tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post3267466490812385875..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Assessing Comments on Thou Shalt Keep Them, part twoKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6323953749176660342017-06-17T06:16:11.233-07:002017-06-17T06:16:11.233-07:00"But, yes, I get your point with Pickering - ..."But, yes, I get your point with Pickering - he says some manuscripts are identical, so the claim identical mss. don't exist is untrue."<br /><br />Tyler, I haven't seen anything posted that suggests this. Only thing I've seen is that portions of two manuscripts are identical but not complete manuscripts.Andy Eftingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18528470256453633182017-06-16T13:16:22.489-07:002017-06-16T13:16:22.489-07:00I understand your point with Pickering. I am disap...I understand your point with Pickering. I am disappointed he didn't elaborate in his book. <br /><br />For example, a few years back Dan Wallace, in a debate with Bart Ehrman, claimed a new manuscript of John from the first century had been found, and it would be published soon. If so, this would be extraordinary. The oldest we have is 2nd century. Only problem, it hasn't been published yet . . . years later. <br /><br />It's not that I think Wallace was lying; it's just that I'll reserve judgment until I see the thing. Same with Pickering. I never heard the claim for perfectly identical manuscripts anywhere else, and he doesn't identify anything about these identical manuscripts. How long are they? If they run from 1 Tim 1:1 - 1 Tim 1:6, then I'm not very impressed! How old are they? Were they done by the same scribe at the same time? What family are they from? What are the mss. numbers, so we can look at 'em for ourselves?<br /><br />But, yes, I get your point with Pickering - he says some manuscripts are identical, so the claim identical mss. don't exist is untrue. Got it. But, I'll remain skeptical until he produces more evidence. If he's been more explicit somewhere else in his book (beyond fn. #4, pg. 209), then please let me know. Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-62155946379441589152017-06-16T13:07:36.283-07:002017-06-16T13:07:36.283-07:00Everyone,
Trajectory forward. What does this mea...Everyone,<br /><br />Trajectory forward. What does this means? God inspired His Word and then it was preserved. You don't start in the 19th century and move backward. Whatever was preserved in accessible in the 16th century are the Words of God. Scripture was written in Hebrew and Greek, so it is Hebrew and Greek moving forward. A translation moves backward, so we're not talking about a translation. Two parts to this as well. 1) Something "found" in the 20th century, unavailable for 500 years isn't scripture. That's working backwards. 2) Preservation didn't occur in 1881 with Scrivener's. I reject both of these, 1) and 2). I've explained these many times before.<br /><br />Second part, again. You can line up commentaries behind whatever issue, and that can work for historical theology, but exegesis is dealing with the meaning of words, their usage in scripture, their usage in the context, the pre, internal, and post context of the passage, the greater context of all of scripture, the grammar and syntax of the verse, etc. Exegesis isn't, Constable said (one sentence, excluding any exegesis). That sounds like I listened. I just don't believe it is exegesis.<br /><br />Third part, we made one point from Pickering, debunking one statement, that is, no identical manuscripts. A vast majority of manuscripts are not complete copies of the entire NT. Very few of those. Pickering examined manuscripts and found some identical, so that statement, that there are none identical, is false. That's all, that's all we were refuting with that. I'd be happy if someone could say that he understands the point, but it will be move on to obstruction of justice, no admission that there is no collusion, if you get my point. I can admit if I got something wrong, but I'm not seeing it so far, and I've got a lot of experience answering these questions. The no-admission-of-wrong is coming from one side on this.<br /><br />For instance, even if T. Howard doesn't understand exegesis, he also doesn't see or admit that the very commentaries he quotes actually are saying the same thing I am.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45472338444858203572017-06-16T11:43:32.842-07:002017-06-16T11:43:32.842-07:00Tyler,
Maybe you can ask T. Howard what he thinks...Tyler,<br /><br />Maybe you can ask T. Howard what he thinks exegesis is. Does he think exegesis is quoting exegetical commentaries? First, all those commentaries are not exegetical that he's quoting, so he doesn't perhaps know what an exegetical commentary is. The commentaries he is quoting and many others say the same thing I'm saying about Matthew 24:35.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40337737174280659282017-06-16T11:15:30.605-07:002017-06-16T11:15:30.605-07:00Got it. Thanks. Got it. Thanks. Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91234877410176877632017-06-16T10:42:16.977-07:002017-06-16T10:42:16.977-07:00Hi Tyler,
