tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post8183949078612104748..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Can You Prove It From Scripture?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56764271490950973482010-05-31T19:45:14.113-07:002010-05-31T19:45:14.113-07:00Below is what Aaron wrote as evidence that I want ...Below is what Aaron wrote as evidence that I want to just misrepresent and obfuscate his position in order to somehow win a debate here. Actually, I'm interested in what God says about preservation. But I want to at least deal with these, as I said I would, in order for this to be OK. Again, however, I offered to send my post to Aaron in advance so he could correct misrepresentations and we could avoid all this beforehand, but he refused. So it can't at all be my wanting to misrepresent him. He hasn't cleared up his misrepresentations, but I haven't found the other side to be interested in that, and their people aren't required to do that in my experience.<br /><br />OK, here we go, first by showing the misrepresentations he said I made, separated by two lines. My comments on the other side of each.<br /><br />=================<br />Here's the evidence:<br />- repeated characterization of my view as saying God is not able to maintain perfect texts through human beings.<br />=================<br />Aaron says he believes that God is able to maintain perfect texts through human beings. But Aaron also says that man's sinfulness prohibited that. And if God had said He would overcome man's sinfulness to preserve every Word, then He would believe that. However, He says God didn't say that. Yet, God did say, according to Aaron, that He overcame man's sinfulness for inspiration of the original manuscripts.<br />====================<br />- repeated lumping of my view with rationalism, the "text critical view" etc.<br />====================<br />Adam hasn't said he is text critical. He, however, has been giving arguments so far for the text critical view. I understand that Aaron wants me to think that he's just being objective. That's fine. I don't see it that way and I'm calling it as a I see it. I can't speak for Aaron's intentions. I can only speak for what I read of him.<br />=====================<br />- repeated blurring of important distinctions by characterizing those who have a different view of preservation as not believing in preservation at all<br />=====================<br />When we're arguing about an "every word" preserved Bible, and someone doesn't beleive he has every Word, I don't think of that as preservation. I'm supposed to believe that in order not to mischaracterize him, but I don't believe that, and I've explained it. I think the normal usage of perfect preservation is, well, perfect preservation. This is where the marble illustration comes in.<br />====================<br />- repeated misreading of very clear statements (such as the introductory paragraphs of part 3 where I summarize points of agreement and bring the real question info focus.)<br />======================<br />I may have misrepresented Aaron. I apologize to him if he thinks I have. It could be that he didn't state it well. Let's just say I misrepresented him and I apologize. I already said we should move on from that.<br /><br />So there's our answer. I'm not trying to do a red herring, a smoke screen, a straw man, or anything else. People are going to have to judge.<br /><br />Aaron says, let's keep it to scripture, and I answered his criticism of our scriptural arguments. I don't think his grammatical points hold water at all. None. And then I add a few articles that I wrote recently on Is 59:21 and Rev 22:18-19 to add to that. There are others that I will write about here or there that were not in TSKT 1.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86972478206181395362010-05-31T02:25:54.513-07:002010-05-31T02:25:54.513-07:00Pastor Blumer,
The Canonicity argument isn't ...Pastor Blumer,<br /><br />The Canonicity argument isn't a dodge. You are going to extreme lengths to avoid answering that. If an atheist asked you why just 66 and not the Gospel of Judas too you wouldn't just claim apriori. Please answer that question - it relates specifically to the issue at hand and the interpretation of Scripture. That argument is being used to expose hypocricy in your position that you are truely interested in basing what you believe off Scripture. Your refusal makes it look like you only insist on using Scripture when it is convenient. <br /><br />Secondly, Kents claim that no one is developing a belief based off Scripture that supports MVO is still holding true. What you have written is not a developed and supported theology built on the Bible but is still an argument AGAINST something. An argument to pry the door open enough that you feel comfortable rejecting PTP. No doubt you think it's a good argument, but you're still falling short of showing us that you have a doctrine based off Scripture.<br /><br />Kent tried to show you the difference between a doctrine of the Scriptures vs "scorched-earth-argument-against-so-I-don't-have-to-believe-that-if-I-don't-want-to". That's what his post attacking inerrancy and inspiration was. I'm convinced you completely missed his point there - he was showing you how easy it is to nitpick a doctrine you don't like vs just letting the Scriptures talk.<br /><br />The doctrine of inspiration stands because it is the plain reading of Scripture - not because it appears impervious to the 10000 arguments the truely dedicated can level against it. In the same way, the plain reading of Scripture leaves us expecting PTP. Just because you can dig up a few arguments against isn't going to change that. That's really what Kent was looking for from you - not an argument against but a simple here is what the Bible says thus here is what we expect. You put up a good argument against, but you haven't delivered on that front.Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-25957982150243143132010-05-30T09:47:27.312-07:002010-05-30T09:47:27.312-07:00Game?Game?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80296149046612731832010-05-28T05:29:24.024-07:002010-05-28T05:29:24.024-07:00Anon. Two can certainly play at that game.
