tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7384583949496891896..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Brainwashed BibliologyKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49354280093024304662009-03-04T12:47:00.000-08:002009-03-04T12:47:00.000-08:00Jason,For a man to say he believes two different B...Jason,<BR/><BR/>For a man to say he believes two different Bibles that say two different things, is logically untenable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56322899951879670572009-03-02T03:07:00.000-08:002009-03-02T03:07:00.000-08:00Thanks Kent. Glad to hear it. =)I think this discu...Thanks Kent. Glad to hear it. =)<BR/><BR/>I think this discussion has come to the end of its usefulness for the most part, but I look forward to the possibility of moving forward with your posted thoughts on epistemology at some point.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-47482995342546597112009-03-01T18:26:00.000-08:002009-03-01T18:26:00.000-08:00Jason,The comment section on my dashboard says, "N...Jason,<BR/><BR/>The comment section on my dashboard says, "No unmoderated comments found." I'm sorry if something happened to your comment, but it wasn't me. I've had the same kind of thing happen with either blogger or wordpress, but it wasn't me deleting it.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9596453888372680522009-03-01T16:20:00.000-08:002009-03-01T16:20:00.000-08:00Ok. Well, if my responses aren't going to be poste...Ok. Well, if my responses aren't going to be posted, there's no point continuing.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-84933713558698654582009-02-28T18:38:00.000-08:002009-02-28T18:38:00.000-08:00I posted a response to Bobby Mitchell which hasn't...I posted a response to Bobby Mitchell which hasn't shown up. Perhaps Kent can let me know if I didn't submit it correctly.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-41696459524109445172009-02-27T05:37:00.000-08:002009-02-27T05:37:00.000-08:00>Your rhetoric about the Traditional Text becom...>Your rhetoric about the Traditional Text becomes meaningless once you admit that the Traditional Text also contains thousands of variants. You have the same problem I have. The only difference is, I go to the autographs to solve it. You go to 1611.<BR/><BR/>Spelling and punctuation vs. the Shepherd of Hermas and Arian corruption throughout. Jason, you won't ever change your position here, fallen man is too vain and prideful and self-willful to do that; but as time carries on try to see that you are currently in a very empty (vain) state and heading to even more emptiness. proponentproponentThe Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69263319296702161012009-02-26T22:04:00.000-08:002009-02-26T22:04:00.000-08:00Bobby Mitchell,I do indeed "submit to the Word of ...Bobby Mitchell,<BR/><BR/>I do indeed "submit to the Word of God that proceeded out of the mouth of God and has been kept by the power of God through the churches of God for the glory of God."<BR/><BR/>The problem is you are equivocating because by Word of God you actually mean TR or KJV. In other words, you've read your extra-biblical conclusions into the text of Scripture and then treated them as binding for me. That's called eisegesis. That's putting words in God's mouth.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86805382140652112172009-02-26T20:13:00.000-08:002009-02-26T20:13:00.000-08:00Jason,David admitted that he was simple and humble...Jason,<BR/><BR/>David admitted that he was simple and humble about receiving God's Words. He submitted to them and claimed that since he did he had more understanding than the ancients and his teachers! I suppose you would have rebuked him for arrogancy too.<BR/><BR/>The arrogancy here is actually the possession of you who refuse to submit to the Word of God that proceeded out of the mouth of God and has been kept by the power of God through the churches of God for the glory of God! You can try to find God's Word(s) with your faithless science falsely so-called. I'll rejoice in the Word(s) of God and, by His grace, I'll submit to it and preach it for His purposes and glory. <BR/><BR/>I'm out for now and I'll leave you to the Lord.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-14234428123991950972009-02-26T16:53:00.000-08:002009-02-26T16:53:00.000-08:00Joshua,If you intentionally add to or take away fr...Joshua,<BR/><BR/>If you intentionally add to or take away from God's Word, then the passage applies to you.<BR/><BR/>But there is no evidence that the variants we have today came about by intentional manipulation, and even if they did come about that way, the passage applies to the person who knowingly did it, not to those who are left with the variant. Trying to apply this passage to only one side of this debate (as if it couldn't be applied to the other side as well) is a scare tactic. It puts a lot of pressure on by twisting the Word to say what it doesn't say.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Puritan,<BR/><BR/>Your statement about Moby Dick/The Magic Mountain is not true even with the most hyperbolic of interpretations. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are almost identical as are ALL the extant MSS. The variants in the NT text are proportionately very few. Of course I understand they matter and that's why we're having this discussion, but inaccurate statements like the one you just made aren't helpful. <BR/><BR/>The "standard" you seek is in the text that you refer to. "The words of the prophecy of this book." That's it. So if you know a word is there and you deliberately remove it, the passage applies to you.<BR/><BR/>Your rhetoric about the Traditional Text becomes meaningless once you admit that the Traditional Text also contains thousands of variants. You have the same problem I have. The only difference is, I go to the autographs to solve it. You go to 1611.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bobby Mitchell,<BR/><BR/>I assumed nothing about your conversation with this young man. My comments were based directly on what you said in your post (check out the words I put in quotations to see where I made my inferences).<BR/><BR/>Your post contains ad hominem attacks, condescension, and invalid logic. Additionally, your attitude of if-you-were-as-humble-and-godly-as-me-you'd-be-able-to-see-it is arrogant and cultish.<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing you haven't had many people tell you that before. But it's true.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21628516874987236022009-02-26T07:56:00.000-08:002009-02-26T07:56:00.000-08:00Jason,You write as if you were present and able to...Jason,<BR/><BR/>You write as if you were present and able to judge by observing the conversation I had with the BJU student.<BR/><BR/>Well, you weren't.<BR/><BR/>You are right about lines being drawn and separation over the issue. I've been convinced of that for years. We are Word-receivers. You are Word-correctors, re-writers, and, ultimately, rejecters. <BR/><BR/>I have no problem separating with anyone over the Word of God. It is our basis for everything we believe and practice. I am happy to be part of a NT church that is the "pillar and ground of the truth." I lead the church in "keeping the Words" just as the pastor at Ephesus did. He was commended by the Lord for doing that. <BR/><BR/>These things are plain to those who are humble and teachable. There is no great mystery in how God has kept His words. <BR/><BR/>The proud and contentious, such as you and Bob Hayton, will not receive the truth concerning preservation and I am in complete agreement that we should not have any real fellowship together because of that. <BR/><BR/>The only reason I engage you at all (and it is very little) is that there are others who may be strengthened to flee from your false teaching to the truth taught and practiced in historic New Testament Baptist churches. <BR/><BR/>May the Lord grant you eyes to see and ears to hear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89116751612141051632009-02-26T04:37:00.000-08:002009-02-26T04:37:00.000-08:00>Your use of Rev 22:18-19 is an example of it. ...>Your use of Rev 22:18-19 is an example of it. No one is adding or taking away. All the data for both texts is there, preserved by God.<BR/><BR/>To put it charitably, this is naive.<BR/><BR/>Without a standard there can *be no* adding to or taking away.<BR/><BR/>Critical Text scholars pose a Platonic original text then practically - of necessity - use primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as their 'standard' for adding to or taking away. Considering those two 'witnesses' differ with each other more than <I>Moby Dick</I> differs from <I>The Magic Mountain</I> your default, practical 'standard' is rather laughable.<BR/><BR/>The Christians who died for the Word of God, defending it through all the eras of the history of redemption, handing it on to believers today knew what their standard was and could hold it in their hands. It's called the Traditional Text. <BR/><BR/>God always has His remnant, and His remnant always has the Traditional Text. You have it too, if you can see it, value it, and accept it. But that is a matter of vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will holding tyranny within you, or not. Pray for the latter.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21394682573052074912009-02-25T23:47:00.000-08:002009-02-25T23:47:00.000-08:00You said: Your use of Rev 22:18-19 is an example o...You said: Your use of Rev 22:18-19 is an example of it. No one is adding or taking away. All the data for both texts is there, preserved by God.<BR/><BR/>Again, the logical implications of your statements are untenable.<BR/><BR/>If I made a copy of a Greek text, then inserted "not" between was and manifest in "God was manifest in the flesh", according to you, this isn't an addition, because God has preserved other manuscripts.<BR/><BR/>Basically, you've made God's curse null and void. It is now impossible for ANY man to add or take away from God's Word, because He's preserved other manuscripts. You are making the Word of God of none effect through your scientific traditions.