tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post6496878372599607777..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Why I'm King James and the Contrast with a Dangerous King James Version PositionKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76624583565144629062016-09-16T12:36:49.512-07:002016-09-16T12:36:49.512-07:00Jason,
Your first question and your second questi...Jason,<br /><br />Your first question and your second question are related in their addressing the more significant issue of what exactly Biblical faith entails. At its base, faith involves believing--even committing oneself to--what the Scriptures say. Spirit-filling is directly related to that--we're filled with the Spirit as we submit ourselves to what Christ said (speaking about the whole of Scripture here). So, if I choose to believe something about the Bible, like canonicity, while rejecting that it's taught in the Bible, it's not Biblical faith and is therefore irrelevant to Spirit-filling. On the other hand, if I believe in canonicity, because the Scriptures teach word-perfect preservation of Scripture, that is Biblical faith and does relate to Spirit-filling.<br /><br />Why do you believe the resurrection of Jesus occurred? Is it because scholars and reputable theologians tell you it likely occurred? Is it because you have seen such a thing take place with your own senses? Is it because you can see documented instances in secular history to prove it occurred? Is it because, as you meditate on it, you can see the probability of something like that happening? Or do you receive that as true because the Scriptures teach it? Only the affirmative to the last answer meets the Biblical measure of knowledge by faith.<br /><br />The fact that there's debate over this does not mean that it is impossible to know. If it were, for example, so easy for the Jews to know that the Lord Jesus was their Messiah, why did they ultimately crucify Him? Why did they dispute with Paul in almost every city he entered? Why, 2000 years after the completion of Scripture, are we still having to combat numerous religious cult members with the Unitarian heresies about the Deity of Jesus or the Person of the Holy Spirit?<br /><br />Could Eve know for certainty what words were given in the law placed upon man in the garden? Yes. She doubted their certainty nonetheless, because the problem was not her <i>inability</i> to know, but that she allowed her senses and experience to determine reality and truth for her, rather than the spoken command of God.<br /><br />Do you believe the Bible, as we have it today (taking into account, out of generosity, all translations and paraphrases) is an accident of history?James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-85633423046321385602016-09-15T11:48:04.741-07:002016-09-15T11:48:04.741-07:00James,
If we "can know" - if it really ...James,<br /><br />If we "can know" - if it really is that easy, then why does this continue to be a debated issue? Is it really just that those who seek to understand it and who conclude to take it "a priori" simply aren't Spirit-filled and therefore miss the black and white proclamation that God promised us 66 books and that a perfect copy of the autographs would always be available? Or perhaps two Spirit-filled individuals can honestly disagree on a doctrine that God left sufficiently ambiguous that we might seek God's grace to enable us to lovingly disagree as a means of enduring Satan's attacks to create division.<br /><br />Your arguments are beyond my ability to debate, so I can offer no clever responses. I read them, and I will consider them, as I continue to consider all that Kent and others offer.<br /><br /><br />Sincerely,<br />JasonJason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90960557612081438042016-09-15T11:21:08.152-07:002016-09-15T11:21:08.152-07:00Jason,
You wrote that the argument of Bro. Ross r...Jason,<br /><br />You wrote that the argument of Bro. Ross related to changes in language was apples and oranges. Not so fast. The force of your argument was about changes in language demanding updating. You have argued that English language has changed so drastically that there is a "dangerous reality" of continuing their usage today. How would that be different for the Hebrew student? The fact that we do not know a lot about translations into other languages during that time, or whether non-Hebrew speaking people had to study in Hebrew is irrelevant to ensuring an Old Testament Hebrew-speaking person should be confident after 4000 years that he wasn't using an archaic Hebrew word, sending him off into apostate doctrine. For that matter, they would have had to make doubly sure that the poor Greek proselyte (aka, HSL student) studying Hebrew should have been furnished with a Hebrew text that was modern, polished, and contemporary in language so he wouldn't have issues. You really should answer the question, rather than dismissing it. <br /><br />I'm also wondering if you could present some examples of the "dangerous realities" of using the KJV with its language