The issues I mentioned above are legitimate facts, and all I want to know is how the ecclesiastical text position accounts for them. I haven't heard anything but an appeal to faith. That's disappointing.<br /><br />The comparisons to science and the creationism/evolution debate are specious, because fine organizations like AiG and ICR work very hard to present a Biblical interpretation of the evidence. They don't tell people to "have faith." They explain the evidence with Biblical presuppositions. I was hoping somebody here could do the same. Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24902776613934423372015-07-30T14:28:51.303-07:002015-07-30T14:28:51.303-07:00Tyler Robbins, there are probably a lot of people ...<b>Tyler Robbins</b>, there are probably a lot of people here better able to answer this, but I think the question is one of faith, not history or science. You said, "I have a lot of trouble seeing how this has worked itself out in history."<br /><br />This is like any other issue where the popular and scientific consensus goes against the Bible. This is the same as theistic evolution early in the last century. Many professing believers were led astray by that, following many of the big names (Spurgeon, Scofield, etc). All the science and all the scientist seemed to irrefutably prove evolution.<br /><br />Now we have more information, so we know how flawed the science is and how dishonest the scientists are. However, even when all the scientists were maligning true believers, many still believed by faith despite the absence of evidence. That is what it is to live by faith. You judge what you see in the the world by what you see in the Bible, not what you see in the Bible by what you see in the world.<br /><br />The question that anyone struggling with this needs to answer is this: does the Bible promise word for word preservation? If so, the history and science are irrelevant. Settle in your mind the promises of God, then believe it by faith. Perhaps, like creation, the Lord will reward your faith with sight, or perhaps you will never have the science. Either way, it is a questions of faith, not sight.<br />Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-77815556646009666482015-07-30T05:18:10.252-07:002015-07-30T05:18:10.252-07:00Answer Tyler's questions, for there are many m...Answer Tyler's questions, for there are many more like these that will bring DOUBT into the picture.<br /><br />This is why those that hold to the Holy King James Bible as INSPIRED and PRESERVED text, and that it IS the very words of God NEVER create doubt, but rather instill great confidence in the words of God, for "the just shall live by faith".<br /><br />We have been faithful and "scholarship onlyism" has been the great failure in the last 200+ years holding to false doctrines of preservation.The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74406059748447830472015-07-29T14:22:46.240-07:002015-07-29T14:22:46.240-07:00Critical Text people are like evolutionists who co...Critical Text people are like evolutionists who conflate micro with macro evolution. Critical Text people conflate editing a manuscript with constructing a manuscript. There is a difference between editing a stream of similar manuscripts vs. constructing a manuscript from diverse sources. All manuscripts have to be edited. Nobody disputes that. The Critical Text side takes that fact and pretends that their ongoing project to construct a biblical manuscript is the same thing.<br /><br />Remember, by Westcott and Hort's own admission the Critical Text project has been a project of deception from the beginning. They were using their own Overton Window tactic in the 19th century. c.t.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02287685119108815245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43839865683984556952015-07-28T21:00:14.145-07:002015-07-28T21:00:14.145-07:00"By the way, someone with a Ruckmanite positi..."By the way, someone with a Ruckmanite position like George above is also adding/taking away and should beware of the grievous judgment of Rev 22:18-19."<br /><br />Both of you need some reality since you fail to approve my previous comment that answers the accusation against me. Tell the self-righteous KJB1611 and his obsession with Ruckman that he needs to listen to the following: <br /><br />Peter Ruckman - Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God!<br /><a rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RipGk3nJlzE</a><br /><br />Kent, at least show some integrity and consistency in what you allow. The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-41838294350084982942015-07-28T11:45:23.450-07:002015-07-28T11:45:23.450-07:00KJB1611 wrote:
"By the way, someone with a R...KJB1611 wrote:<br /><br />"By the way, someone with a Ruckmanite position like George above is also adding/taking away and should beware of the grievous judgment of Rev 22:18-19."<br /><br />Strikeout "Ruckman" and replace with <b>biblical</b>.<br /><br />So, instead of making accusations and being a hypocrite by having others believe you actually BELIEVE the words of God as found in the Holy King James Bible (unless the monikor, KJV1611 is just mockery), tell me what am I as a KING JAMES BIBLE BELIEVER adding or taking away from the scriptures?<br /><br />1> Give me the verse or verses from a Holy King James Bible and the WORDS that are missing or need to be added.<br /><br />2> If you actually will man-up and back up your accusatory statements, make sure you tell me the GREEK TEXT that you used.<br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40154430735012973992015-07-27T14:12:08.721-07:002015-07-27T14:12:08.721-07:00I'm getting ready for our first day of Bible S...I'm getting ready for our first day of Bible School, so I don't have much time, and this series concluded at a lightening pace so I haven't been able to comment like I might have been able to otherwise. <br /><br />Some questions:<br /><br />1. It is a fact that there are approx. 5600 Greek manscripts around, each of which differ from one another like you'd expect if they were handwritten. Why have these earlier manuscripts been found? Did God fail, or is this a Satanic plot to confuse God's people? <br /><br />2. Even among the younger manscripts (which we have a lot more of) there are differences. Why do you settle on the TR and/or Scrivener's 1881 Greek text (or whatever text) as your standard, seeing as how the men who compiled these texts had to engage in textual criticism of some sort to produce these prointed texts. Why is the TR a better Greek text than the NA28, seeing as how they both rely on subjective, best-guess decisions by men in their final form? <br /><br />3. Even if you maintain that the TR is best because God providentially led His people to preserve that manuscript stream instead of the earlier texts which have only been discovered fairly recently, I don't see how you escape the same problem - you're relying on the work of textual criticism when you settle on a printed Greek text. <br /><br />4. I hear your arguments on Rev 22:18-19. However, when I consider the questions I just raised above (and others) I have a lot of trouble seeing how this has worked itself out in history. Even Appendix A by Bro. La More in TSKT was sparse on details. It advanced a noble and very appealing theological position, but I don't see how it squares with the facts, hense my hastily typed questions above. This is behind a lot of James White's questions about the ecclesiastical text. I share his concerns. Help me see the light. Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22596322383978300632015-07-27T09:15:58.632-07:002015-07-27T09:15:58.632-07:00KJB1611, there is something else that is great abo...<b>KJB1611</b>, there is something else that is great about the verses in Revelations 22. It says, "And if any man shall take away from the <b>words</b> of the book..." It presupposes that the words (all the words) will remain, otherwise how could someone take away from them?<br /><br />If the "Mind of God" crowd is correct, this verse should say "If any man take away from the thoughts" or doctrine, or whatever. But is says words. That demonstrates that the words are available for tampering right now, all the words. The Bible closes with irrefutable proof of word for word preservation.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35982780124510695562015-07-25T21:57:33.744-07:002015-07-25T21:57:33.744-07:00I think it is interesting that in the TR Revelatio...I think it is interesting that in the TR Revelation 22:18-19 contain Greek verbs that suggest continuing action (so the unsaved person is the one who as a lifestyle attacks/opposes the Word), rather than, say, an apologist for Christianity who does grievously sin by attacking the Words of God but also regularly seeks to defend the Word in his interaction with Islam, Rome, etc. However, in the CT the verbs suggest point action rather than a lifestyle, so critical text people had better be very sure that they have every single Word of the Book of Revelation and know for sure where they are.<br /><br />Tyler, could you or some of the critical text folks at Maranatha explain to me how you can obey Rev 22:18-19 without being sure of every Word of the book of Revelation (if not the whole of Scripture)? How do you engage in expository preaching of the book of Revelation without falling under the curse of adding or taking away from the book (which is indubitably a terrible sin, even one time, although the passage does not eternally damn those who do so unintentionally, etc.) without being able to know for sure where those words are?<br /><br />By the way, someone with a Ruckmanite position like George above is also adding/taking away and should beware of the grievous judgment of Rev 22:18-19.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.com