Believers received the TR. The Byzanti...Hi Tyler,<br /><br />Believers received the TR. The Byzantine position and the so-called Majority Text view (we don't know what the Majority Text is, because not all the manuscripts have been collated) are recent innovations.<br /><br />Earlier a person with the label, Bible Believer, or something like that asked what the exact words are, and I say Hebrew Masoretic OT essentially Beza 1598 NT. I take the same view as Edward Hills.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_F._Hills<br /><br />To everyone, as I say that, please don't remind me that Beza 1598 and Scrivener are not identical. I have an annotated Scrivener, which shows the differences. All I'm saying is that the trajectory of preservation moves forward, not backward. I'm also not saying there was one perfect manuscript that moved it's way through, but that every word and all of them made their way through. They were always accessible.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12183396222600124512017-06-16T10:01:25.034-07:002017-06-16T10:01:25.034-07:00Kent:
Why do you prefer the TR to the Byzantine? ...Kent:<br /><br />Why do you prefer the TR to the Byzantine? Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78786650189170115192017-06-16T08:45:25.636-07:002017-06-16T08:45:25.636-07:00Here is what happened to the words of the scroll t...Here is what happened to the words of the scroll that was burned:<br /><br />"Take thee again another roll, and <b>write</b> in it <b>all the former words</b> that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." (Jeremiah 36:28)<br /><br />Mat DvorachekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19408608415489943452017-06-16T07:25:05.073-07:002017-06-16T07:25:05.073-07:00Andy,
I made a very developed scriptural argument...Andy,<br /><br />I made a very developed scriptural argument from John 16, where that does not say written words either, but I'm guessing you think that is the whole New Testament and canonicity, etc. When we wrote TSKT, I went into it with the thought first with the possibility that when exegeted, these passages didn't teach preservation, but I left the project with greater faith they did, based on scripture.<br /><br />Your position doesn't make any sense to me. I know that's not the test of what it says, but I'd just be rewriting my chapter if I explained it. What you say to your kids stands, you're saying is the same kind of thing Jesus was saying, that you are reading in Matthew, not just having the jist of it passed down. So you have, say, an 8 year old, you say something to him, and when he's 47, what you said on one particular day, it doesn't pass away for him, because you said it, and it continues standing. I don't get it.<br /><br />Who says, heaven and earth shall pass away, actual physical things, and things that are quite permanent and stable, and not really comprehended as passing away, but they shall. On the other hand, Jesus' words will not. One thing will disappear. The other will not disappear. Words. Not the message, not the jist of what He said. Words. That teaches preservation. If it was all the BIble said, it would be strong, but you combine that with all the other passages, and it is airtight, which is why Christians have believed it. It's also why despite the attack from so many on it, which takes away people's trust in the Bible, most rank-and-file-Christians still think this way. It's also why so many people still use the KJV despite being discouraged from doing so.<br /><br />Of the 89% of U.S. adults who own at least one Bible, 67% own a King James. 82% of those who read their Bibles at least once a month, read the KJV.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78699324529031663302017-06-16T05:32:11.568-07:002017-06-16T05:32:11.568-07:00We’ve gone around and round on this issue many tim...We’ve gone around and round on this issue many times over the years. To me, I think you guys are reading your perspective into the text. God’s word is eternal because of the character of God and that is true if it was written down or not. It simply isn’t the case that “if you don’t have a physical copy and then it isn’t dependable.” Just as an example, I say things all the time to my wife, my kids, co-workers – none of it is written down but it stands and is dependable, at least as far as I am dependable. We all understand that type of thing. I don’t need a physical copy of God’s word in my hand to be sustained by it or encouraged by it or rebuked by it. I need to know it but that could be through memory, direct verbal communication (like Jesus to the disciples), or indirect through preaching or someone reminding me of what was said. None of what was spoken passes away if the written record is destroyed…because God is eternal.<br /><br />When Jehoiakim burned the scroll in Jeremiah 36, did those words of God pass away? Was the king able to make those words of none effect? Did it change the dependability or truthfulness or faithfulness or force of those words?<br /><br />The main point Jesus is making in Matt 24:35 is that you can count on what he is saying to come true. I don’t think he had physical copies of the Bible in mind when he said that, or that it required someone to be taking notes at the time. <br /><br />Anyway, I think I have said my peace on this, at least for now. I know you disagree.<br />Andy Eftingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91125732180292588382017-06-16T05:09:38.934-07:002017-06-16T05:09:38.934-07:00Dave Barnhart