today. <br /><br />If honesty and consistency are to be commended for their exhibition as virtues alone, regardless of their content, then I commend you for your consistency related to the doubts about whether canonicity is either promised or something of certainty for us today. Certainly, if the Bible does not promise word preservation, it does not promise book preservation. Aaron Blumer's (referenced earlier in this thread) response was that canonicity is simply <i>a priori</i> for him. Your response is that you do not know, and even that perhaps we cannot know, so we shouldn't argue about it. Taking that to its conclusion, one wonders whether this theological position should make room for manuscripts like the so-called <i>Gospel of Jesus' Wife</i>. Should we argue with someone about that? Trying to understand your position.James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60827950471041660602016-09-15T06:49:07.330-07:002016-09-15T06:49:07.330-07:00Mr. Chapman:
I also love the increased understand...Mr. Chapman:<br /><br />I also love the increased understanding obtained with thees and thous. Those words are very helpful, and I wish we had a form of that in our current English.<br /><br /><br />KJB1611:<br /><br />Not really that concerned. It was just a simple question that I assume Kent can simply answer. I'm not trying to grab onto some small thing to end the conversation.<br /><br />Regarding your second paragraph: apples and oranges. A non-Hebrew speaking person needed to study the original languages. We are talking about English-speaking people reading an English Bible. If word definitions and usages have changed such that meanings of words are sufficiently different than they were when the English was first written, then the reader will not even know enough to know whether or not the words are actually still an accurate translation in the reader's current dictionary. That is the dangerous reality with the KJV in the 21st century.<br /><br /><br /><br />Kent:<br /><br />Interesting comment about the attire of a harlot, since attire is culturally based (there are 21st century non-American cultures who would say 99% of American women dress like a harlot, for example).<br /><br />But regarding the rest of what you said in your last paragraph, I agree. I believe this thing would be much easier if a good translation were made from the allegedly Perfectly Preserved original language manuscripts. I believe many of the KJV vs. Modern Version discussions would be much more significant. But since it seems to always come back to ESV/NASB/NKJV/HCSB vs. The Almighty KJV1611, those who desire a Bible that is more accurate in it's English usage (due to archaisms, definition changes, and word order) are readily accepting of critical text translations, and the if-it-were-good-enough-for-Paul-then-it-is-good-enough-for-me KJV-ers never budge...and never call for an updated translation of their source texts. If a new translation were done from that source, I believe there would be much more serious discussion on the table. I wonder if too many KJV-extremists have been so to their own peril, essentially boxing themselves out of serious discussion. You don't fall into that category, thankfully.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Jason<br /><br /><br />Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39287940618162510522016-09-14T15:20:49.376-07:002016-09-14T15:20:49.376-07:00Jason,
You are getting a lot of comments and you ...Jason,<br /><br />You are getting a lot of comments and you have a lot of stuff on your platter already, so take your time. I'm glad that you even want to know. The issue we're talking about here is what Bart Ehrman says sent him off on the deep end. Now, I don't think people just push the eject button on Christianity unless they were not saved, so the reality is that Ehrman was never converted which fueled his unbelief. However, in one of his popular books, he told his story and he said that the promises of preservation accompanying the existence of textual variants are what turned him into an atheist. How evangelicals deal with this is to redefine inerrancy, etc., and turn the perfection of scripture into something amorphous, ethereal, not really on the back burner, but in that space behind the stove.<br /><br />I in part pointed out the canonicity argument because God used the church to canonize scripture.<br /><br />Let me help you with a matter of faith, not everything, but at least getting it started. God gave Daniel prophecies in Daniel 11 that were fulfilled in history, for instance, concerning the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, and Antiochus Epiphanes. They were fulfilled. How do we know? That is a historic matter. We can believe the truth in real time. God expects us to do that.