20 But...Anon. Two can certainly play at that game.<br /><br />20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30320266491765600522010-05-26T11:45:36.691-07:002010-05-26T11:45:36.691-07:00So Satan said, "Hey! Look back here! ...at th...So Satan said, "Hey! Look back here! ...at the Rule. What does it really say?" Don't be distracted.<br /><br />And Eve did so and was deceived.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67105806734131154522010-05-24T21:24:12.546-07:002010-05-24T21:24:12.546-07:00Kent wrote: "He takes that position [Bible= t...Kent wrote: "He takes that position [Bible= the 66 books] by applying verses from Scripture."<br />Actually no, I do not. I have a few <i>a priori</i> beliefs. They include: God exists, He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible (which consists of the 66 books we have today).<br /><br />But as I say this, I'll point out one more time that the canonicity question is just another "Hey! Look over there!" So you won't notice that what really matters is whether the verses that are alleged to teach perfect text preservation really teach that.<br />So I'm saying, "Hey! Look back here! ...at the Book. What does it really say?" Don't be distracted.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21147564069525015642010-05-24T21:16:38.395-07:002010-05-24T21:16:38.395-07:00Kent wrote: "And he concludes this [that we d...Kent wrote: "And he concludes this [that we don't want the debate to be clear] based upon what?"<br />Based on discussion threads right here at this site... though at SI also... and also TSKT.<br /><br />Here's the evidence:<br />- repeated characterization of my view as saying God is not <i>able</i> to maintain perfect texts through human beings.<br /><br />- repeated lumping of my view with rationalism, the "text critical view" etc.<br /><br />- repeated blurring of important distinctions by characterizing those who have a different view of preservation as not believing in preservation at all<br /><br />- repeated misreading of very clear statements (such as the introductory paragraphs of part 3 where I summarize points of agreement and bring the real question info focus.) <br /><br />Kent wrote: "That we don't accept his assessment of the text of Scripture, one that differs from the historic doctrine of preservation. And this manifests what according to him? That we really are uncomfortable arguing our position based only upon Scripture?"<br />Well, people who give my articles a fair read will notice that I have said a tiny bit more than "They disagree with me therefore they are uncomfortable arguing solely from Scripture!"<br /><br />What they'll see is that I've carefully interpreted the passages the PTP view relies upon. And if they read TSKT alertly, as well as discussions here and at SI, they will see lots of <i>characterizing</i> of me and my articles and a great deal of energy expended dodging the real question and the particulars of how I've answered it.<br /><br /><b>The real question</b><br />"Do the Scriptures teach that God overcomes human error to enable preservation in the form of a word perfect text?"<br /><br />If you were really interested in a biblical debate, you would stop referring to "the text critical view" and "history" and "rationalism" and "God is not able" and all these other evasive maneuvers and just talk about the verses involved.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52678294841685136982010-05-19T15:23:43.322-07:002010-05-19T15:23:43.322-07:00By the way, the statement by LambLion that no exta...By the way, the statement by LambLion that no extant Hebrew MSS have the KJV reading in Psalm 22:16 is false. I have an article on this text on my website.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72586837953991087272010-05-18T14:47:22.680-07:002010-05-18T14:47:22.680-07:00The point I was making, Gary, is that the differen...The point I was making, Gary, is that the differences are not only minor, but they are also few and far between compared to the CT and B and Aleph.