James responded with this answer.......Dave Barnhart<br />James responded with this answer....<br />".the hypothetical convert of which you speak has only to look at the numerous marginal notes in his ESV to see repeated doubt cast upon numerous texts and whether they belong in Scripture."<br /><br />A personal friend of mine was converted in a SBC church 30 years ago as a teen, was very devout, later went to an SBC Bible college to train for the ministry. As a teen, while reading an NIV for personal devotion time, he noticed the footnotes casting doubt on this word, or this verse, etc. He decided that the Word of God was complete & preserved, not partial & in question; & began using a KJV exclusively. <br /><br />He was in a liberal church, had never heard of the preservation debate, & had no outside influence leading him to a position. He simply believed the Bible to be complete & preserved.<br /><br />I know this does not answer your question, & personal illustrations do not form doctrinal truth. I'm simply saying that there are people who see preservation from the text, & it leads them away from the CT position. My personal growth on the issue was similar.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17588817966356450077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21578726253180065722017-06-15T23:02:42.101-07:002017-06-15T23:02:42.101-07:00Pulpit Commentary -- "Christ adds a solemn as...Pulpit Commentary -- "Christ adds a solemn assurance that his words have in them a vitality and endurance which the mightiest works of nature do not possess."<br /><br />Preacher's Homiletic Commentary -- "It is approaching towards two thousand years since the days of Christ's three years' ministry on earth.—Though no magic was impressed on the syllables which flowed from the lips of the Redeemer to arrest their natural passing away, still it is true and certain that they have not passed away, and cannot pass away while the world stands. For one thing, they have not passed away, in this sense—that when they were spoken the simple narrative of the Evangelists took and perpetuated them; and in these four Gospels we have the words of Christ preserved. But it is a little thing to say that Christ's words were perpetuated on paper.—We should not set much store by the fact that upon printed pages by millions and millions the words of our Redeemer have outlived the storms and the wear of ages"<br /><br />Church Pulpit Commentary -- "We see the copies fly from the presses of the Bible Society at the rate of a Bible per minute, and when we see that God’s Word is being distributed to the ends of the earth, we see how, in God’s marvellous providence, it is being fulfilled that His words are not passing away."Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36833897435744864542017-06-15T22:23:26.239-07:002017-06-15T22:23:26.239-07:00Everyone,
Sometimes the critical-text, God-didn&#...Everyone,<br /><br />Sometimes the critical-text, God-didn't-preserve-His-Words people, you can tell, have passed some tipping point. Case in point is the following comment at SI, just written:<br /><br />https://sharperiron.org/comment/93109#comment-93109<br /><br />Earlier he quoted one commentary as a basis for not accepting that Mt. 24:35 teaches the preservation of Words, but instead was teaching authority and validity.<br /><br />For me, exegesis is looking at the text, but for some, like the Pharisees, who quoted experts, it means counting commentaries. OK, let's say it is that. If you're going to quote them, then at least understand what they are saying. Here are from the quotes he provides:<br /><br />Blomberg -- "His words will endure even longer than the universe itself, which will be destroyed and re-created."<br /><br />M. Henry -- "Heaven and earth shall pass away; they continue this day indeed, according to God’s ordinance, but they shall not continue for ever (Ps. 102:25, 26; 2 Pt. 3:10); but my words shall not pass away. Note, The word of Christ is more sure and lasting than heaven and earth."<br /><br />Edwards -- "For Jesus to assert that his words will outlive heaven and earth is a remarkable claim of authority."<br /><br />Francis -- "Jesus’ λόγοι are thus put on a par with the Torah in terms of authority and permanence."<br /><br />Stein -- "Heaven and earth will one day pass away (cf. Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 40:6–8; 51:6; Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10; Rev. 20:11; 21:1), but Jesus’s words will never pass away. The words of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, are more enduring than creation itself."<br /><br />It reads like France is just copying Carson, which is typical I've found with commentaries, the latter 1984 and the former 1992. With the 2 remaining commentaries that aren't saying what I am saying, they in the quotes themselves at least imply preservation, "continuance... Jesus’ words will always have validity." They aren't continuing and aren't always having validity if they aren't preserved.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-63692003654832650822017-06-15T17:44:34.770-07:002017-06-15T17:44:34.770-07:00I guess I'm still not seeing the answer to the...I guess I'm still not seeing the answer to the question I'm trying to ask. I suppose I need to go look up the question/answer you are referring to. I remember discussing this issue before, but not the specifics.