<br /><br />We can know what the attire of a harlot is without being given a picture of it. God made us, so He knows we can and we should judge these things. It might seem like a stretch just to go ahead and believe that we always had all the Words. That basic idea does lead us to a very homogenous text. The next part of that journey is to go from 99 plus percent sameness between all the TR editions, and then to believe we have every Word. I just believe it. I might quibble over one word with someone in Revelation 16:5, the so-called textual emendation of Beza, but if that person is just like I'm describing in this paragraph, then he is assuming that God would keep His promises. This is the position of all believers until the 19th century, at least that was writing that we have to read. Inventing a new position should be a problem for you. That's not how doctrine has ever worked with people of faith.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-46350497466975385722016-09-14T14:35:16.838-07:002016-09-14T14:35:16.838-07:00
Dear Jason,
You seem to be very concerned about ...<br />Dear Jason,<br /><br />You seem to be very concerned about people who think everyone is not saved who either does not use the KJV or at least was led to the Lord with a KJV. This concern is certainly valid if such people actually exist in numbers greater than, say, dues-paying members of the Peace and Freedom Party who are working to get their candiate elected for President. I never seem to run into any of this alleged portion of the KJVO movement in the real world--they seem to be pretty much confined to pro-CT websites warning about the dangers of KJVO. Could you please name at least one KJVO Bible college or institution that takes the position that everyone is in hell who does not use the KJV, so that we can see that these people actually do exist and are a serious threat? We would love to find out where these people are hiding so that we can expose their dangerous errors on What is Truth here, instead of having their dangerous hordes only exposed on pro-CT websites that often contain numerous ridiculous mischaracterizations of KJVO.<br /><br />Also, do you think that in the c. 1,000 years--far more than the time between the translation of the KJV and today--between the earliest portions of the OT and the latest portions there were any changes in the Hebrew language that made earlier Hebrew more archaic/difficult to understand? Did the Jews change the OT so that everything was written on a nice, simple, 7th grade level? Are there portions of OT poetry that would have been hard for native Hebrew speakers in the OT period--overwhelmingly simple, agrarian people-- to understand without doing a little work?<br /><br />Please note that I am not saying the KJV translators were inspired by these questions. I am asking to see if your argument that an occasional archaic word is a clear no-no can be applied to the text of Scripture itself and what the people of God did with it.<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18338802932440198882016-09-14T12:28:33.775-07:002016-09-14T12:28:33.775-07:00Part B
Brother Jason Noel,
(4) The state of the ...Part B<br /><br />Brother Jason Noel,<br /><br />(4) The state of the true churches and of "Christianity" is such now that those of us who love and rely on the Received Texts are conservative – we know what we've got and we like it. Anything other than minor adjustments opens the door for people affected by or sympathetic to the textual criticism doctrines to make subtle changes to the text that it might take years to have weeded out and rejected. It's risky.<br />(5) In theory a new English translation from the Received Texts, done by devout people who believe every word they are translating and want to faithfully render the words in English is possible. I don't think it's very realistic though. Or if it happens, the likelihood that it would be accepted in a large way seems remote to me.<br /><br />My view is that I'd not want a new translation. I'd rather have the same KJV I have now with in-line alternate translations which modernize the words (perhaps in a different color or font face). Then I could always still see what the original KJV rendering is. I would leave the "thees" and "thous" there. In my opinion, they are almost essential to understanding. The "T" words (thee, thou, thy, thine) are singular, and the "Y" (ye, you, yours) words are plural. I don't find that hard. They communicate both to the listener and to the reader, and in some cases dramatically affect the meaning. The only other option I've seen is "you" for singular and "y o u" for plural. But that only works if you're reading the text, not if you're hearing it read (which I think we should be whenever our churches meet; I Tim. 4:13).<br /><br />I would like to see other's comments on this. These are just my quickly composed musings on the subject you brought up.<br /><br />Forgive me if I can't continue the conversation much after this. I'm enjoying it a lot and hope it's a blessing to you. But it is time-consuming. I'd like to keep talking with you. We'll see if I can.<br /><br />E. T. Chapman<br /><br />P. S. I don’t think it’s totally accurate to say, as some have said, that the KJV is the only translation currently available in English that’s based on the Received Texts. Although I’ve hardly given them more than a glance, there are some others out there (KJ2000 by Couric, etc.). The ones I'm aware of didn't impress me either because they removed the "thees" and "thous" or made other changes I thought were unwarranted. Point #5 above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-44388796627611261362016-09-14T12:24:30.721-07:002016-09-14T12:24:30.721-07:00Part A
