tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post496139535587323675..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Embarrassing History of the Doctrine of Preservation for the Multiple VersionistsKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91875889586482182922012-06-13T09:58:51.933-07:002012-06-13T09:58:51.933-07:00Steve,
I'm pretty sure he's serious. He ...Steve,<br /><br />I'm pretty sure he's serious. He does, as much as you can't see it as anything but a spoof, essentially give the MV type of talking points. They works because they are unchallenged in that world, like evolution in a public school.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3672852463122648112012-06-12T19:01:18.674-07:002012-06-12T19:01:18.674-07:00Someone please tell me this whole comment thread i...Someone please tell me this whole comment thread is a comedy relief spoof by Pastor Brandenburg and Pastor Webb and that this "Doctor" and his "make money traveling and selling my writings" blog/website is a joke. Now I know how brainwashed some fundamentalists have become with talking points and straw men, especially regarding the preservation of the text, but this is ridiculous. And so, whereas, we, (I'm sorry, I mean I) find the labeling of those of us who believe the historic position of a perfectly preserved text, as "Heretics" nauseating, we ( I really mean I) will not comment further, except to say amen to the article and an even heartier amen to Bro. Webb's defense.Steve Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920334627083544106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-63956864867529876302012-06-12T11:55:17.577-07:002012-06-12T11:55:17.577-07:00I could not have said it better than what Dr. Webb...I could not have said it better than what Dr. Webb said it. I'm sure he and I could say even more about your comment.<br /><br />I've found that most fundamentalists don't know historical bibliology. If they did, one would think that they would interact with what men wrote in the 16th-18th century on bibliology, but they choose to ignore it. From my reading of your idea of "heresy," you yourself would be the heretick, because you divide from historic bibliology. Our position is the biblical and historical one, not based on emotion or even mere intellectualism. I would be interested in your establishing modern textual criticism from the Bible. I haven't read one of those yet, so I welcome your biblical presentation.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32402446161659925472012-06-12T11:42:24.888-07:002012-06-12T11:42:24.888-07:00Dr. Khoury,
I was also going to ask you if you ha...Dr. Khoury,<br /><br />I was also going to ask you if you had read the posts, since you did not see Dr. Brandenburg's statement about the Hebrew & Greek texts. We are "King James only" because the King James translation is based upon the proper, preserved, original language texts, and not the texts of rationalistic, textual criticism. Also, you seemed to miss that my comments indicated that my position on the textual debate is not based upon "emotion" but upon what the Bible teaches itself. What the Bible teaches is "fact" regardless of what "scholars" say.<br /><br />I do not believe you base your textual position upon a "grammatical, historical interpretation" of Scripture as your website claims. Your statement on the Scriptures says: "We similarly believe that the Lord God faithfully has preserved the original Biblical Texts in the sum total of the manuscripts extant thus far." Since the "sum total" includes corrupt texts that vary greatly, how would you know what the actual, original readings are? You also indicate a distrust in the Word of God preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic & Greek Received texts, saying: "Therefore, we believe that doctrine should be established solely from those passages about which Textual Criticism has raised no doubts." This is not Biblical faith, but rationalism. <br /><br />Your website says that saving faith is essential to proper interpretation. I agree. However, it is also obvious to me that infidel scholars produced the Critical Text [Aland, Metzger, Black, Martini, etc.] and that their rules for textual criticism are not Biblical, but are rationalistic unbelief. If an infidel cannot interpret Scripture, should he be allowed to determine what the text of Scripture is? <br /><br />I would encourage you to read a little further on Brandenburg's blog. Here you will read a Scriptural defense of the "King James only" position which does not in any way claim what your blog states: "Whereas we believe that claiming inerrancy to the KJV erroneously elevates its authority above its own underlying texts, and necessarily introduces the heretical notion of advanced revelation; and..." We do not claim any "advanced revelation" in the translation of the KJB. The KJ translation merely accurately translates the original texts.<br /><br />Unfortunately, many who hold to the Critical Text position, as you do, are completely ignorant of the Scriptural, logical, factual position of those who hold a "King James only" position BECAUSE of the preserved, original language texts from which the King James translation was made. You should not respond to what you think you know, but rather to what we have actually written.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26014401930063284492012-06-12T09:58:51.727-07:002012-06-12T09:58:51.727-07:00Dr. Khoury,