<BR/><BR/>You can claim God has preserved all the data for both texts, but that doesn't make both texts the preserved Word of God. If it is, then God preserved 1 and 2 Maccabee's, better put that in the Bible too. Better yet, I still have extant copies of my Yr 7 essays, clearly God has preserved them as well. Same logic.<BR/><BR/>Let me guess - you're going to give me a 1 line answer, then continue to add further oneliners about how we're corrupters and twisters of Scripture. You've already stated you're not going to back up your claims - why are you still here?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14387781402317600423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69669810459384551532009-02-25T19:33:00.000-08:002009-02-25T19:33:00.000-08:00Puritan,That was a creative way to direct an ad ho...Puritan,<BR/><BR/>That was a creative way to direct an ad hominem attack.<BR/><BR/>Gary,<BR/><BR/>Ok. Since you insist. "God's Word in Our Hands." *sigh*<BR/><BR/>Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say your "approach is wrong because [you] used Scripture as the basis for making [your] decisions on the text." I said you twisted and abused Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Your use of Rev 22:18-19 is an example of it. No one is adding or taking away. All the data for both texts is there, preserved by God.<BR/><BR/>Bob,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for trying to draw some fire.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12724748609259752302009-02-25T12:57:00.000-08:002009-02-25T12:57:00.000-08:00To clarify, I wrote my most recent post quickly on...To clarify, I wrote my most recent post quickly on my lunch break, so I overlooked "verbal" and "inerrant". I have done exegesis on a lot of these passages and really evaluated them, and I disagree with some of what Kent is saying they obviously mean. I agree I have more work to do to clean up my presentation of this bibliology. Also, on 1 Sam. 13:1, I don't think we have to say we can only use Hebrew manuscripts. The manuscript evidence we have from Hebrew and Greek, and Aramaic texts, contains all of God's words. My position is somewhat open on this point, however, to be honest.<BR/><BR/>As for the targumming, I would hold that Jesus is showing us that exact verbatim quotes are not necessary, and exact verbatim agreement is not required for a text to be considered Scripture. This should influence our bibliologies.Bob Haytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176224396073767674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74255320514055173062009-02-25T11:38:00.000-08:002009-02-25T11:38:00.000-08:00Bob,You wrote: "You are getting beaten up over he...Bob,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "You are getting beaten up over here. That's one of the reasons I come over here so seldom."<BR/><BR/>Awww Bob, you poor thing. What is that you do at your blog with people who disagree with you? You are far more bossy over there than we are here. I never complain about how I'm treated at your blog. Jason can handle it, so you don't need to do the "hey, we're in this together" thing.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your stated biblical doctrine of bibliology, this is the first I remember seeing from you. I've never seen a scriptural defense of preservation from CT/eclectic position. It is interesting to look at. This may very well be the first listed bibliology in the history of the eclectic text. I might quote you as the first in history. I haven't read any that attempt to at all be complete.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "1) The Bible is God's inspired infallible Word. (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:20-21, and others)"<BR/><BR/>Is it verbally inspired? You left that out. I noticed infallible, but not inerrant. Without verbal and inerrant, it is a neo-orthodox statement. More importantly, it doesn't represent the very texts you referenced.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "2) The Bible preserves God's message to man. The oral message of the Gospel, and the oral prophetic preaching, was preserved through inspiration in the Bible. (Heb. 1:1-4; Rom. 3:2; Rom. 15:4; Joshua 1:8)"<BR/><BR/>God's message? So what is man and what is God in there? You are inferring that we have some of man in what we are reading. It's just the message preserved? That isn't a historic position on preservation. You mention Joshua 1:8---"all that is written therein." He isn't talking about something oral there.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "3) The Bible is our only infallible measure of determining true doctrine. (Acts 17:11; 2 Pet. 1:19)."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. But doctrine that comes from Words, not ideas.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "4) The possibility exists however for there to be wrong interpretations or wrong understandings of the Bible's message. (John 5:39; Luke 24:25-26, 45; 2 Pet. 3:16)"<BR/><BR/>Agreed. But 2 Peter 3:16 doesn't make that point. This is in stark contrast as well to the historic doctrine of perspecuity.