Brother Jason Noel,
You wrote this: "...Part A<br /><br />Brother Jason Noel,<br /><br />You wrote this: "Why will no one write a 21st century American English translation of the 100%-in-agreement underlying text? The vocabulary and word definitions of too much of the KJV have evolved in 400 years that meanings of words and entire verses are no longer accurately translated into our language."<br /><br />(1) Maybe a translation from the Received Texts will be done.<br />(2) The fact that a good one hasn't come along yet that has caught on might mean that Christ's churches can do just fine with the KJV. Reasons the KJV is an excellent choice for today's believers (besides being based on the correct text):<br />(2a) Much of the last 400 years' best literature about spiritual things is based on the KJV. He who knows the KJV can maneuver through the writings of godly men who were good scholars and learn a lot. Every word of the KJV has been analyzed and commented upon. And most of the literature is now readily available on the internet.<br />(2b) The KJV is a standard. It's a good thing to have a text that is the same from Church A to Church B to Church C, and when Christian A speaks with Christian B or Christian C. (I realize this status of a standard, as in "a translation common among us" is waning. But, it is a good thing.) Sure, there are words whose meanings have changed, but it really isn't that hard to get past them. In some ways the wording of the KJV, if it be archaic or quaint, actually makes it easier to "hang meaning on the words". The Bible is not like any other literature and it should not be read like any other literature. It must be meditated upon by those who believe.<br />(3) Probably whoever tried to update the KJV or re-translate from the RTs would end up making it a profit venture. Although I believe the laborer is worthy of his hire, I like the fact that the KJV totally accessible.<br /><br />[to be continued]<br /><br />E. T. ChapmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-71895767853837887332016-09-14T08:34:10.984-07:002016-09-14T08:34:10.984-07:00LOL
I certainly wasn't "criticizing"...LOL<br /><br />I certainly wasn't "criticizing" your incorrect translation of my first and last name. ;)<br /><br />Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-71718497072075872642016-09-14T08:25:54.427-07:002016-09-14T08:25:54.427-07:00Jason,
I'm teaching in 5-10 minutes, so I'...Jason,<br /><br />I'm teaching in 5-10 minutes, so I'll answer later, sorry about the name. It was a typo definitely, as can be seen by the fact that I called Jason every other time. I mess my kids names up too. I was thinking it is, however, how textual variants would appear in the text, but see how easy it is to correct? :-DKent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-87814780128230524712016-09-14T06:04:16.881-07:002016-09-14T06:04:16.881-07:00Mr. Chapman,
"I believe the text underlying ...Mr. Chapman,<br /><br />"I believe the text underlying the KJV is 100% in agreement with the autographs."<br /><br />Why will no one write a 21st century American English translation of the 100%-in-agreement underlying text? The vocabulary and word definitions of too much of the KJV have evolved in 400 years that meanings of words and entire verses are no longer accurately translated into our language.<br /><br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Jason<br /><br />Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37881732621374815862016-09-14T06:03:37.671-07:002016-09-14T06:03:37.671-07:00Kent,
Jason is my name, not Joel. No offense take...Kent,<br /><br />Jason is my name, not Joel. No offense taken - happens to me frequently.<br /><br />Your question 1: No, I understand that isn't the point of that paragraph and sentence, I only asked because I am trying to understand if you are in that group of TRs/KJVs who do believe that, as that sentence infers that.<br /><br />Your questions 2, 3, and 4: you are asking about how we can be confident that the 66 books of the Bible are, in fact, God's completed work - no more, no less. My answers: yes; I do not know; I do not know. I have not studied out how a 21st century Christian can be confident that the 66 books in our Bibles are the completed Bible. I have heard some propositions (temporary spiritual gift, for example), but the Bible is ambiguous on the doctrine of canonicity.