tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post8802444633041676455..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: You Know the Critical Text Position Is In Trouble When It's Propped Up by Blatant LiesKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19286991880141268072013-07-23T07:03:31.406-07:002013-07-23T07:03:31.406-07:00Thanks for that explanation. To me, that seems to ...Thanks for that explanation. To me, that seems to have more to do with soteriology. I am not convinced it has relevance or does justice to the textual discussion. But hey ... it's your book, right? But I completely agree that one should not misuse or misrepresent another.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55684827023302551682013-07-20T17:47:20.014-07:002013-07-20T17:47:20.014-07:00Larry,
OK. If what you are saying in the last co...Larry,<br /><br />OK. If what you are saying in the last comment is it, then I'm fine with that kind of challenge, not anything that Jason Harris did in his book. He didn't argue in that kind of reasonable fashion, where you are looking to find something like that. However, I don't think you would have been thinking that I believed that if you read the book, because it doesn't read like that kind of position. It's an original language position.<br /><br />The context of the quote in my book was Deuteronomy 30, a passage where you see that they are to receive all the words, the words, not just the message. Obviously it's receiving the message, but it doesn't just say 'message.' I'm arguing that in order to receive the words, they have to be accessible. If someone only got the gospel of John and received Jesus Christ, he would be saved. However, he wouldn't be rejecting any of the words that God revealed by doing so. He would be agreeing on all the Words that God said. I can try to explain it even more than that, but that is how I believe it and would present it. Does this undermine the doctrine of perfect preservation? No, it can only help it. There is the assumption of the accessibility of all the Words to those who believe. Harris doesn't go that direction in the book, the one you are taking, but your point isn't a gotcha moment either, because the point I'm making is from the exegesis, not from a systematic bibliology concocted consequentially to modern textual criticism. God's people assume the accessibility of all God's Words, because that fits a biblical presupposition.<br /><br />Overall, there is a point to be made that lies are not necessary to buttress the truth. The truth will stand without them. That is my experience with all doctrines. People tell lies to defend. We see religious leaders do this with Jesus and Paul. That goes for me too, if I were to do that. I don't have an example of that, but it's not something someone will do in order to make his point look better.<br /><br />I do think that someone may not be lying, but just gets it wrong about someone, and should have checked first. In this case, here is someone with all the evidence of someone who is being dishonest. Our book should not be one made to make the point he wants to make. No. Use Hyles. Use Ruckman. Use whoever believes that. Don't use us, because we don't believe that.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-64061717703527026572013-07-20T08:10:34.538-07:002013-07-20T08:10:34.538-07:00Kent, my main point was about what you said, not H...Kent, my main point was about what you said, not Harris. Obviously, I don't approve of anyone lying or misrepresenting what anyone else says. I think that goes without saying. I think it is wrong.<br /><br />But let me repeat my initial question: If you believe that one can be saved through the critical text, how do you reconcile that with your statement that "belief in Christ assumes the reception of <i>all</i> God's words"? [emphasis mine] According to your position, it seems that one using the critical text cannot believe all God's words because he doesn't have them all; he only has 93% or more of them. And since believing in Christ assumes the reception of all God's words, how can he believe in Christ? (My question there is primarily about the world all.)<br /><br />That seems like an inconsistency. What am I missing?<br /><br />Whatever Josh (not Jason right?) may have done isn't my point. If he lied about what you said, he shouldn't have. But my point in asking wasn't really about Harris. I can see, based on what you cite, how he might conclude something, and I can see that you disagree with his conclusion. Since they are your words, I will take your side that he misrepresented you. But my question was the comments you cite of yourself above. <br /><br />As for your argument about trouble, I see how you are arguing it. I just disagree with it. You are correct that you don't need to lie when your position is steady. But it is non sequitur to say that lies mean a position is unsteady, or has trouble, or however you want to put it. One can lie in support of a right cause; the cause is not thereby undermined or shown to have trouble. It is shown merely to have a sinful supporter.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24417031556917897502013-07-19T11:15:54.804-07:002013-07-19T11:15:54.804-07:00Hi Larry.
