tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post29388855098741594..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: More James White on the Version Issue: Either He Doesn't Know What He's Talking About or He's Lying -- Pt. 4Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-92125110541268240522015-08-06T17:21:20.365-07:002015-08-06T17:21:20.365-07:00Ken,
I agree that he thinks that he is antics mak...Ken,<br /><br />I agree that he thinks that he is antics make what he says to be true. It's a postmodern relationship as well. There is some kind of authenticity, and therefore, beauty, in the quirkiness or advante garde behavior. They don't even know it, because they're around even crazier, and they are being reaffirmed constantly by those who think the same. The trajectory is sloping downward.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12106915149709478912015-08-06T12:58:02.605-07:002015-08-06T12:58:02.605-07:00Kent,
On a side note, I see a very disturbing tr...Kent, <br /><br />On a side note, I see a very disturbing trend with conservative evangelicals and young fundamentalists in how they address these issues. For some reason, they believe that if they treat someone like a 10 year old bully treats another 10 year old by making them feel dumb for believing as they do, that this is somehow proof there position is right. What happened to his scientific method there? <br /><br />In addition, these types seem to believe that if they tell people in words that they strenously object to allegations of error (like not believing biblical preservation as been historically proclaimed) that this PROVES they have the right position on the matter. I could passionate declare that the sky is purple, and make funny faces at people who think otherwise, but it doesn't make it so. <br /><br />Ken Ken Lengelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14808011240895370627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-62971923184314274872015-08-06T08:59:30.047-07:002015-08-06T08:59:30.047-07:00Hi,
James and Dr. Ach,
Both excellent comments. ...Hi,<br /><br />James and Dr. Ach,<br /><br />Both excellent comments. I read both word for word and agree totally. You've nailed it. Both of you understand the position, understand what he said, and know what's going on. Thank you.<br /><br />James,<br /><br />I read your other comment and enjoyed it too, but I didn't comment at the time. Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with it. Well said.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86638454722444132912015-08-06T07:53:04.396-07:002015-08-06T07:53:04.396-07:00White merely reaffirmed the very accusation he cla...White merely reaffirmed the very accusation he claimed to be refuting. After about 500 pejoratives and 15 minutes of insults and condescending rhetoric, his argument boiled down to "what I said was those early churches didn't have and know what we know today about textual criticism and manuscript evidence".<br /><br />The problems with that are no different than those raised against him the first time.<br /><br />*Was it a requirement for Peter, Paul, John and their followers to understand textual criticism to the extent critical text theory was developed in the 19th century before they could endorse OT manuscripts they quoted from? At what point will "scholars" concede that the early custodians of Scripture were pretty simple people (like fishermen and tax collectors)? There is nothing in the Testament that warranted deferring to the "scholar", in fact, in Colossians, Paul was pretty confident that the readers would be able to recognize a copy of the Letter to the Laodiceans without having to scrutinize it with scientific criticism. The common folk had a pretty good grasp on knowing what was written by Paul and what was a blatant corruption without ever having read James White, DA Carson, Bruce Metzger or Daniel Wallace.<br /><br />*If early church "fathers" were not as well-versed in matters of interpretation and textual criticism, then how are we supposed to trust that the church accurately transmitted a reliable rendition of the Scriptures IN ANY VERSION (any Vulgate, Byzantine [regardless of your view on Byzantine texts], Greek, etc..)throughout church history until Greisbach, Westcott, Hort, Semler, et al, all showed up?<br /><br />White's argument amounts to more of the same. His contention leads to the conclusion that we know more today about the science of preservation and textual transmission and therefore can offer a better opinion than those before us about the Bibles that we-AND THEY-have/had. It's no different than the evolutionist's position that we can never really be sure about the origins of creation while we are still discovering new finds that may or may not prove a big bang and a primordial slime pit.<br /><br />And of course, this leads to my rebuttal against White and all other "where was the word of God before 1611" advocates: when they won't (can't) answer the same question: where was the word of God before 1881? Apparently, nobody had it because we couldn't even BEGIN to know for sure until higher criticism was developed, and a brand new Greek New Testament supplanted the Majority and Received Text.<br /><br />White simply moved the goal posts another 10 yards, but did nothing to clarify his argument, or refute any of the KJVOs that maintain his logic results in the church being without a reliable Bible for 1800 years.Dr James Achhttp://dorightchristians.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69145534375816988912015-08-06T05:46:51.199-07:002015-08-06T05:46:51.199-07:00"White uses 19 minutes and he says perhaps on...<i>"White uses 19 minutes and he says perhaps one thing new, that is, he really does believe in preservation of scripture, and acted angry that anyone could say he didn't. By that he means that all the words of scripture exist in manuscripts in the world somewhere, so anyone saying he doesn't believe in preservation is a lying deceiver."</i><br /><br /><i>Preservation</i> - meaning, what? <i>Scripture</i> - meaning, what? So will he honestly and directly answer the question: If he really believes what he is projecting there, that <b>all the words</b> exist in manuscripts in the world somewhere, <i>will textual critics and scholars be able to perfectly reconstruct the text from all those preserved words?</i> He will not answer a definitive "yes" to it, because the scholarship he so idolizes will not be so bold as to say that. In fact, unless I'm unaware of a change in position on that, they all concede they do not believe they will ever be able to completely reconstruct the text, but only make it more certain (another purposefully vague assurance), because they don't believe they have the original to which they can compare their reconstruction. That brings us right back to his own pseudo-preservation position which is not of the essence of "kept pure in all ages." This is pure neo-orthodoxy.<br /><br />Second, the idea that the writers of the LBCF did not "know the issues" or "know about the text types and can't be used as an authority" is ridiculous and he knows it. The tampering with the transmission of Scriptures is cited right in the inspired record of the New Testament, attested by Patristics, described by Reformation-era writers, and easily researched today. Whether they used the same terms or not is immaterial. The confessions, on their face are crystal clear. Further to that, I don't believe some of Bro. Ross's initial comments were ever dealt with in the context of the LBCF, namely, their testimony to the received text by their use of I John 5:7, etc.<br /><br />Finally, I went searching for Bro. Ross's facebook page in an effort to impress him and to be impressed by him there. Couldn't find one. However, I did find one full of self-aggrandizing posts and loyal "attaboys" for "AOMin." My, my, my.James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.com