<br /><br />I assume you disagree with me and that you believe the God clearly tells us that I can be confident that the 66 books are the completed canon. But there is no direct quote in scripture ("[thou shalt have 66 books]") and no strong inference from several combined passages ("[the law and the prophets' 39 books]" stated in multiple places and "[the 27 books of the new covenant]" stated in other places), so we are left with a doctrine that is reasonably open to interpretation - i.e. it is a subject still on the table for discussion and we should be willing to allow for Christian brothers to disagree with the "why the 66 books are canon" question without concluding that one or the other is a heretic. (This is the same argument I am making with regards to whether or not the use of a "Critical Text" or a "Received Text" translation is something Christians should be fighting about.)<br /><br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Jason<br /><br />Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1423198513229856202016-09-14T06:01:41.447-07:002016-09-14T06:01:41.447-07:00Kent,
Jason is my name, not Joel. No offense take...Kent,<br /><br />Jason is my name, not Joel. No offense taken - happens to me frequently.<br /><br />Your question 1: No, I understand that isn't the point of that paragraph and sentence, I only asked because I am trying to understand if you are in that group of TRs/KJVs who do believe that, as that sentence infers that.<br /><br />Your questions 2, 3, and 4: you are asking about how we can be confident that the 66 books of the Bible are, in fact, God's completed work - no more, no less. My answers: yes; I do not know; I do not know. I have not studied out how a 21st century Christian can be confident that the 66 books in our Bibles are the completed Bible. I have heard some propositions (temporary spiritual gift, for example), but the Bible is ambiguous on the doctrine of canonicity.<br /><br />I assume you disagree with me and that you believe the God clearly tells us that I can be confident that the 66 books are the completed canon. But there is no direct quote in scripture ("[thou shalt have 66 books]") and no strong inference from several combined passages ("[the law and the prophets' 39 books]" stated in multiple places and "[the 27 books of the new covenant]" stated in other places), so we are left with a doctrine that is reasonably open to interpretation - i.e. it is a subject still on the table for discussion and we should be willing to allow for Christian brothers to disagree with the "why the 66 books are canon" question without concluding that one or the other is a heretic. (This is the same argument I am making with regards to whether or not the use of a "Critical Text" or a "Received Text" translation is something Christians should be fighting about.)<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Jason<br />Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-50395598033333249762016-09-13T19:40:50.520-07:002016-09-13T19:40:50.520-07:00Dear Thomas,
If I could only have one, I would ha...Dear Thomas,<br /><br />If I could only have one, I would have Accordance, but they both have their strengths. I use Accordance for my study (as a KJVO person, so I guess there is no conflict here, no?) of the original Biblical languages and for exegesis, while I use Logos for the library--I have the ability to search more books than are in some seminary libraries with a few clicks in Logos.<br /><br />Thanks again.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80956096570915042162016-09-13T17:02:36.613-07:002016-09-13T17:02:36.613-07:00KJB1611 said:
"I personally use BDAG on my A...KJB1611 said:<br /><br />"I personally use BDAG on my Accordance (especially) and Logos Bible software much more than the physical book."<br /><br />Thank you for your input in regards to Greek Lexicons.<br /><br />Which software package do you find more user friendly - Accordance or Logos Bible Software?<br /><br />If you were only going to purchase one -- which is the better buy?<br /><br />Thank you in advance.<br /><br />Thomas E. Kresal<br /><br /><br /><br />Pastor Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03670626356324277515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42878838937984272502016-09-12T21:30:45.400-07:002016-09-12T21:30:45.400-07:00Brother Jason Noel,
(part 2)
You wrote this: &qu...Brother Jason Noel,<br /><br />(part 2)<br /><br />You wrote this: "But I know entire churches who create division among believers against the former over their belief that either the KJV is somehow inspired or that the TR is unquestionably 100% identical to the autographs and that those who disagree must be messengers from Satan being sent to undermine the Gospel."