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "5) We will be judged according to the Scripture on the last day. (John 12:48)"<BR/><BR/>John 12:48 says "words," Bob. That isn't good exegesis. And if "Scripture," as you describe it, is the same thing as what we read in 2 Timothy 3:16, graphe, then it means the very "writings."<BR/><BR/>"6) God's word will remain true and sure through all time (Is. 40:8; Ps. 119:89; Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25)"<BR/><BR/>True and sure? That's falling quite a bit short of what those verses say. I appreciate you putting your stake down on your bibliology, but you didn't get this point of doctrine from the Words of those verses. We don't get to make up what Scripture is saying. We have to take it for what it says, or it says nothing.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "7) God will guide His people by means of His Word, such that there will never be a complete apostasy from the true doctrine of Scripture. (Is. 59:21; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 16:17-19; Matt. 28:18-20; John 10:27; John 14:26; John 16:13-15; Jn. 17:17)"<BR/><BR/>Huh? I agree that there will not be a total apostasy of the true doctrine of scripture, but what you actually read pre-enlightenment isn't what you are writing here, so one of the two are apostate on the doctrine of scripture. Is the pre-enlightenment bibliology the true one or is it the post-englightenment? If there is no apostacy, then your doctrine is wrong. I read the verses you referenced and I read, "every Word" and "words," not the ambiguity that you stated here.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "8) God has promised to that his written Word will endure or be preserved. (Ps. 119:152, 160; [Ps. 12:6-7]; [Is. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:23-25])"<BR/><BR/>All of it or some of it? Verbal, plenary? You're going to get in trouble with your CT crowd with your Psalm 12:6-7, but I appreciate the honesty. I don't know, however, how you see written Word in those passages, but you don't in others.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "9) From points 7 and 8, we can infer God will keep his Word generally available to His people through all genterations."<BR/><BR/>Again, is Word all of them or just his Word, the message, or in general His Word. If He keeps it available through all generations, you can't be a CT, electic person, Bob. You've just turned into at the least a KJV or NKJV person.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "This bibliology, for which more Biblical support could be given, does not tell us how perfect the text of Scripture available to believers must be."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. This is different than the historic position, because men believed that the text was preserved perfect. Scripture says it is pure and every Word is available to every generation. So Scripture does say.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Obviously before all the NT epistles were written, they were not available. And even afterward it would have taken time before copies were made available for all God's people."<BR/><BR/>With all due respect, this is inane. None of the NT epistles were available to Moses or David or Jeremiah.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Also, if we compare how the NT authors and Jesus quoted the OT, and then compare how both the OT and the NT treat parallel passages and how they record in different places what was said on the same event, we find that Scripture does not teach that the words must be exactly the same in order for the text to be considered Scripture."<BR/><BR/>Read John Owen's position on this in his Biblical Theology. I had not read it until about two weeks ago, when I purchased the book. He takes the same position that I have espoused on this. Jesus targummed. The translators and/or the copiests of the various editions of the Septuagint read Jesus Words back into the OT Greek text.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Also there is no promise of a perfect edition of Scripture in one manuscript, text or edition of a text. Nothing says we need to have all God's word in one book or we don't have the Bible."<BR/><BR/>If we know what all the Words are, then we can put them all into one edition. The Bible assumes that we will, since we do have the Holy Spirit. This is the promise of preservation, that we would have all the Words. We've never argued for the perfect hand copy here.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I would venture to say there are a lot of evangelical textual scholars and Bible scholars who believe all God's words are preserved in the manuscripts that we possess."<BR/><BR/>I've not read any of them. Most will say that we don't have a text for 1 Samuel 13:1.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I would venture to say there is a bibliological presentation like this in several evangelical theology books. It may not be as fully laid out, but they do discuss this."