tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post6760382302489198974..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Is Being a Believer, Believing Scripture about Scripture?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40735139494009746582017-06-09T14:22:08.245-07:002017-06-09T14:22:08.245-07:00Bob:
I meant I hadn't written the articles an...Bob:<br /><br />I meant I hadn't written the articles and personally translated the texts yet. That doesn't mean I haven't read them, pondered them, and don't have an option on them! Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-35199512044331617682017-06-09T12:45:52.867-07:002017-06-09T12:45:52.867-07:00Mr. Brandenburg,
I had sent you another comment, ...Mr. Brandenburg,<br /><br />I had sent you another comment, not sure if you got it. No worries if it didn't make the cut.<br /><br />Tyler Robbins,<br /><br />It seems like you've set yourself up for eisegesis. You're saying 1) you have not exegeted the texts, and 2) you know that the texts do not mean Mr. Brandenburg's view. <br /><br />How can you already know that? I mean that as a sincere question. What is shaping your thinking to already know that the TR view can't be right?<br /><br />BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54184210174876499872017-06-08T10:14:22.425-07:002017-06-08T10:14:22.425-07:00Kent:
As I mentioned in an email to you the other...Kent:<br /><br />As I mentioned in an email to you the other day, I hope some people at SI will comment on the exegesis. I think this is where the rubber meets the road. What do these passages teach? You have to deal with the text, then form a systematic doctrine of preservation. It has to be that way. It's the way you do theology. <br /><br />It's why I need to write my response articles - not because I'm an earth-shattering exegete, but so I can document my own thoughts about these passages so you better understand where I'm coming from. Discussion about preservation is pointless unless you go to the text. Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8744111676684458712017-06-08T10:04:46.034-07:002017-06-08T10:04:46.034-07:00Kent:
I'll do my best to be more blunt:
1. Y...Kent:<br /><br />I'll do my best to be more blunt:<br /><br />1. Yes, I believe God preserved every word for believers here on earth. I just don't think He did it the way you believe He did. <br /><br />2. I know there are more passages to cite about preservation. A book can only be so long, and I realize you could only include a portion of the evidence. What I did see is not convincing, for reasons I briefly explained in the post above. <br /><br />3. I realize I haven't written any response articles yet. I will. This issue isn't as important to me as some other projects I have percolating right now. But, it is something I plan to get to. I am certain, however, that the world isn't waiting breathlessly for my articles. <br /><br />4. I do respect your position and try to understand it as best as I can. I recommend your book on SI anytime the subject comes up. I think it is a good book. I just disagree with you. I don't have scorn or contempt for your position. Some people do. I don't. I hope that comes across clearly. <br /><br />I'll send you a link when I start getting the articles written. As I mentioned, 1 Peter 1:22-25 will likely be coming soon. I just translated it this morning, and looked at the quotation from Isa 40:8 in the LXX and BHS. I'll send you a link when I get it done. Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11543350583212344692017-06-08T09:58:27.114-07:002017-06-08T09:58:27.114-07:00Tyler,
I just went to SI to see if there were new...Tyler,<br /><br />I just went to SI to see if there were new comments, and I saw that you had put up a new post and I saw the four comments.<br /><br />None of them comment on whether the exegesis was good. None. I never mentioned the TR, and we did that in that section on purpose. We're just talking about the doctrine of preservation. What these men show is that they don't get their doctrine from scripture, which is the point of my post above. They should just admit it. They depend on something akin to experience, tradition, or so-called science for doctrine. <br /><br />I think you do too. I'm not sure, but I don't have any reason for thinking otherwise. Everything you write says this.<br />Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-63944944693388531722017-06-08T09:52:28.333-07:002017-06-08T09:52:28.333-07:00Tyler,
In a second book on history, there would l...Tyler,<br /><br />In a second book on history, there would likely be a section again covering other passages on preservation not covered in the first, two of which I've written a thorough article either at Jackhammer on Isaiah 59:21<br /><br />https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/isaiah-5921-and-the-perfect-preservation-of-scripture/<br /><br />And then Revelation 22:18-19<br /><br />https://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/revelation-2218-19-and-the-perfect-preservation-of-scripture/<br /><br />We knew there was more to write about.<br /><br />So you don't believe that the Bible teaches that God would preserve every Word for usage by believers on earth?<br /><br />Yes or No.<br /><br />What is your biblical basis for getting confidence for the authority of scripture, what we actually have, from men doing their best with manuscript evidence?