<br /><br />Furthermore, there isn't a person on this planet who can PROVE that there is an error in the KJV or the TR that underlies it.<br /><br />Oh, I know there are plenty of "experts" who can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it, who assert errors in the KJV, but as I said, they are the VERY SAME PEOPLE who have altered tons of definitions, such as monogones and theophuestos without an IOTA of justification, and of course, as I said, they can't even pronounce Greek properly, let alone speak it.<br /><br />Same with the MT of the OT, that is, the Masoretic Text that the KJV is based on. Once again, it is charged with error mainly by people who can't speak Hebrew.<br /><br />But that's not even the main thing. The FACT is, the Hebrew MT cannot really be understood without a THOROUGH knowledge of the Masora. The KJV tranalators were absolute MASTERS of the Masora, unlike ANY so-called "scholar" today.<br /><br />Psam 22:16 (22:17 in the Hebrew) is a perfect example. Leaving the textual variant aside, for manuscripts in the KJV days had a variant for "pierced", unlike any extant manuscripts today, nevertheless, leaving the textual variant aside, the Masora CLEARLY supports the KJV reading of "pierced", even though the straitforward Hebrew word in the Leningrad Codex (another corrupt manuscript) does not.<br /><br />But of course, the section of the Masora that deals with this word is not found in the Psalms. It is found in Numbers (if I remember correctly) and Isaiah, where the reference to that word is made, a little fact that ONLY people who are masters of the Masora would know, as the KJV translators did.<br /><br />Finally, a tree is known by its fruits. The fruit of the KJV answers as face to face with regard to fruit, and both Jesus Christ and his Spirit have borne witness to the KJV, UNLIKE any other text.<br /><br />Bunyan, who had more knowledge of the Word of God in his little fingertip than all the Greek and Hebrew scholars combined, believed by the Holy Spirit within him that the KJV he held in his hands was an exact replica of the autographs, and he said so.<br /><br />Nor would Bunyan have disputed that there were minor differences in the TR. Yet he still believed the KJV he held in his hand was the inerrant, infallible Word of God.<br /><br />That's because Bunyan, unlike you, understood how God actually works.<br /><br />If you want to try to refute something, go to my website under the textual criticism section and just try to refute my article on 1 Timothy 3:16. That verse in and of itself is all that genuinely born again Christian needs to see.Lamblionhttp://www.lamblion.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26387002562660067272010-05-18T14:42:23.316-07:002010-05-18T14:42:23.316-07:00Gary,
You really don't get to make up your bi...Gary,<br /><br />You really don't get to make up your bibliology as you go along and it must come from the Bible. Gary, show me the verses that gave believers the basis by which the 27 books pass the sniff test. There has been debate and there still is about what the 27 books of the NT are. You'll find that the TR passes the same tests.<br /><br />And then, what are "the minor errors" in the TR? Also explain how you determine that they are errors?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72115022345808922252010-05-18T14:22:19.582-07:002010-05-18T14:22:19.582-07:00Thanks, Joe V. By the way, I meant to say a big he...Thanks, Joe V. By the way, I meant to say a big hearty AMEN to your comment earlier. That really brightened my day to see a like-minded soul. You hit the nail on the head.Lamblionhttp://www.lamblion.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26965291744430735942010-05-18T13:52:31.310-07:002010-05-18T13:52:31.310-07:00Lamblion,
Great website you have!