<br /><br />It is now clear that there are huge, big, gigantic, mammoth differences between various "flavors" of pro-KJV people. I probably disagree with more KJV only folks than I agree with (but I can't say for sure since I don't really know how many of which type there are). However, if someone is pro-KJV or KJVO, he does not represent all pro-KJV or KJVO people. I don’t believe in re-inspiration of a target language translation. The Bible doesn’t support that view. I would rather be known as Received Text only and pro-KJV. I believe the text underlying the KJV is 100% in agreement with the autographs. I think there are places where the KJV rendering could be improved (even disregarding changes in language over the years), and I'm not quite as defensive of the KJV as some of my brethren are. But I don't think it is possible to defend the Received Texts too much. Do I believe the pro-CT folks are, as you worded it, "messengers from Satan being sent to undermine the Gospel"? I definitely think some of them are. I recommend reading some of what folks like Metzger have said about the textual issues and deciding for yourself based on his words if he believed even the words in the CT. Did he believe in the Jesus of the Bible to the salvation of his soul? Did he ever show signs of being a justified-by-faith growing-in-Christ saint? Do I think all pro-CT folks are "messengers from Satan being sent to undermine the Gospel"? No. I once was pro-CT, and at that time I had already been changed by the glorious gospel and was a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.<br /><br />The pro-CT position is invalid because it is anti-exegetical. Such a position cannot be derived from the text of the Bible, not even from the CT. The other issues are all secondary (although also important).<br /><br />May the Lord give you wisdom as you grapple with the issues, my brother. God has spoken. You can know exactly what He has said.<br /><br />E. T. ChapmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76955193066235886392016-09-12T21:29:07.544-07:002016-09-12T21:29:07.544-07:00Brother Jason Noel,
(part 1)
You wrote this: &qu...Brother Jason Noel,<br /><br />(part 1)<br /><br />You wrote this: "I don't personally know any ESV, NKJV, NASB (etc.) Christians who are militant in their opinion that their English Bible is worth drawing lines in the sand over."<br /><br />It all comes back to what the Bible says about itself. The Bible's text says its words and letters are preserved. And those who defend the reliability and "received-ness" of a certain text (set of words) expect its words and letters to be the same ones God originally gave, because He said it would be that way. I know of many pro-CT folks, who, indeed, will allow contradictory translations based on contradictory underlying texts, and they will even tolerate the KJV. But I've sensed from them various responses to others. (1) In some cases, it’s a pity (sometimes condescending, sometimes not) for those who believe there is an extant set of words that is reliable and identical to the autographs, because such people allegedly are so ignorant of what science has allegedly proven (i.e., that no two manuscripts are identical [which has been debunked], that it's impossible to copy a text without making errors, etc.). The underlying presumption of textual criticism is that the Bible is to be treated as any other piece of literature, when it is plainly obvious that it is not the same or similar to any other literature. The presumption is totally wrong, and thus the conclusions are totally wrong. (2) In other cases I’ve seen the pro-CT folks show a disdain for anyone who dares to say he or she doesn't believe the critical text and its renderings are legitimate. I guess it comes down to what you mean by militant, but seems to me there are plenty of pro-CT folks who fit this definition (from Apple dictionary): "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods". As long as the Received Text believer will be silent and not question the legitimacy of the CT and CT-derived translations, the pro-CT folks are calm. When someone like Brother Brandenburg points out the Biblical fallacies of the pro-CT doctrine, then one sees the things that qualify as extreme and confrontational (though not violent) from the pro-CT camp. I think some of them indeed are militant if one says their position is wrong. Have you not sensed that in your study of this issue?<br /><br />I used to be pro-CT, but I cannot reconcile that doctrine with the doctrines of the Biblical text itself. I think the Scriptures can be translated from the same text in different ways and the various translations can be OK, but the text and the way it's handled is the root issue.<br /><br />To be continued…<br /><br />E. T. ChapmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39541643394382018412016-09-12T15:39:32.072-07:002016-09-12T15:39:32.072-07:00Joel,
Do you think that my paragraph and sentence...Joel,<br /><br />Do you think that my paragraph and sentence were making a point about judging who is saved and who isn't?<br /><br />In the first through third centuries, could believers identify which was the correct NT books? What verses would you use to defend a "yes" answer?<br /><br />There were non-canonical writings. How did they know they were non-canonical in contradistinction to canonical ones?<br /><br />There is more to think about. I'm asking questions to you, because I've already written a lot. I didn't answer everything, just the beginning of your two comments.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-31866601106711829982016-09-12T13:59:23.628-07:002016-09-12T13:59:23.628-07:00Dear Thomas,
Thanks for the question.