Thanks for coming by. It's too b...Dr. Khoury,<br /><br />Thanks for coming by. It's too bad that you either (a) didn't read the post itself, or (b) didn't understand it. I would think, as a professing M.A. Th.D. you would have had suitable reading comprehension to do so. Your comment reads as a cut and paste. So I ask that you interact with the post instead of cutting and pasting something you wrote about people who believe differently than the post.<br /><br />I am interested in what you believe the "Original Text" is, because we believe preservation is found in the God-breathed Original Text, not in the English.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24526360550310234472012-06-12T08:02:29.170-07:002012-06-12T08:02:29.170-07:00The KJV-only position is emotional rather than fac...The KJV-only position is emotional rather than factual. So are its proponents above.<br /><br />It is evident to us that some of our contemporary brethren have adopted the peculiar doctrine that the Lord God has failed to preserve the God-breathed Original Text of the Holy Scriptures, and that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is now the preserved, infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God for the English-speaking people of the world. Accordingly, we declare the following:<br /> <br />Whereas it is evident to us that such radical and outrageous claims are founded in fiction rather than in fact, that this false teaching is often white-washed as doing honor to the Word of God, that it has become to its proponents a cure all for issues of Biblical authority, that it has been the source of many more problems than it attempts to resolve, and that it has become a divisive issue among many good and well-meaning brethren; and,<br /><br />Whereas we agree, in a colloquial fashion, that every fairly accurate and reliable translation of the Holy Scriptures is the Word of God, we assert that verbal inspiration and its resultant character -- preservation, inerrancy, and infallibility -- belong exclusively to the God-breathed Original Text in its original autographs; and,<br /><br />Whereas we believe that claiming inerrancy to the KJV erroneously elevates its authority above its own underlying texts, and necessarily introduces the heretical notion of advanced revelation; and,<br /><br />Whereas we believe that such teaching seeks to discredit and to undermine the integrity and the authority of the God-breathed Original Text in its original languages, and is therefore a subtle and a disguised attack upon the inspired Word of God in the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; <br /><br />We therefore pronounce this relatively newly invented dogma attributed to the lost and repeatedly revised 1611 KJV as heretical, and we pronounce its teachers heretics. Accordingly, we believe that members of the modern KJV-only Movement, after the first and second admonition without repentance, must be marked publicly and must be separated from, by all who love our Lord Jesus in sincerity.<br /><br />Dr. Habib J. Khoury, M.A., TH.D.<br />http://blog.bamicounseling.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28415125128381361262012-06-11T13:00:53.659-07:002012-06-11T13:00:53.659-07:00In my only sit-down conversation with someone trai...In my only sit-down conversation with someone trained at BJU who holds to the Critical Text position, he asked me my reasons for holding to the KJV only position. I proceeded to go from passage to passage. I went to Matthew 5:18-19 & pointed out that Jesus said that not a single one of the smallest Hebrew consonants would be lost, nor any of the vowel pointing, AND that the text determined the "least commandments" that we were to obey. His reply: "So?" I went to other passages like Revelation 22:18-19 & showed that, in order to know if someone had changed the "words of this book", there had to first be a settle New Testament text. I showed him that by the omission of one word ("yet) in John 7:8, that the Critical Text made Jesus a liar. But, low and behold, no matter what I showed him from the Bible, it made no difference to him. I came away baffled as to how a "fundamentalist" could care so little about what the Bible taught on this issue. I assume it did not matter to him what the Bible taught because the word of his professors carried more weight.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.com