Joe V.Lamblion,<br /><br />Great website you have!<br /><br />Joe V.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12825165283445184392010-05-18T13:28:03.645-07:002010-05-18T13:28:03.645-07:00Lamblion,
You definately have more time on your h...Lamblion,<br /><br />You definately have more time on your hands than I do. If you are ever in Virginia I might have to go listen to you in person, as maybe a church or classroom setting would help things to sink in better.<br /><br />I don't have time at this monent to show the differences that actually carry over to English, but I'll try to post by tomorrow. In regards to the words that alter the meaning of the text, I'm in agreement with you. I said that the TR is perfect in regards to message. From Genesis to Revelation God's word is preserved. Where we disagree is that you believe that every jot and tittle literally is in the TR/KJV. To me that is to easy to refute, as you can see the differences amongst the TRs. It is not a faith issue as God did not promise that he would preserve word for word in this manner. Remember my word of faith teacher example.<br /><br />Kent,<br /><br />How we have 27 books and how we have the TR/KJV is like apples and oranges. The 27 books can be proven to be inspired because they past the "sniff test" i.e. apostolic origen, universal acceptance, liturgical use, consistent message. Sure the Holy Spirit guided these men, but they didn't just blindly believe, the Holy Spirit gave them a system.<br /><br />The TR passes the "sniff test" in regards to message, but even a child can see the minor errors.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42558460463573705962010-05-18T09:55:43.439-07:002010-05-18T09:55:43.439-07:00Okay, let's just say I'll post when I feel...Okay, let's just say I'll post when I feel like it. -:)<br /><br />The fact is, the assertion by Gary and others of the "different" TR's is itself a red herring. I defy them to go through the various editions of the TR and pick out the differences that actually carry over into translation into English. After they're done with those, I defy them to further find the differences that actually alter the meaning of the text. I have actually done this with Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener's TR, which proabably is as diverse as it gets.<br /><br />Go for it. You will be sorely disappointed if you think you're going to find a different text, because you won't.<br /><br />In short, the one glaring FACT that has not been mentioned here is the FACT that the TR is a HOMOGENEOUS text, UNLIKE the text of B and Aleph and the Critical Text that modern "bibles" are based on.<br /><br />And the other FACT that keeps being ignored by CT proponents is the FACT that B agrees MORE with the TR than it does with Aleph, and Aleph agrees MORE with the TR than it does with B.<br /><br />Not only did Burgon and Hosier, who both collated these manuscripts state that, but also since by the late 90's I was the only living human who had likewise collated B and Aleph in the NT, I have confirmed what Burgon and Hoskier decreed.<br /><br />Not to mention the FACT that B and Aleph contain grammatical and phililogical solecims in approximately every third verse, or slightly less.<br /><br />Not to mention the FACT that B and Aleph have simple geographical errors, simple historical errors, simple archaeological error, and BLANTANT doctrinal errors.s<br /><br />Ad nauseam.<br /><br />Go to my website and look under Articles | Textual Criticism | Indictment Of Ignorance and then scroll down to the phrase "After all, what can be said of manuscripts..." for just a VERY, VERY, VERY BRIEF example of the character of B and Aleph.Lamblionhttp://www.lamblion.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32792580140669629012010-05-18T09:06:07.464-07:002010-05-18T09:06:07.464-07:00D4,
We have answered this question many times, be...D4,<br /><br />We have answered this question many times, because it is a bit of a one string banjo with multiple versionists. Some form of it is the most asked question. It is the GOTCHA question. We give the same answer that was given by Westminster divines, by Hills as quoted by Thomas above, and others. Based on scriptural presuppositions, we look for the agreement of the churches (John 16:13; 17:8), what Hills calls the "common faith." It's the same basis that you have for 27 books in the NT. I can't think that there is any other reason why Aaron or others won't answer questions about 'how do we know we have 27 books.' That is the only text that claims preservation, claims perfection, and was agreed upon for 350 years, generations of Christians. No other text fits the biblical model, the presuppositions based upon scriptural teaching.<br /><br />Gary,<br /><br />We were all waiting for this moment, when you wanted to have your answers. I've personally gone through the same type of "gotcha" situation several dozen times. It would have been nice to have just cut to the chase. You really answered your own question when I asked how we knew there were 27 books. You answered it yourself Gary. That is the 'gotcha' moment. You said they passed the "sniff" test. "Sniff" test with whom? The Holy Spirit led the churches, guided them into all truth, and the churches received the books. We should also assume based on scriptural presuppositions that they received the Words. And they did.<br /><br />And you obviously don't get it. Men had settled on the Words behind the KJV for those 300 plus years. Those Words were available and agreed upon. Did they use B and Aleph during those 350 years? No. Those words were not available and God's people had not received those Words.