Fantasy world: "Wow, Kent, I'...Hi Larry.<br /><br />Fantasy world: "Wow, Kent, I'm sorry to hear that he took those three different quotes out of context in order to spin you into taking a position similar to Jack Hyles's 'you can only be saved through the King James' position. That really is too bad. He shouldn't have done that. It's horrible when people do that. I don't think it means the CT position isn't true, but it really is bad that he did it."<br /><br />Instead: "He might have a point. He might be right there. That might be what you were saying, even though you denied it clearly in statements. We'll say he might be right instead."<br /><br />We're in print. We're published. We're open game. Open game doesn't mean lying. I recognize you are saying in each of the three instances he wasn't lying. They all three believe something similar to the Jack Hyles position, according to you. They say, no. But you know better because of something you can see in those statements that is sinister. You can see something fine in the statements, but it's OK to see something worse if you want to. I get it. Never mind that I was sure to deny that position in the book, so it would be clear and everyone would know. He didn't report that, didn't quote that, because it didn't fit his goal.<br /><br />As for paragraph two, take it for what it is. It's a blog post. I didn't write every example of this occurring. There are many. This book was pushed on SharperIron, given an endorsement. No disclaimer.<br /><br />You are choosing not to see how I'm arguing this. I'm not saying that the lie makes it trouble, but that the lie says there is trouble. You don't need to lie when you're position is steady. I said that. I repeated that. Now I repeat it again. A threepeat. I hope Pat Riley doesn't sue me.<br /><br />Does lying verify your position as untrue? No. Like in the Zimmerman case. If the prosecution lied, that doesn't mean their position was wrong, and, of course, the jury should disregard lies, and act like they don't mean anything as to the credibility of the position. Ooops. Actually they are supposed to judge credibility on that. Does Jason Harris destroy the CT position? Not by himself, but again I wasn't saying that either, obviously.<br /><br />Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40929978971302002982013-07-19T06:16:49.727-07:002013-07-19T06:16:49.727-07:00Typically, I think, when something is in print, it...Typically, I think, when something is in print, it is considered fair game for evaluation. I still think you have a problem with the words that seem to say two different things, but I won't pursue that here. <br /><br />As for indicating there is trouble, how does the misinterpretation or miscitation of one man of another man indicate that there is trouble in a wide movement? I don't get that.<br /><br />The truth (or error) of any position on the text does not depend on how someone supports it. It is true when it conforms to reality, even if someone is unethical with someone else's words.<br /><br />I haven't watched much of the open. I saw a little bit yesterday online. I love links golf. I would love to play some of those courses. <br />Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17904913675325767682013-07-18T11:46:19.606-07:002013-07-18T11:46:19.606-07:00Hi Larry,
When someone takes a sentence out of it...Hi Larry,<br /><br />When someone takes a sentence out of its context, not explaining how it falls within the rest of the chapter, it's easy to twist like Gumby. That doesn't mean we can't quote one sentence of someone, but it shouldn't then be placed into another context, attempting to prove something it doesn't say. Why just quote one solitary sentence from a whole chapter to make me conclude something I'm not concluding? He makes me conclude something. There is 7% difference between TR and CT. I say "at least 93%," not only 93%. An agreement to receive all of them is different than receiving all of them. That agreement is not arguing that you don't have all of them, so you can't be responsible. I would say he has a misunderstanding except that he is so eager to group us with Hyles on this that he is obviously scouring and reaching for something that isn't there. His writing is on 1 Peter 1:23-25 and it is in that section that I wrote something different than he concludes I conclude in contradiction to myself. If you are going to put something in a book, publish it, why not ask me? He has commented many times on my blog. Why get it out there with that kind of perversion of my position when you could easily clear it up? Why read into me?<br /><br />I don't say it causes trouble, but indicates that there is trouble. It doesn't show confidence in your position when you have to do this kind of thing to 'defend' your position.<br /><br />I see you as understating his lie and overstating the point. Being in trouble and "resting on" Harris are a distance apart.<br /><br />When someone is doing what Harris is doing, he needs to be called on it. The book reads personal all over, like it's trying to be insulting and slanderous (the latter in framing people as believing something they don't). Harris doesn't represent all CT people, but it's a book that I think that SharperIron reviewed as an important contribution.<br /><br />You say trouble for the CT position doesn't connect to how people defend it. It's been consistent and so I think it does relate. I understand why.<br /><br />You watching the open championship? The links golf is interesting.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-33669771077758715472013-07-18T09:18:55.550-07:002013-07-18T09:18:55.550-07:00Two questions:
1. If you believe that one can be...Two questions:<br /><br />1. If you believe that one can be saved through the critical text, how do you reconcile that with your statement that "belief in Christ assumes the reception of <i>all</i> God's words"? [emphasis mine] According to your position, it seems that one using the critical text cannot believe all God's words because he doesn't have them all; he only has 93% of them. I would imagine Harris's comment (which I have read only here) is based on what appears to be an inconsistency, which would not be a blatant lie so much as a misunderstanding, or perhaps miscommunication on your part.<br /><br />2. If everything you say here is true (and I am not disputing it), how does this undermine or cause trouble for the critical text position? The most it would seem to do is undermine Harris's credibility. But the critical text position doesn't rest on whether or not Harris quotes you correctly or rightly represents what you believe, does it? A lot of people, indeed most people, who hold the critical text position do so without any knowledge of you or Josh Harris, or either of your books. So isn't this a non-sequitur? <br /><br />The critical text position may indeed have trouble (though not nearly so much as the alternatives, given the revelation and providence of God about the matter), but it doesn't seem connected to anything you have said here. <br />Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.com