tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post2735727492412358945..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Polygraphing the Words of James White, Pt. 2Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82403137520075428942015-08-20T11:09:28.090-07:002015-08-20T11:09:28.090-07:00Good stuff, James.Good stuff, James.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83116476007570525662015-08-20T08:53:09.983-07:002015-08-20T08:53:09.983-07:00James White (and his fellow textual critics) sugge...James White (and his fellow textual critics) suggest that if the authors of the LBCF (or their contemporaries) knew what he knows now, they would agree with him. John Owen seems to disagree, suggesting that White's position is unbecoming of a Christian or Protestant divine: <br /><br /><i>"It is indeed a great relief, against the inconvenience of corrupt translations, to consider that although some of them be bad enough, yet if all the errors and mistakes that are to be found in all the rest, should be added to the worst of all, yet <b>every necessary, saving, fundamental truth, would be found sufficiently testified unto therein.</b> But to depress the sacred truth of the originals, into such a condition, as wherein it should stand in need of this apology, and that without any colour or pretence from discrepancies in the copies themselves that are extant, or any tolerable evidence that there ever were any other, in the least differing from these extant in the world, will at length <b>be found a work unbecoming a Christian, Protestant divine.</b></i> (Emphasis mine)James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3837169096544847872015-08-11T21:27:19.441-07:002015-08-11T21:27:19.441-07:00Derek,
Part Two
"You really don’t think Era...Derek,<br /><br />Part Two<br /><br />"You really don’t think Erasmus collated manuscripts? Really?"---If you used three reallys, then that would have been more authoritative. Only two reallys seems weak to me. Manuscripts that are the same don't need much collation. It's so little that it wouldn't be called collation. Did you read my Muller quote about the relationship of those believers to what people call textual criticism today? Have you seen a Scrivener's annotated Greek NT? I'm serious.<br /><br />"Why shouldn’t every believer be required to read and speak in the Hebrew the promise was written in? Why wasn’t it preserved there? It wasn’t good enough?"---Jesus didn't require it. Do you have a problem with Him?<br /><br />"Who? Are you actually saying you believe this fellow when he says that two Byzantine manuscripts (which are, I’m sure, separated both spatially and chronologically to the degree that we can be confident that they are not of the same family) that are identical? I’ve heard many a Muslim make the same claim about the Qur’an."---You haven't read Pickering. If you don't think he examined two identical manuscripts, then prove him wrong. Look at them yourself. I haven't read an article that says he's wrong. So you're saying it surprises you that there are two identical manuscripts? Could you copy something and have it be the very words of the original?<br /><br />Thanks for dropping by, Derek.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39258841835358182342015-08-11T21:26:04.694-07:002015-08-11T21:26:04.694-07:00Derek,
Part One.
I'm putting your statements...Derek,<br /><br />Part One.<br /><br />I'm putting your statements in quotes with my answers after the dashes.<br /><br />"It is a fact of reality. The Scriptures are affirmed by textual criticism, not destroyed by it."---Please explain this, and I do mean it. I could argue that scripture is affirmed by the availability of more copies. We have such and such manuscripts of the Bible versus Homer, but even that great news I can't say affirms scripture, because scripture itself doesn't make that point. The criticism, on the other hand, doesn't affirm scripture. The existence of more variants and further amending, never-ending, I can't see it affirming the Bible, and that is the lesser to the manuscript evidence, which I can't for sure affirms scripture.<br /><br />"Why no typing in Greek then? Why isn’t the whole Bible in Hebrew? Why would God allow the language to change so we’d have to go through all this language nonsense 2000 years later? What’s all this Syriac, Coptic, Slavic, Latin, and English nonsense? If the text is preserved, isn’t Greek the only safe bet?"---You are asking questions and making comments I haven't heard before, and I've read a lot. I'm going to read into your questions a little here. Believers have always believed in translation and this stems from Jesus translating the Old Testament into Greek. We have a biblical basis for translation. God invented language. However, it still must be a formal equivalent to the word from which it is translated. It must mean the same thing. Even if people knew the language of the text, it would take explanation, even as we see Paul explain the text in His preaching. In the Old Testament, Ezra read and explained the Hebrew text to Hebrew speaking people. In one sense, that is what a translation does.