<br /><br />You comment above is very ambiguous. I was just watching the Comey testimony. I had the same feeling from your comment as I did from watching him.<br /><br />It's hard to deal with ambiguity, but it's easy to make conclusions based on ambiguity. You don't have anything out there, but you still come to the conclusion. I like my writings better than your no writings, and my writings are much easier to critique.<br /><br />I believe that men today are colored by modern textual criticism, biased by it, to find the Bible teaching something other than what it says. Before modern textual criticism, men saw preservation in scripture and afterwards that teaching disappears. It makes it hard to believe, even though so far there is nothing offered, just conclusions and pot shots at those who do write.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-63311297400728727402017-06-08T08:38:41.562-07:002017-06-08T08:38:41.562-07:00Kent:
In a nutshell, I don't think the passag...Kent:<br /><br />In a nutshell, I don't think the passages TSKT uses support your position. I don't think many of them are about preservation at all. That is the crux of my disagreement, and why I do not see preservation the way you do. I mentioned a few years ago, in another thread, that I plan to write a short article on each Scriptural passage commonly used to support this kind of preservation, and demonstrate why I believe it either (a) isn't referring to preservation at all, or (b) doesn't support the kind of preservation you think it does. <br /><br />I still plan to tackle that one day. I may do 1 Peter 1:22-25 soon; I'm preaching through Peter's epistles again and translating the text as I go. I'll send you a link if I do it. Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43572856547540166302017-06-07T13:20:02.048-07:002017-06-07T13:20:02.048-07:00Tyler Robbins,
Is there a book you can recommend ...Tyler Robbins,<br /><br />Is there a book you can recommend that gave you your Textual Criticism view?<br /><br />I'm not talking about a book that just questions the TR view, but one that says "here is a verse that teaches Textual Criticism is something Christians have to do."<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Mr. Brandenburg, <br /><br />One, your statement, "Is the Bible the sole authority when its meaning comes from non-inspired information?" seems to get to the heart of the difference between the two views. But then consequently don't you get accused of circular reasoning? (Perhaps the other view should as well.) How do you respond to that?<br /><br />And two, your point about "how does one know we have 66 books in the canon" never really gets answered in these debates. Can you elaborate on why you keep asking that question in this context of the text and translation debate.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89748756083949295452017-06-07T12:54:32.598-07:002017-06-07T12:54:32.598-07:00Tyler,
First, how does our position not line up w...Tyler,<br /><br />First, how does our position not line up with what scripture teaches, how does it not fulfill a scriptural model? I recognize that what we did was lap up Benjamin Wilkinson and the go looking for passages to support him, at least that's what CNN and MSNBC say, but how is our position NOT the biblical position?<br /><br />Second, I don't mind straightforward commentary. It's the many lies that show no evidence. Unsubstantiated gross misstatements or falsehoods, said like they were gospel truth without correction. I have to clear them up, and then they retract, right? No, they just go a different direction, because the point is to make something stick that discredits.<br /><br />As an example, Mark Ward. I critiqued his post. Did I misrepresent him? No. I linked directly to him, quoted from him, dealt with his arguments. I did hit him directly, but that was only his reliance on a kind of mockery or scorn. He also won't let me comment there. I wrote one comment, he answered, I followed, so I wrote another comment, and he wouldn't publish it.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88903595340513508512017-06-07T09:57:51.465-07:002017-06-07T09:57:51.465-07:00All:
I tentatively plan on posting an excerpt at ...All:<br /><br />I tentatively plan on posting an excerpt at SI this Thursday providing a Scriptural argument from TSKT. We'll see what kind of interaction we get from commentators on a Biblical text. Looking forward to it. <br /><br />Whether you agree or disagree with the TR position, I think TSKT is the best thing I've seen from this perspective. I chose to post the issue of epistemology first, because I think it is foundational to the position. So, next, I'll post an argument from the book about preservation, based on a passage of Scripture. <br /><br />I encourage some of ya'll to comment there. Some regular commentators can be caustic, to be sure, but just be willing to get through that. There are a bunch of people who would welcome an interaction. I regularly comment here, even though Bro. Brandenburg and I (along with some commentators!) don't see eye to eye on everything. I have learned from folks here. <br /><br />Take care! Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-34084705630501650812017-06-07T09:30:22.438-07:002017-06-07T09:30:22.438-07:00Mat,
Your comment is right one.