<BR/><BR/>I'd be glad for you to point me to them.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "It is not as if I and Jason and others do not start from a Bibliological stance. We do recognize the KJVO group saying more than Scripture says, and proving more by appeal to Scripture than what Scripture actually states. Scripture never forbids an honest evaluation of the textual evidence either."<BR/><BR/>Daniel Wallace says that you can't start with theology and then go into textual criticism. You must allow evidence to lead you to the truth. This is what I hear coming from Jason. Textual criticism, at its root, must not have theological presuppositions get in the way.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "Hope this helps deflect some of the focus on you, Jason. Thanks for dealing with this, however. The points you are making need to be raised."<BR/><BR/>I'm fine with them being raised. It helps me understand where he's coming from: evidentialism. He wants our paradigm for epistemology. I'm going to put something like that out in the near future. I think it would be good to compare epistemology, to understand exactly what ours is and what his is.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91327762755443358262009-02-25T10:51:00.000-08:002009-02-25T10:51:00.000-08:00Jason,I feel your pain on this. I agree it is a v...Jason,<BR/><BR/>I feel your pain on this. I agree it is a very divisive issue. You are getting beaten up over here. That's one of the reasons I come over here so seldom.<BR/><BR/>The Scripture for our position is as follows:<BR/><BR/>1) The Bible is God's inspired infallible Word. (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:20-21, and others)<BR/><BR/>2) The Bible preserves God's message to man. The oral message of the Gospel, and the oral prophetic preaching, was preserved through inspiration in the Bible. (Heb. 1:1-4; Rom. 3:2; Rom. 15:4; Joshua 1:8)<BR/><BR/>3) The Bible is our only infallible measure of determining true doctrine. (Acts 17:11; 2 Pet. 1:19).<BR/><BR/>4) The possibility exists however for there to be wrong interpretations or wrong understandings of the Bible's message. (John 5:39; Luke 24:25-26, 45; 2 Pet. 3:16)<BR/><BR/>5) We will be judged according to the Scripture on the last day. (John 12:48)<BR/><BR/>6) God's word will remain true and sure through all time (Is. 40:8; Ps. 119:89; Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25)<BR/><BR/>7) God will guide His people by means of His Word, such that there will never be a complete apostasy from the true doctrine of Scripture. (Is. 59:21; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 16:17-19; Matt. 28:18-20; John 10:27; John 14:26; John 16:13-15; Jn. 17:17)<BR/><BR/>8) God has promised to that his written Word will endure or be preserved. (Ps. 119:152, 160; [Ps. 12:6-7]; [Is. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:23-25])<BR/><BR/>9) From points 7 and 8, we can infer God will keep his Word generally available to His people through all genterations.<BR/><BR/>This bibliology, for which more Biblical support could be given, does not tell us how perfect the text of Scripture available to believers must be.<BR/><BR/>Obviously before all the NT epistles were written, they were not available. And even afterward it would have taken time before copies were made available for all God's people.<BR/><BR/>Also, if we compare how the NT authors and Jesus quoted the OT, and then compare how both the OT and the NT treat parallel passages and how they record in different places what was said on the same event, we find that Scripture does not teach that the words must be exactly the same in order for the text to be considered Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Also there is no promise of a perfect edition of Scripture in one manuscript, text or edition of a text. Nothing says we need to have all God's word in one book or we don't have the Bible.<BR/><BR/>I would venture to say there are a lot of evangelical textual scholars and Bible scholars who believe all God's words are preserved in the manuscripts that we possess. <BR/><BR/>I would venture to say there is a bibliological presentation like this in several evangelical theology books. It may not be as fully laid out, but they do discuss this.<BR/><BR/>It is not as if I and Jason and others do not start from a Bibliological stance. We do recognize the KJVO group saying more than Scripture says, and proving more by appeal to Scripture than what Scripture actually states. Scripture never forbids an honest evaluation of the textual evidence either.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps deflect some of the focus on you, Jason. Thanks for dealing with this, however. The points you are making need to be raised.<BR/><BR/>Blessings in Christ,<BR/><BR/>Bob HaytonBob Haytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176224396073767674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74259119236455876082009-02-25T08:36:00.000-08:002009-02-25T08:36:00.000-08:00Jason,You haven't given me a book because you ...Jason,<BR/>You haven't given me a book because you can't give me a book that provides Bible exposition for the CT position.