tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post8217543980656372241..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Obvious Disconnects for Evangelicals and InerrancyKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-79204295923246060822015-03-04T16:16:47.590-08:002015-03-04T16:16:47.590-08:00Hi Tyler,
I started watching Trueman's sessio...Hi Tyler,<br /><br />I started watching Trueman's session, but couldn't go to the end. I did notice how he made the note he was a proud amillennialist upon turning to Revelation 22. Later he made a parallel between the theological effect on eschatology from the Cold War and theology proper from the Black Death.<br /><br />No one is denying the existence of textual variants. Never have, just like we know there were textual attacks in the first century according to Paul and Peter. That is not the point. I assume you know that, just saying. It's a red herring.<br /><br />Plus, inerrancy as presented by Warfield is solely a 19th century doctrine, but I will look forward to reading the transcript.<br /><br />Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37992831543811867072015-03-04T16:00:39.690-08:002015-03-04T16:00:39.690-08:00Today at the Shepherd's Conference, Carl Truem...Today at the Shepherd's Conference, Carl Trueman briefly addressed the issue of "errors in the manuscripts" from a historical theology perspective. He produced a quote from Augustine (5th century) where Augustine affirmed inerrancy and also acknowledged errors in some manuscript copies. I would have liked to hear more. Though I'd let you know. Tyler Robbinshttp://www.faithbaptistdivernon.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6296644229805291192015-03-03T05:58:30.128-08:002015-03-03T05:58:30.128-08:00I've always felt the "oldest is best"...<i>I've always felt the "oldest is best" argument falls apart on Scriptural grounds.</i><br /><br />I agree. Just to clarify, I was using the phrase "oldest is best, and all that" somewhat ironically, since in any other case besides the Johannine Comma, new versions people would wholeheartedly embrace it as an evidentiary proposition. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60262808352981723092015-03-03T00:43:46.996-08:002015-03-03T00:43:46.996-08:00Titus, my point is not irrelevant at all, but you ...Titus, my point is not irrelevant at all, but you can choose to ignore it if you wish.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-31222220286992896982015-03-02T13:55:06.905-08:002015-03-02T13:55:06.905-08:00Kent,
I've always felt the "oldest is be...Kent,<br /><br />I've always felt the "oldest is best" argument falls apart on Scriptural grounds. For instance, 2 Th. 2:2 suggests there were perhaps forged letters of the Apostle Paul floating around in his day. That would make the oldest "texts" (Apostolic Period) suspect, no? If we do not have the promise of divine preservation, we are indeed in trouble. <br /><br />tjpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51455014634506728312015-03-02T12:06:17.475-08:002015-03-02T12:06:17.475-08:00All the historical back and forth is fine, but it ...All the historical back and forth is fine, but it is all also extra-biblical. The question to which all parts of the debate should be subordinated is, does the bible promise preservation? If yes, you can proceed from there. <br /><br />If no, I think I am joining the Muslims. At least they know they have certainty about their "holy" texts. Even though we look from the outside and see several Arabic versions, Muslims reject that and claim preservation from the inception. They regarding anyone who denies preservation as attacking Allah and Mohammed. <br /><br />No wonder they so lightly regard Jesus. Instead of outsiders attacking His words and being rebuffed by his followers, it is the people who claim to follow him who tear down his words. I would not follow us either.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17160761471464558862015-03-02T10:46:54.295-08:002015-03-02T10:46:54.295-08:00Pastor Brandenburg,
Do you know who popularized th...Pastor Brandenburg,<br />Do you know who popularized the notion that "no major doctrine" is affected by any of the manuscripts? J. Greshem Machen is one that I know promoted that idea. Where and when did that idea come from? If you can tell or perhaps share some more historical proponents of that,please do. Much appreciated. Be well!Bill Hardeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15552819877860565186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52192077984050043492015-03-02T09:55:52.745-08:002015-03-02T09:55:52.745-08:00Titus, "could have been" is not "is...<i>Titus, "could have been" is not "is". It's sort of like trying to prove missing links from the fossil record.</i><br /><br />Two points:<br /><br />1) True, but rather irrelevant, since every single last argument used by the new versions supporters essentially falls upon the same sword. <br /><br />2) The evidence I've adduced is a lot closer to "the original autographs" than pretty much anything the KJV-antis rely upon. Oldest is best, and all that.<br /><br /><i>As for the claim about Priscillian, your comment is the first I've ever heard of it, and I have studied the issue for a long time. Perhaps it isn't as widely asserted as you suggest.</i><br /><br />I've seen it asserted in pretty much every KJV-anti treatment of the Johannine Comma I've ever read, and I've read quite a few of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8954343505855714592015-03-02T02:22:46.837-08:002015-03-02T02:22:46.837-08:00Titus, "could have been" is not "is...Titus, "could have been" is not "is". It's sort of like trying to prove missing links from the fossil record.<br /><br />As for the claim about Priscillian, your comment is the first I've ever heard of it, and I have studied the issue for a long time. Perhaps it isn't as widely asserted as you suggest.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-71780859576187696192015-03-01T08:24:10.471-08:002015-03-01T08:24:10.471-08:00@ Don Johnson - Cyprian likely was using the Old L...