The 3rd ed...Dear Thomas,<br /><br />Thanks for the question.<br /><br />The 3rd ed of BDAG is better than the 2nd ed., although the 2nd ed is also good.<br /><br />You may be able to save a bit on the physical book by doing this:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/save-money-internet/<br /><br />although it will still be pricy.<br /><br />I personally use BDAG on my Accordance (especially) and Logos Bible software much more than the physical book.<br /><br />There are certainly other lexical resources available--you can take a look at what Accordance is selling in its Greek lexical page to get a sense of what is out there, although BDAG is the standard. Other detailed and comprehensive lexica of the NT and Koine will also include TR readings as (alleged) variant readings.<br /><br />You can download the classical Greek lexicon, Liddell Scott, for free at:<br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/greek-courses/<br /><br />although that is not a specifically NT lexicon.<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21387861440222962722016-09-12T11:23:37.890-07:002016-09-12T11:23:37.890-07:00(continued)
Christians disagree on many things. H...(continued)<br /><br />Christians disagree on many things. Honest Christians. Christians who truly want to know God better, understand the Bible more, walk with God more faithfully every day, be empowered by the Spirit moment by moment, and grow in faith. We all have the same Holy Spirit indwelling us, as well as the Father and the Son. In areas of honest disagreement, we should be able to disagree lovingly and not allow a difference in what we believe God is telling us through his Word to create division. I don't personally know any ESV, NKJV, NASB (etc.) Christians who are militant in their opinion that their English Bible is worth drawing lines in the sand over. But I know entire churches who create division among believers against the former over their belief that either the KJV is somehow inspired or that the TR is unquestionably 100% identical to the autographs and that those who disagree must be messengers from Satan being sent to undermine the Gospel. I know churches where the decision to change to the ESV or NKJV prompted significant percentages of the body to leave and seek out KJV Only brethren, even if the new church was significantly inferior in major areas of doctrine and practice. Perhaps the leadership did not handle the change well, but this should not be as polarizing an issue as Christians have allowed it to become. Satan is creating division in the church over good translations of the Bible. And Christians are allowing a translation/text to become an idol.<br />I appreciate your desire to pursue and proclaim the truth, and I also appreciate the fact that you are different from many KJVUs on the internet and in churches and colleges all over America. Thank you for being understanding towards me as I continue to try to understand the doctrine of preservation and how it applies to my life as a Christian.<br /><br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Jason<br />Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78046298375624534482016-09-12T11:23:02.563-07:002016-09-12T11:23:02.563-07:00Kent,
"All truth" is "all scriptur...Kent,<br /><br />"All truth" is "all scripture," every Word, "the words." And the same Holy Spirit who indwelt the apostles continued to indwell believers. That's why believers knew there were 66 Books. They would know what the Words were. This is a theological presupposition as it relates to scripture. <b>Believers will be guided by the Holy Spirit to the very Words of God.</b> Nothing would have us believe that we would not know what the Words are, they would be lost, and then we would need to use scientific means, forensics, to decide what they were, still never knowing for sure."<br /><br />Do you believe that only those who agree with [your position/a TR-only position/the anti-critical-text-position/] on preservation are true believers? Further, do you agree with those who claim that if an English speaking person became a believer by means of a translation from a critical-text source, that he cannot be a Christian because the text is corrupt? That is what you are implying with that statement, because there are countless people who claim Christ and who appear to bear fruit who disagree with you. I don't think you believe that because you don't come across that way as I read the things you say. Just wondering.