<BR/>You haven't given me any Scripture because you can't give me any Scripture that supports the CT position.<BR/>You "won't go out on a limb" because that is what your position is - out on a limb with no Scripture to support it.<BR/>I haven't noticed that you don't speak with certainty. You have told me (and others) that our approach is wrong because we used Scripture as the basis for making our decisions on the text.<BR/>Why is it wrong for people to separate & to carry out church discipline on the textual issue. Remember Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of 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"? <BR/>Your heart ought to be broken over things that break the heart of God, and the corruption of the text of the Word of God is right at the top.<BR/>G. WebbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49934775115118043772009-02-25T01:31:00.000-08:002009-02-25T01:31:00.000-08:00>"This issue has gotten out of hand. We...>"This issue has gotten out of hand. We're now in a place where mainstream Fundamentalists are separating from and even church disciplining those who differ with them on this issue. Churches and families are being torn apart all around the world over this false teaching. All bets are off. The lines are being drawn."<BR/><BR/>Cardinal Sadoleto, I understand your passion. I was born in 1516, and I, myself, have seen nothing but strife among Christians over these issues in my life. You know my position from previous correspondence, how I stand with the reformers and M. Calvin in particular, your debating partner. I just want to correct you on one thing: you say Fundamentalists are separating from your people on this issue, but it is not only Fundamentalists (Anabaptists, you mean?), but it is also the Lutherans and the schools of Zurich and Geneva wherever they now exist and are teaching throughout Europe. Even now, Cardinal Sadoleto, there is a party of Englishman with Calvin in Geneva preparing a new translation of the Word of God from the Masoretic and Received Text. With the publishing ability of Geneva your agents will be kept very busy intercepting these. As you well know I wish all of you little success in your endeavors, and, I hope, no unbecoming animosity, as our Lord takes care of these matters as He sees fit.The Puritanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12200009028083050918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80705362677686111642009-02-24T23:43:00.000-08:002009-02-24T23:43:00.000-08:00MVO = multiple versions only.Jason, you keep stati...MVO = multiple versions only.<BR/><BR/>Jason, you keep stating your position, then dodging whenever anyone tries to get you to explain it or prove it.<BR/><BR/>My honest opinion is you simply do not wish to engage Kent in a debate. You know that if you start trying to back up your statements with evidence, he's going to bring the Scripture, and the History and the Logic. You probably have neither the time nor the inclination to tackle that.<BR/><BR/>I can sympathize with that - I've met folks who I know are wrong, but I just don't have the time free to engage them. It's just that then I leave it alone. You seem to want to keep chipping in, but not actually saying anything (or backing up anything you say) in a way that could lead to productive debate.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14387781402317600423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88143028462130092172009-02-24T21:06:00.000-08:002009-02-24T21:06:00.000-08:00Kent,Glad you read the material. I'll keep an eye ...Kent,<BR/><BR/>Glad you read the material. I'll keep an eye out for your thoughts when you post them.<BR/><BR/>Regarding "the truth," I can't see that the presence of the article invariable indicates reference to the whole canon of Scripture. This seems in an untenable position when considered in the context of 1 Timothy 6:5 for instance (just the first case I happened to look up). Also, it seems highly speculative if not eisegetic to interpret 1 Timothy 3:15 that way.<BR/><BR/>I agree that "the truth" is in Scripture and that Scripture is the written record of "the truth" as used in some contexts. But that doesn't make the two terms synonymous.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-29422265410182041322009-02-24T20:57:00.000-08:002009-02-24T20:57:00.000-08:00Bobby Mitchell,I hope you weren't as condescending...Bobby Mitchell,<BR/><BR/>I hope you weren't as condescending to this young man as you have come across in this post.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you needed to set your "presentation" aside and demonstrate a simple commitment to the truth that takes his questions seriously instead of viewing them as evidence that he is "not truly interested in knowing the answers."<BR/><BR/>Do you really think that you have all of "the answers"? If not, then why not admit that?