@ Don Johnson - Cyprian likely was using the Old Latin version...but the Old Latin version (quite distinct from the Vulgate, btw) is thought to have been translated from Greek at the end of the 1st/beginning of the second centuries. What this means is that the OL could have been translated within two or three decades of the penning of I John. <br /><br />You don't get much closer to the "original autographs" than that.<br /><br />We should also note that the medieval German translations, represented by the Tepl codex, has the Comma as well, and they were also translated from the Old Italic Latin, not the Vulgate. Clearly, the Comma is broadly represented in that version.<br /><br />At any rate, even if we rely on Cyprian alone, it is quite obviously apparent that the Comma was not "inserted into the text" by the late 4th century heretic Priscillian, as most KJV-antis repeatedly claim. That's simply impossible, yet knowing this, they still repeat the falsehood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15187863131351878742015-02-28T17:33:40.107-08:002015-02-28T17:33:40.107-08:00Hi everyone,
I think it's really neat when pe...Hi everyone,<br /><br />I think it's really neat when people interact with the post! Super cool when they do. Maybe I'm wrong with my assessment. So far I don't think so, but I guess people don't care. They are fine with continuing with the big fat grape juice stain, but saying that it doesn't exist.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-75591783446129356622015-02-28T17:26:44.024-08:002015-02-28T17:26:44.024-08:00Don:
Well, I took a moment to actually look, and ...Don:<br /><br />Well, I took a moment to actually look, and it appears as though you're right about Cyprian writing in Latin! I still find it interesting, though . . .Tyler Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89833548359628109232015-02-28T17:18:30.662-08:002015-02-28T17:18:30.662-08:00Don:
I could be wrong, but did Cyprian in North A...Don:<br /><br />I could be wrong, but did Cyprian in North Africa ca. 250 A.D. really write in Latin? All the ecumenical councils up until at least Chalcedon (451 A.D.) were conducted in Greek. I thought Greek passed out of favor sometime after that. If I'm wrong, then let me know. <br /><br />Regarding the whole textual issue, I was taught the CT approach and the "providential preservation in the vast number of manuscripts" philosophy in Seminary. I still hold to it, though I'm open to reading good argumenst against it. This alleged quote by Cyprian seems interesting. I have read that Wallace has written against it, and I'll be looking around for his reasons soon. Tyler Robbinshttp://www.faithbaptistdivernon.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-27058540377076530342015-02-28T11:19:14.749-08:002015-02-28T11:19:14.749-08:00With respect to 1 Jn 5.7, all the Cyprian quote ca...With respect to 1 Jn 5.7, all the Cyprian quote can prove is that Cyprian, a Latin writer, had a copy of the Old Latin version from which he worked. It proves nothing about the original Greek.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24891612460012979782015-02-26T11:34:37.882-08:002015-02-26T11:34:37.882-08:00Thanks Farmer Brown. I agree with you on this.Thanks Farmer Brown. I agree with you on this.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1601379452985505272015-02-26T11:33:41.409-08:002015-02-26T11:33:41.409-08:00Tyler,
I think that it's interesting, actuall...Tyler,<br /><br />I think that it's interesting, actually funny to me (although I know that is offensive to some), that for most evangelicals and fundamentalists, the contradictions that you hear in Mohler are acceptable, completely fine. They know he's contradicting himself, but they think the truth has to live with contradictions. This is a liberal view of truth, and they accept it. I'm the bad guy in this though, because I'm espousing a Christian worldview, the only acceptable and arguable view. People won't dare say he's wrong.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40256040409122582082015-02-26T08:47:04.305-08:002015-02-26T08:47:04.305-08:00This is all very odd. On paper, these are believi...This is all very odd. On paper, these are believing and dedicated men, but the words they say do not reflect a regenerate state. It is discordant. Perhaps they do not know the shepherd's voice; I cannot say.<br /><br />This is reminiscent of Balaam. He said these very faithful words; "If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do either good or bad of mine own mind; but what the LORD saith, that will I speak" That is a very Godly sentiment. For all the gold and honor, he would not go against God.<br /><br />He was also used to give this remarkable prophecy; "I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth."<br /><br />On the other hand, he was involved in the death of many of God's people at Peor and was a tool of those that opposed God's will for the nation of Israel. His life ended on an Israelite sword because of this. Was he a believer? An unbeliever? He certainly spoke the word of God faithfully, but he also overthrew the faith of some.<br /><br />What of these men, of Mohler, et al? Are they believers? Unbelievers? In many things they speak the word of God faithfully. However, they also overthrow the faith of some. Is the the "take away" of Revelations 22:19?<br /><br />Whatever they are, I suspect like Balaam they are very dangerous to the people of God. Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-87858173145819434092015-02-26T06:05:54.192-08:002015-02-26T06:05:54.192-08:00A quick note - I was thumbing through Jack Moorman...A quick note - I was thumbing through Jack Moorman's book "Forever Settled." He made the claim that 1 Jn 5:7 had been quoted by Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.). I then remembered that Thomas Strouse made the same claim on the John Ankerberg Show in 1995. I fired up Logos and looked at Cyprian. He did quote it. I was very surprised to see that. Tyler Robbinshttp://www.faithbaptistdivernon.comnoreply@blogger.com