Bobby Mitchell,
...Mat,<br /><br />Your comment is right one.<br /><br />Bobby Mitchell,<br /><br />Thanks. I'm glad you're reading, it is a blessing, and I agree that it's just explaining what the Bible says.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-33693909808020881512017-06-07T08:08:40.033-07:002017-06-07T08:08:40.033-07:00Just a few weeks ago (before the SI article) I sta...Just a few weeks ago (before the SI article) I started reading through TSKT. I am reading it slowly, just a few pages a day, as part of my devotional time. <br />I've had it since it was first published and I now wish I would have read it when I first obtained it. I have found it to be a tremendous exposition of the Bible passages that teach inspiration and preservation. In reading some of the comments at SI I am left wondering if those commenting have even read the same book I'm reading!<br /><br />Bobby Mitchellhttp://whatisgoddoing.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88199875250318739412017-06-07T04:53:32.486-07:002017-06-07T04:53:32.486-07:00I read the comments at SI. That used to be my “cam...I read the comments at SI. That used to be my “camp” (Northland, Maranatha, Central, etc.), so I shouldn’t be surprised. But, it still amazes me how with such confidence they obscure the truth. To them “KJVO” is this little straw man that they have built that is so fun and easy to knock down. If they can just slide you into the Ruckman / Riplinger category, then they can just sit back and mock instead of actually dealing with the scriptures.<br /><br />These people (by in large) don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. That is their problem. They have a Neo-orthodox view of preservation (concept rather than words). That is why I left them behind. They don’t trust God’s Word as the sole authority of faith and practice, though they say they do. They have no real answers as to their now lack of a stance on the scripture, music, dress, etc. Just a combination of mocking and saying the same thing enough times to make them believe it’s true.<br /><br />The comments at SI are a prime example. Your position (which is the same as mine) is that God preserved every word and is available. The Bible clearly teaches that. Theirs is, at best, “God certainly can preserve his words. God DID preserve his words. But not in the way Kent thinks.” Well, please tell us how he did then! I guess it’s just enough to know that it’s “not the way Kent thinks”. Nothing to see here, everybody back to their CT.<br />For every single supposed historical “gotcha” they have of our position, it is FAR worse for theirs. One says, “a TR-only view, though commendable, raises very unusual questions”. Really, but a CT position doesn’t raise any questions—like, how am I supposed to live on every word of God, when they tell me I can’t know if I have them (Matthew 4:4)? Or, how can all scripture be profitable for doctrine, when not all scripture is necessary, just as long as we don’t lose any (major) doctrines?<br /><br />One claims that everything we believe rests on I Tim. 3:15. That’s an important verse, to be sure. I don’t know about you, Kent, but that verse didn’t factor much into me coming to this position. Their comments make your case for you—they trust more in what history says Erasmus did or didn’t do, then what God said He would do.<br /><br />Mat DvorachekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6129008039308133322017-06-06T21:30:44.566-07:002017-06-06T21:30:44.566-07:00Everyone,
I'm going to be attempting to answ...Everyone, <br /><br />I'm going to be attempting to answer all the SI stuff, but I want to provide a preemptive strike. I don't know the total number lies or careless misstatements, but the former at least 6-12, probably more, and the letter, dozens. They are poor, just poor. But they'll be the victim, looking for a good spirit and a right tone. The tone police out. Playing the victim, like Adam in the Garden. Bob Hayton appears out of the woodwork there, like he does, with his vindictive spirit. Vengeance is his.<br /><br />What do they provide? Anything positive. Do they have a doctrine to buttress the weak and feebleminded? No. No doctrine, just attack. Nothing to buoy a world without certainty. They would say, of course, that I find certainty where there is none, so where is their certainty. They're wrong, but I still await anybody's positive biblical presentation that isn't counting manuscripts and comparing it to Plato in trustworthiness.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67924950147325759562017-06-06T18:13:35.771-07:002017-06-06T18:13:35.771-07:00Bob,
I haven't really dealt with the SI artic...Bob,<br /><br />I haven't really dealt with the SI article or the comments. There are so many errors, it would take a small book to deal with all of it, but there are so many lies.<br /><br />One of the big ones is the last one right now by the owner of SI, Aaron Blumer, who writes (https://sharperiron.org/comment/92945#comment-92945):<br /><br />"TSKT et al. relies on history rather than Scripture to support its view, but history is even less supportive than the Bible is."<br /><br />It is a book that exegetes scripture, reports on what scripture says, and Blumer says that it relies on history rather than scripture. What an absolute lie. Read each of the chapters, see if the book is relying on history. He provides no reason to even make the statement.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21080021455754751682017-06-06T17:15:56.051-07:002017-06-06T17:15:56.051-07:00Bob,