<BR/><BR/>The reason there is "no Scripture for our position" is that we refuse to go out on a limb and speak with certainty on an issue God Himself has not spoken on. In other words, we are too careful with Scripture to abuse it and construct a "biblical" answer to a problem which Scripture simply does not address.<BR/><BR/>"MVO" = Modern Version Only? I have never in my life met one of those. <BR/><BR/>I understand I'm coming across pretty heavy. There are two reasons:<BR/><BR/>1) I don't appreciate the sideswiping attacks directed at me through a comment to another person. It smacks of the intimidation tactics which tend to be modus operandi for many Fundamentalist leaders, but which are wrong.<BR/><BR/>2) This issue has gotten out of hand. We're now in a place where mainstream Fundamentalists are separating from and even church disciplining those who differ with them on this issue. Churches and families are being torn apart all around the world over this false teaching. All bets are off. The lines are being drawn.<BR/><BR/>My heart is broken over the devastation this issue is causing.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15943681953863668382009-02-24T19:41:00.000-08:002009-02-24T19:41:00.000-08:00Pastor Webb,Your conversation with Jason is eerily...Pastor Webb,<BR/><BR/>Your conversation with Jason is eerily similar to one I had with a BJU sophomore a few weeks ago. He wanted me to explain why we hold our position on preservation. I took him through the Scriptures and gave him our reasons. <BR/><BR/>Throughout my presentation he had many questions designed to cast doubt. I tried to patiently answer his objections, but he was not truly interested in knowing the answers. <BR/><BR/>Before we concluded our time together I pointed out to him that I had shown him Scripture for holding to the received text and he had not given me any for being CT or MVO. He had no answer for that. <BR/><BR/>Just like Jason he had no Scripture for his position. Jason has questions, reasonings, big-name scholars, and more questions. His refusal to name a single book that gives Scripture for the CT mindset is very telling. <BR/><BR/>Your responses have been excellent and encouraging. <BR/><BR/>Side note: It is amazing that people who claim to be students of the Bible don't even understand 1 Timothy 3:15.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-16586438054078380272009-02-24T18:24:00.000-08:002009-02-24T18:24:00.000-08:00I read the epistemology material, Jason. I'll pos...I read the epistemology material, Jason. I'll post sometime over here on that issue. It is something that I had thought about, but I wouldn't think that people should prefer evidentialism in scriptural matters. I will get into the idea of what is evidence.<BR/><BR/>Regarding "truth" and "the truth," they are exegetically different. You should study the differences between tes aletheias and only aletheias. "The truth" is Scripture.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45879287382901073962009-02-24T15:34:00.000-08:002009-02-24T15:34:00.000-08:00Joshua,You do not defeat a correct principle by sh...Joshua,<BR/><BR/>You do not defeat a correct principle by showing where it is poorly applied. God's Word is our final authority. We may believe things to be true that God doesn't say. But when we attribute to God things that He did not say, we are on dangerous ground.<BR/><BR/>Gary,<BR/><BR/>I'd prefer not to give you a target to smash. But you know as well as I that there are books that deal with the texts on this matter.<BR/><BR/>1 Timothy 3:15 says the church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." It does NOT say a single word about written revelation. Are you suggesting that written revelation is equivalent to "truth"? Again, we're back to epistemology.<BR/><BR/>I am still waiting for answers to my questions on epistemology. I am very interested in what kind of epistemological paradigm would allow you to treat Scripture like you do.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11403876571610524450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-70457143145379583512009-02-24T05:24:00.000-08:002009-02-24T05:24:00.000-08:00Jason,Both passages that I gave give very definite...Jason,<BR/>Both passages that I gave give very definite direction about how we are to go about deciding which variant reading is correct, as I stated.<BR/>Another example would be I Timothy 3:15, which says that the NT church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." That tells us that we do not choose variant readings that have never been adopted by NT churches through the ages - in other words, the readings found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus go contrary to the majority of readings used by NT churches. <BR/>How can we be "so far away from what the text actually says" when we have it right in front of us?<BR/>As a reminder, I am still wanting you to give me a list or at least one book from the CT that gives exposition of passages as the basis for its position.<BR/>G. WebbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com