<br /><br /><br />In Part 4, you criticize Bob H. Disclaimer - I certainly am not in full agreement with him in at least one area and likely more (he believes it is not only "okay" for an American Christian to consume alcoholic beverages but that it is actually a "blessing from God" to do so...I could not disagree more). But even before I read through the comments on your post I recognized your argument as a strawman (“the tell tale line in all of Bob’s comment is: “Are word differences a really big deal?” There we go.”).<br /><br /><br />I re-read through all of Aaron's series and carefully, open-mindedly read through yours, and, honestly, you really didn't convince me that his series was off base. I'm not saying he has convinced me that his perspective is The One To Believe either, though. You both reference much scripture (I don't agree with your explanation of John 16 - but there is general disagreement on what various elements of John 16 mean anyway), and you both thoughtfully and reasonably try to apply it to your respective positions.<br /><br /><br />Which leads me to what I think will be the end of this thread, as I hope to hear more from a different angle in this regard.<br /><br />(continued)Jason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28822288167468579092016-09-12T07:42:12.458-07:002016-09-12T07:42:12.458-07:00Thank you for the information KJB1611. The 3rd Edi...Thank you for the information KJB1611. The 3rd Edition of the BDAG is $165 Is there much of a difference from the 2nd Edition to the Third? Any recommendations for a less costly TR Lexicon?<br /><br />Pastor Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03670626356324277515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49895704780060368522016-09-09T03:11:31.342-07:002016-09-09T03:11:31.342-07:00Thanks for the question. A good lexicon--if you a...<br />Thanks for the question. A good lexicon--if you are studying Greek BDAG is a must--will include the TR readings, just as "v. l.," variant readings. Words only found in the TR will still be listed in BDAG, so you are fine getting it. The theological liberalism of the authors does come through on occasion and other false doctrine, but just read it with discernment--it is no more off-limits than a modern English dictionary made by unbelievers.<br /><br />I would recommend Mounce for 1st year Greek and Wallace for 2nd year. Lord willing, at some point I will have video courses available online to teach these. You could also contact Pastor Brandenburg to see the next time he wil lteach Greek over Skype. Yes, both Mounce and Wallace are critical text Greek grammars, but they are extremely user-friendly. Just reject whatever they say about textual criticism and you get rid of that problem. There are other problems, such as Wallace's very weak view not only of preservation but also of inspiration, but I have no problem using both of them in a classroom.<br /><br />I would be willing to share my notes with answer keys and tests with answer keys from 2nd and 3rd year Greek, etc. with other IFB Greek teachers if they want them. I have hundreds of pages on selected texts from 2nd year Greek and detailed notes on Romans and Ephesians. They could contact me at faithsaves.net and explain their situation.<br /> <br />Thanks.<br /> KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22710237111536999172016-09-08T09:44:41.583-07:002016-09-08T09:44:41.583-07:00FYI, I read your series http://kentbrandenburg.blo...FYI, I read your series http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/01/answering-sharperiron-article-on.html and will be commenting at some point probably early next week. Busy few days coming up for me.<br /><br />- JasonJason Noelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925077501237526103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1333748210806790282016-09-08T04:17:00.966-07:002016-09-08T04:17:00.966-07:00Please recommend a Lexicon based on the TR and any...Please recommend a Lexicon based on the TR and any basic Greek study guides based on the TR - most of what is out their is from Critical Text authors (Wallace, Mounce, etc.)<br />Pastor Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03670626356324277515noreply@blogger.com