<br /><br />First, I would say the marginal notes are not in the actual text, and I've certainly seen pew-type ESVs that don't have them (or don't have any I noticed on a quick flip through). But even if they are present, notes are, by definition, external to the words of God.<br /><br />Second, I was using shorthand when speaking of the preserved text from the ESV. Obviously I understand that it's not a preserved English translation issue. On the other side, though, not many non-theology students read Greek (I certainly can't), so we are going based on what our English Bibles say. So let's assume for the moment that I can read Greek directly, and can read out of a NA text (or TR). What is telling me from the words I'm reading (not editor's notes) whether or not I have the actual preserved text in front of me?<br /><br />I'm trying to get to the core of how the text itself will distinguish between the actual words, and a fairly close copy that has changes. I still don't see how I can know (unless you are talking about some mystical influence from the leading of the Holy Spirit, and knowing you, I don't think that's what you mean) from the text itself if it has been corrupted in any way. If I accept the text on faith, without external evidence, I still need to trust that it's the actual words of God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078796074502086492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-20497792601439452602017-06-15T13:17:24.256-07:002017-06-15T13:17:24.256-07:00Dave Barnhart,
You asked this same question (albe...Dave Barnhart,<br /><br />You asked this same question (albeit worded differently) a couple years ago on this blog and to my knowledge, it was answered back then without a rebuttal or response of any kind from you. However, to answer yet again...the hypothetical convert of which you speak has only to look at the numerous marginal notes in his ESV to see repeated doubt cast upon numerous texts and whether they belong in Scripture. Additionally, depending on the edition of the ESV he has before him, he might find himself wondering at the mysterious ellipsis marks in a passage like I Sam 13:1. Of course, strangely enough, the editors of the ESV decided after the 2011 edition that it was not in the interests of the reading public to continually come out with newer, revised editions of their translation. I wonder why.<br /><br />I might add that your framing of the question, "...the Bible I'm reading is not the text..." suggests a continued misunderstanding of the preservation issue. I have not read either here or in my copy of TSKT, anyone advocating the view that the KJV is the "text that God preserved." But again, it seems to me that the only way the TR position is typically assaulted is by mischaracterizing it as a manuscript-preservation position, or a preserved-English-translation position.James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51695154989952327922017-06-15T07:21:54.462-07:002017-06-15T07:21:54.462-07:00Kent,
I completely get that TSKT is dealing with ...Kent,<br /><br />I completely get that TSKT is dealing with what scripture says, and not external evidence, and you just mentioned that believers just receive the text on faith. So please answer me this: if I am a new believer, who just believed on Christ from a witness given out of an ESV Bible, start attending an independent Baptist church using the ESV, grow in my faith, read the preservation passages (which are all the same as in another text), and accept on faith that I have the Bible God providentially provided and attested to through the church, what *internal* evidence (not looking into the history of the texts, etc.) is available to me on the pages of scripture itself to tell me that the Bible I'm reading is not the text that God preserved?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078796074502086492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91654590923420871852017-06-14T17:25:13.355-07:002017-06-14T17:25:13.355-07:00Hi Kent,
I have been closely following your commen...Hi Kent,<br />I have been closely following your commentary. I do own your book and it has been beneficial to me. Once question I have is which specific OT and NT manuscripts do you believe contain the perfect words of God? I wanted to check out copies of those manuscripts. I believe you have mentioned it in the past but I have been unable to find it. Thanks.Baptist Believerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17737518329311700169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56698513058281768582017-06-14T16:25:53.611-07:002017-06-14T16:25:53.611-07:00
Dear Andy,
How do you know that nobody--not one ...<br />Dear Andy,<br /><br />How do you know that nobody--not one of the Apostles or of the thousands of people who heard Him--took notes on the sermons of the One they thought was the Messiah and Son of God when they heard Him preach the Words of life, and say that His Words were the standard in the day of judgment, so that those words did not exist anywhere on paper (papyrus) until years later? This would seem to involve a great deal of very difficult to obtain knowledge of what took place in the 1st century, and also a view about the absence of written records for the gospels that seems rather different from texts such as Luke 1:1-4.<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12547971235353597812017-06-14T14:45:56.353-07:002017-06-14T14:45:56.353-07:00Hello,