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68139791927530149632010-05-18T07:09:25.966-07:002010-05-18T07:09:25.966-07:00I think that because I read Thomas' post late ...I think that because I read Thomas' post late last night that I misunderstood it. I don't need to do any more research into the TR as Dr. Hill seems to perfectly answer my question. Thank you again for the info Thomas.<br /><br />If all of you are holding to what Dr. Hill stated, than I think that I have a better understanding of your preservation belief. It seems that you are all putting your faith in the Textus Receptus KJV edition used for the 1881 KJV. Am I right?<br /><br />Dr. Hill's own statement backs up my "progressive preservation" theory. He states that the translators looked to the various TR editions (which WERE NOT in total agreement)to come up with this newly inspired edition. So again I ask you gentlemen, where in scripture does it say that God will preserve his every word through "progressive preservation". What about the other 365 years when people where forced to use the corrupt (obviously not word for word)TRs. As Gary Webb stated "How can we have a message without the exact words?" Once again Dr. Hill acknowledges the minor differences between the TRs.<br /><br />At least my belief is scriptural i.e. If God meant word for word than it must be a 2 Kings 22 situation. I do not limit God as to how he preserves his word. I do not think that the belief that God inspired men to go through mildly corrupted texts to receive his perfect exact words is scriptual.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-33357626784634435372010-05-17T20:44:05.403-07:002010-05-17T20:44:05.403-07:00Thomas,
Thank you for the help. Kent has a few d...Thomas,<br /><br />Thank you for the help. Kent has a few dozen posts on perservation and that's alot of reading to find the one that answers my question. I tried your site and found a post that basically had my question in its title, but it keep sending me to google docs (I think that I must be to low tech).<br /><br />I'll try to spend some time reading about the KJV's TR, but I gotta tell you, so far I'm not seeing the "strawman" in my progressive preservation statement. <br /><br />Thank you again for sharing with me some of your time and knowledge, it is greatly appeciated.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72031779432692515752010-05-17T19:29:00.874-07:002010-05-17T19:29:00.874-07:00"But also they frequently consulted the editi..."But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot . . . of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus."<br /><br />So, how did they choose among the readings? This is not a question I've ever heard answered here.d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56932517980117672622010-05-17T19:09:58.375-07:002010-05-17T19:09:58.375-07:00An answer to the question of "Which TR" ...An answer to the question of "Which TR" by Edward Hills, PhD in textual criticism:<br /><br />“The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. HENCE THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS.<br /><br />“The King James translators also placed variant readings in the margin, 37 of them according to Scrivener. To these 37 textual notes 16 more were added during the 17th and 18th centuries, and all these variants still appear in the margins of British printings of the King James Version. IN THE SPECIAL PROVIDENCE OF GOD, HOWEVER, THE TEXT OF THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS BEEN KEPT PURE. NONE OF THESE VARIANT READINGS HAS BEEN INTERPOLATED INTO IT. ...<br /><br />“This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also very few. According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast! ...<br /><br />“BUT WHAT DO WE DO IN THESE FEW PLACES IN WHICH THE SEVERAL EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER? WHICH TEXT DO WE FOLLOW? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS EASY. WE ARE GUIDED BY THE COMMON FAITH. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION, OR, MORE PRECISELY, THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE KING JAMES VERSION. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949. In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society. We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students (Edward F. Hills, The King James Bible Defended, The Christian Research Press, 1973, pp. 218-223). [The King James Bible Defended is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 08108. The entire book is also on the web at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm]Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49729044594950571162010-05-17T18:44:00.627-07:002010-05-17T18:44:00.627-07:00Gary,
If you really want to know, your questions ...Gary,<br /><br />If you really want to know, your questions are answered on this blog, like Thomas said. Look in the right hand column and click on those articles. You'll find answers. It's very easy.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55219756710203720802010-05-17T17:58:12.619-07:002010-05-17T17:58:12.619-07:00Thomas,