<br /><br />You seem to be asking why we don't just all learn the original language text as opposed to translating that text into another language. All those translations are like more manuscript evidence in a sense, indicating that people have believed this all over in fulfillment of what the Bible says about itself. It is legitimate to have a Bible in your own language, for the reason I stated above, so that answer also answers that question. Jesus translated. He also as a teacher knew the original language. If I'm not answering the question, let me know. I think I did though.<br /><br />"This is like saying “I don’t give credit to the doctor for saving my life after the car accident, only God.” God didn’t use the doctor?"---I would give a doctor credit if that's what God used. I'm saying that they wouldn't have given textual criticism the credit. James White does, but historically believers did not. Do you think all those believers all those years missed something that James White and his kind have renewed us unto?<br /><br />"Source it."---I'm going to make you do some work. Read my articles the last few weeks. I do source it in those quotes. If you can't find it, then type Aland in the search box. Do you believe Aland?Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75237593671357532632015-08-11T21:01:26.017-07:002015-08-11T21:01:26.017-07:00Brendon D,
Sorry it took me so long to comment he...Brendon D,<br /><br />Sorry it took me so long to comment here, but thanks, and I agree.<br /><br />George,<br /><br />I pass on your comments. I published them so that you would know I wasn't a won't-say-boo-to-a-goose coward, yellow-spined kind of thing, but I have no comment. People can take what you say at face value.<br /><br />Farmer Brown,<br /><br />It's hard for me to explain the faith destruction of believing what the Bible says about itself. I'm really guessing here, so I don't have faith in my answer, it's sort of like an eclectic text, an educated guess, but I think he sees faith in a pile of manuscript evidence, so that without it, you have less faith. Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-62875864210532736062015-08-11T20:27:15.728-07:002015-08-11T20:27:15.728-07:00“At 52:15 and following, White says that any text ...“At 52:15 and following, White says that any text you use has been mediated to you through textual criticism. That is not a doctrine of scripture.” <br /><br />It is a fact of reality. The Scriptures are affirmed by textual criticism, not destroyed by it.<br /><br />“The doctrine is that God preserved the text and ensured that it was available to every generation of believers.” <br /><br />Why no typing in Greek then? Why isn’t the whole Bible in Hebrew? Why would God allow the language to change so we’d have to go through all this language nonsense 2000 years later? What’s all this Syriac, Coptic, Slavic, Latin, and English nonsense? If the text is preserved, isn’t Greek the only safe bet? <br /><br />“I don't give credit to textual criticism for getting me my Bible.”<br /><br />This is like saying “I don’t give credit to the doctor for saving my life after the car accident, only God.” God didn’t use the doctor?<br /><br />“White says that "Erasmus had the biggest influence on the production of what is called the textus receptus." Aland says that the textus receptus already existed before Erasmus and it was the text before Erasmus that was agreed upon by the churches.” <br /><br />Source it.<br /><br />“In other words, Erasmus was taking the received text and printing it. There wasn't very much amendment occurring.” <br /><br />You really don’t think Erasmus collated manuscripts? Really?<br /><br />“If you believe what the Bible says about preservation, it is what you believe. Is there a text?”<br /><br />Why shouldn’t every believer be required to read and speak in the Hebrew the promise was written in? Why wasn’t it preserved there? It wasn’t good enough?<br /><br />“He should read Wilbur Pickering, who actually did look at the Byzantine manuscripts and found that several of them were identical.”<br /><br />Who? Are you actually saying you believe this fellow when he says that two Byzantine manuscripts (which are, I’m sure, separated both spatially and chronologically to the degree that we can be confident that they are not of the same family) that are identical? I’ve heard many a Muslim make the same claim about the Qur’an. <br />Dereknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23743202798620942552015-08-11T20:17:12.931-07:002015-08-11T20:17:12.931-07:00I don't get his "This stuff is dangerous ...I don't get his "This stuff is dangerous because it destroys faith" line. I have heard his type use that a couple times, but I have never heard it explained. I suppose it may destroy people's faith in Mr. White. Have you ever heard him explain how your position destroys faith?Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-57702580230925405682015-08-11T19:51:05.793-07:002015-08-11T19:51:05.793-07:00Dear Brendon,