Ward isn't depending on historical theol...Bob,<br /><br />Ward isn't depending on historical theology. Historical theology has precedent in history and what Ward teaches came later to conform the new reality of errors in scripture with a theological position. It's not historical though. I'm speaking about historical criticism, which is much different.<br /><br />No, no one wrote a theology buttressing textual criticism. The founders of textual criticism, which is modern textual criticism, because there is revisionist history today to make the Westminster divines textual criticism, were mostly unbelievers, who didn't care whether the Bible had errors in it.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55051561390300816532017-06-06T17:13:23.572-07:002017-06-06T17:13:23.572-07:00James,
That is where the slippery slope sends us,...James,<br /><br />That is where the slippery slope sends us, but to start, he's just plain wrong.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-46614075542858741572017-06-06T14:11:47.686-07:002017-06-06T14:11:47.686-07:00R.L. Dabney in The Sensualistic Philosophy of the ...R.L. Dabney in <i>The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century</i>: <br /><br />"It not only denies to the spirit of man all innate ideas, but all innate powers of originating ideas, save those given us from our senses. It consequently attempts to account for every general and every abstract judgment, as an empirical result of our sensations, and consistently denies the validity of any <i>a priori</i> ideas."<br /><br />Whether Ward realizes/acknowledges it or not, he cleverly and articulately laid out an approach to interpreting the Scriptures that, stripped bare of his verbiage and repeated protests of sincerity, is nothing more than the same sensualism that Dabney warned of in his day. I doubt Ward would take it to its consistent ends (and I'd be thankful for such inconsistencies on his part), but the results of such thinking over the years has certainly proved instructive.James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81997278705767601092017-06-06T14:03:08.688-07:002017-06-06T14:03:08.688-07:00Mr. Brandenburg,
Just to sum up my understanding ...Mr. Brandenburg,<br /><br />Just to sum up my understanding of what's happening between the two websites: 1) You say you wrote TSKT to give a biblical theology of scripture, not a historical view, 2) You think the points being raised by Mr. Ward and the writers at Sharper Iron are not biblical points but historical points, 3) You've got a different book coming out that will deal with historical points. Is that right?<br /><br />Is there a biblical theology of the Textual Criticism view that Mr. Ward and the writers at Sharper Iron (Aaron Blumer, Tyler Robbins, Thomas Overmiller, Bob Hayton, etc) either use or wrote themselves? Surely someone has done the work on this, and surely they can't be holding to the practice of Textual Criticism without any Scriptures to command it. Some of their questions really got me thinking, and I think both sides make some good points.<br /><br />Also, on a minor note, it was interesting to see Bert Perry say that "every ancient Greek manuscript we have is different" when Mr. Ross has demonstrated here that that statement is actually not 100% accurate.<br /><br />I think these discussions you have here are helpful to a lot of people, and I think it's good to see they are interacting with your book.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br /><br />Bob Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-58618791195654282462017-06-06T13:56:30.135-07:002017-06-06T13:56:30.135-07:00I'd like to apply Mark's principles of pro...I'd like to apply Mark's principles of providence to the current transgender onslaught against the binary biological fact of male and female. The Bible says God made them male and female. Using Ward's reasoning that one requires "creation and providence...for interpreting the Bible," I can see a hermaphrodite and conclude that when the Bible says God created them male and female, it means he created them with gender fluidity, because creation can give me such an interpretation. After all, he made "them" "male and female." Not "he made one male and one female." Rejoice, believers! Thanks to this new epistemology (which is not new, but has consistently followed those who found the temporal draw too great to withstand), you don't need to suffer reproach or persecution over the so-called "transgender" ideology!<br /><br />Ten years ago, that analogy would have been scoffed at as frittering babble. But here we are, thanks in no small part to the experientialism Ward elevates above Scripture. Good thing for experience, right? I mean, you can't believe in the Trinity, without "experiencing it first"...or in creation <i>ex nihilo</i> without experiencing it first, right?...or a worldwide catastrophic flood in which the world is judged and one man and his family and all the kinds of the earth's animals are saved alive in a giant floating box, right? Or how about resurrection from the dead? Or how about the eternal knowledge of God? Keep going down that path, Mark, and don't be surprised when you wind up mouthing the same sentiments as the rationalists and atheists.<br /><br />One additional observation: Ward's argument (under the sub-heading "KJV-Onlyism and Sources of Revelation") is nearly identical to the reasoning I have frequently encountered from Ruckmanites and Riplingerites over the years. Perhaps knowing this will help him end his struggle to "come up with circumstances in which [he] could become a Ruckmanite."James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.com