I'm going to be very busy over the ne...Thomas,<br /><br />I'm going to be very busy over the next couple ov weeks and thus I will not have much time for library research. Can you or someone give me a quick explanation as to how the TR is word for word perfect when there were changes made between the editions. GraciousGarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54498468511430128802010-05-17T17:09:38.383-07:002010-05-17T17:09:38.383-07:00Gary, the answer to your question about editions o...Gary, the answer to your question about editions of the TR is answered in many other places on this website, on my website, at Way of Life literature's website, and many other places. If you do a little searching you can find detailed answers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, so that is probably why nobody reprinted what has been said many times elsewhere here. <br /><br />Also, the TR is not a translation, and your affirmation of "progressive preservation" is a straw-man.<br /><br />I don't have time right now to say more--but read--or Interlibrary Loan at your public library for free-- the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, gen. ed Kent Brandenburg, and some of the books on the subject by David Cloud, and you should have plenty of answers.Thomas Rosshttp://thross7.googlepages.com/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51201537404062888872010-05-17T07:41:42.405-07:002010-05-17T07:41:42.405-07:00Hmmmm...maybe because I only hear the sound of cri...Hmmmm...maybe because I only hear the sound of crickets in regards to the TR editions is because I posted just before the weekend. <br /><br />You say that Christians had the 27 books before the canon was completed to which I can agree. I can also have the the faith that God can preserve his every word. Maybe because of the dark ages God sealed up or hid some perfect word for word copies (or originals) to reveal them later, as he did in 2 Kings 22. The word of God that we have today is a perfect preservation of his message. The minor jots or tittle problems within the TR do not effect His message at all. There is nothing lost in its translation.<br /><br />I will again refer to my word of faith teacher example in regards to your veiw of the TR, as you can see through the editions (not just extra printings), that the TR is not perfect word for word preservation. No where in scripture can you find God saying that he will preserve his word through "progressive preservation".<br /><br />I am not disheartened by the fact that I have not found a perfect word for word translation, as my trust is in God and his ways are higher than mine. If he meant that he would preserve every jot and tittle, than I know that somewhere he has. <br /><br />I will not look at the (TR) and call it God's promised without a tittle of error word when it is not, unless you can show me "progressive preservation" in the Bible.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54217598209622492902010-05-16T10:08:40.495-07:002010-05-16T10:08:40.495-07:00I will begin by apologizing for “harping” about fa...I will begin by apologizing for “harping” about faith once again. I am certain, however, that the entire problem with modernists views of Biblical preservation and interpretation is due entirely to a misunderstanding of what “the faith of God” really is. We (they) have left the Biblical definition of faith.<br /><br />It is entirely possible that a man may “come to Christ” through human “faith” which is not the “faith of God” put into them by the Holy Ghost. Look at the next Scriptures: (John 12:35-43)<br /><br />“Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”<br /><br />“... among the chief rulers also many believed on him ….”<br /><br />Did these men experience salvation? To what would they attribute their “faith”? Their faith came from first and second-hand experience. They saw miracles, they witnessed many others obtaining true faith from God and really believing. Their “faith” was a human faith based upon physical evidence and popularity. It did not serve them well because they “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”<br /><br />Today's modernists argue for 27 New Testament books because it is an obvious popular opinion among Christians, not because faith tells them that these books are the ones containing God's words. In the same way, they accept the later (modern) “popular opinion” that we may scientifically determine the true words of God. Yet all the men searching have never and will never determine those words by the means they are using, namely, through human reasoning, historical evidence, or any observable evidence. In the writings of the earliest Christians, as I understand it, before a canon council was held, the 27 books were known. How can this be, asks the modernist?<br /><br />Observable evidence is not necessary for faith. Historical evidence is not necessary for faith. Popular opinion (among Christians) is not necessary for faith. In fact, all observations and experience may work against faith if one considers any of these things first. (Of course faith will be proven later by evidence, but if it is not yet proven by evidence – such as Abraham seeing Christ's day and rejoicing in it – it is still true.<br /><br />I think sometimes we, who have true faith, are pulled into the faithless arguments and begin to use the same faithless methods in attempt to reveal the truth. Only God can reveal it through the faith he gives. Never-the-less, we do still need to argue because our argumentation may be a witness for them that have faith. Yet the bottom line lay in the real definition of the faith of God given to men so that they may know truth.<br /><br />Joe V.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51183661273171557912010-05-15T12:48:34.746-07:002010-05-15T12:48:34.746-07:00Lamblion,
Wow, how do you respond so fast? Do yo...Lamblion,<br /><br />Wow, how do you respond so fast? Do you get notification? <br /><br />Are you saying that there were absolutely no "opinions" used when translating from Greek to English in regards to the KJV. <br /><br />If you don't respond I'll understand, as you have stated a couple of times that you were not going to post again.<br /><br />If I get a chance I'll try to spend some time reading your blog.Garynoreply@blogger.com