THanks for this--good point.Dear Brendon,<br /><br />THanks for this--good point.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18352816287971329912015-08-10T21:08:30.548-07:002015-08-10T21:08:30.548-07:00"Scripture teaches the verbal, plenary preser..."Scripture teaches the verbal, plenary preservation of the verbally, plenary inspired autographa (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35); that the preserved words would be perpetually available to God’s people (Isaiah 59:21); and that Israel was the guardian of Scripture in the Mosaic dispensation (Romans 3:1-2), and the church the guardian in the dispensation of grace (1 Timothy 3:15)."<br /><br />Seriously? As correctly stated the JEWS were the guardians of the Scriptures, and during the time of Jesus Christ, Christ read from the JEWISH scriptures, and all the apostles went to the synagogues and learned the scriptures in HEBREW, and it your view that the gospels were written in GREEK and not in Hebrew by those who were given the "oracles of God" in HEBREW?? Are you guys serious?<br /><br />Prove it.<br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81734517636066182052015-08-10T20:58:00.224-07:002015-08-10T20:58:00.224-07:00The Holy Scriptures- From the Westminster confessi...The Holy Scriptures- From the Westminster confession of faith 1646:<br /><br />All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.7<br /><br />7 LUK 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 31 And<br />he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one<br />rose from the dead. EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus<br />Christ himself being the chief corner stone. REV 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the<br />words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the<br />plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of<br />this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness<br /><br />So, I look at HISTORY and what is quoted as INSPIRED scripture which they said was given by inspiration of God? <br />Is it Greek? NO<br />Is it Hebrew? NO<br /><br />It was written in English of the Holy King James Bible!<br /><br />Oh, I know that they said later (VIII) that the Greek and Hebrew being IMMEDIATELY inspired (the first time written) is only evident by the fact that what they had in the "vulgar tongue" of English was also INSPIRED "because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them (John 5:39)"!<br /><br />So, quit bloviating and say with confidence that the INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE words of God are found today in the Holy King James Bible.<br /><br />The rest is history. <br /><br />The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32713537632871956652015-08-10T19:26:41.921-07:002015-08-10T19:26:41.921-07:00Thank you for these posts exposing the faith-destr...Thank you for these posts exposing the faith-destroying errors of White. Your straightforward, clear reasoning is in stark contrast to him. I watched his video and found his antics nauseating. Why can't he simply present his argument in a cogent and dignified manner without the juvenile buffoonery? "Time out"? Is he playing some sport? It is unbecoming behaviour when dealing with such a serious issue as this. Does his evangelical audience find this appealing?<br /><br />Regarding what the authors of the confessions believed, you might like to check out Benjamin Keach's (whose signature is on the 1689 LBC) work "Preaching Types and Metaphors": books.google.com.au/books?id=LzlFf5f1xbsC<br />In the introductory section, "Divine Authority of the Bible" on pp. xx-xxi, he clearly states his belief in divinely providential, plenary verbal preservation:<br /><br />"...we may, (according to that maxim in philosophy, Eadem est causa procreans et conservans; the procreating and conserving cause of things, is one and the same) conclude, that the same God is the Author of it, who hath thus by his special providence preserved it, and faithfully promised, and cannot lie, that heaven and earth shall pass away, but one iota or tittle of his word shall not pass away."<br /><br />Not, "close to the originals" or "some copyist errors, but no major doctrine affected", etc. Keach linked divine inspiration with divine preservation. And he derived his doctrine of the verbal plenary preservation of Scripture from the Scripture itself, something White cannot do.Brendon D.http://www.granitebeltbaptist.com.aunoreply@blogger.com