If you are reading, I want to do my best t...Hello,<br /><br />If you are reading, I want to do my best to deal with a couple of questions. There might be more. I can honestly say that I have no issue here except, what does the Bible say, what does God say in other words, and then what does that mean to my expectations? I have to live the same with justification by faith. Justification by faith is in the real world since it was written in scripture. We start with scripture, then we expect it to happen---that's faith. Don't look into conspiracy theories, tin foiled hat-wearers out there. I don't have money in a "textual family" or even a school to which I must condescend. You can interview my racially diverse congregation to see if I am authoritarian. They believe the same way I do because they start with scripture like I do. I was a biblical language major and have taught 1st, 2nd, 3rd year Greek.<br /><br />Two things.<br /><br />Regarding the spiritual ethereal words of Jesus view in Matthew 24:35. Matthew 24:35 is axiomatic. The words of Jesus that don't pass away are all His Words. There is logic to this too. In John 16:13, you can see in the surrounding context, and this is theological, that Jesus' Words are the Father's Words and the Holy Spirit's Words. That means that Old Testament Words are Jesus' Words. The Words in John 16:13 are written Words, and as you move along into John 17, they are the Words for everyone who Jesus prays for there, because all the promises of John 14-16 are applied to all. Jesus Words will not pass away, not Word, but Words, plural. Earlier, when Jesus said scripture cannot be broken, He made an argument from a single Word, and He was saying that He could make that argument because scripture continued.<br /><br />If words in John 16-17 are scripture, then they are in Matthew 24:35. You can't separate those.<br /><br />Two, the LXX. People look at "the" LXX, when there is no "the LXX." Someone's going to have a problem either way if he says that Jesus quoted the Septuagint, because it wouldn't be uniform. Owen says concerning the places where there is agreement, "Christian users and copiers of the Septuagint would naturally adapt their quotations to those given in the New Testament." A high view of inspiration and preservation says that Christian translators and copyists took the New Testament quotes and adapted the Old Testament passages to them. Jesus was speaking in Greek and targumming. I've written a lot about these, but Bert Perry counts linking to articles as avoiding the question.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-7684335728557826422017-06-14T12:20:59.701-07:002017-06-14T12:20:59.701-07:00Andy,
I linked to your comment. I read your comm...Andy,<br /><br />I linked to your comment. I read your comment. I'm saying your are short shrifting it on dependability. It's not dependable if it passes away. It's saying it won't pass away. Why not admit that?<br /><br />Pretty typical of those who don't want this to say or mean what it says, then they go into something like you do, that it isn't actually a physical copy, like heaven and earth are physical. No it's out there in some other way. This is not how believers have understood this promise. You don't have it if you don't have a physical copy and then it isn't dependable.<br /><br />I've been preaching through John very slowly now for a few years on Sun AM, and I'm in John 16 right now. When Jesus said that the disciples would be guided into all truth, do you think it meant intangible truth, truth out there in the ether, or was that the New Testament?<br /><br />The Old Covenant came with a written Testament. The New Covenant is assumed to come with writing. We know writing came. They came with writing. What were the words that didn't pass away in light of all of Jesus' teaching? They were written.<br /><br />Where are the words they are depending on, Andy? <br /><br />I do see this argument, the ethereal words in the mist are dependable, because I can't say that we have them, we possess them in a physical way. When has something passed away if we're not talking about something anyone has?<br /><br />What Jesus said was verbal in John 16 and 17 too. You can't have it both ways.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72020507193473735512017-06-14T11:49:14.829-07:002017-06-14T11:49:14.829-07:00FWIW, I actually said it meant two things:
"...FWIW, I actually said it meant two things:<br /><br />"What I see is (1) the eternality of God’s Word and (2) the absolute faithfulness and dependability of God’s Word – more dependable than even the continued existence of heaven and earth!"<br /><br />I'm not saying less than what Jesus said and I agree that they are more than dependable. I'm just taking "will not pass away" a different way than you are. The eternality of Jesus' words do not depend on them being physically indestructible. In fact, what Jesus said was verbal. His words were not even committed to paper via inspiration until several years later. Did his words pass away until the time they were breathed out as part of Scripture? No, they didn't exist on paper anywhere but they had not passed away, either.Andy Eftingnoreply@blogger.com