<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, November 07, 2005

The Promise Argument

(Examining the Arguments for King James Onlyism [pt. 3])

I would like to continue further into my examination of the 6 arguments used to defend King James Onlyism. I have already considered the first argument called the Exclusivity Argument. This time, I move to the second one on my list that I call the promise argument.

The promise argument can be summarized as follows: According to KJV advocates, God has promised throughout the pages of scripture that He will preserve His Word. This promise of preservation entails more than just the message of God's entire revelation, but the actual words in the physical, autographic biblical text. Put another way, God does more than promise the preservation of His overall revelation, but has promised the preservation of the very words as the prophets and apostles originally penned them.

One of the more scholarly KJV advocates, D. A. Waite, describes this promise argument in this manner,

You may be asking yourself, "Do we have the Words of God today?" or, "Are the Words of God intact today?" I believe every one of the Words of God has been preserved or kept right down to the present. There are two strong reasons for this. (1) The first reason why I believe in Bible preservation is that God has repeatedly promised in both the Old and New Testaments, that He would preserve and keep every one of His Words that originally gave in the Hebrew and Greek languages. (2) The second reason I believe in Bible preservation is that God has always kept His promises in the past, and we assume that He will keep up this perfect record in the present and on into the future. (Defending the King James Bible, 1995 edition, pg. 6)

Because God has promised such accurate, pristine preservation of His Word that in turn means there must be an available copy of the original autographic text of the Hebrew and Greek containing His preserved Word. King James advocates obviously conclude that available copy was to be found in the original language texts utilized by the KJV translators: the Ben Chayyim edition of the Masoretic text for the Hebrew of the OT and the Erasmus Received Text for the Greek of the NT.

I will be covering the idea of biblical preservation in more depth when I come to the textual argument, but here I want to look at the KJV only claim that God has promised, as Waite stated, He would preserve and keep every one of His Words that He originally gave in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

Does God's promise to preserve His word extend beyond the divinely revealed message of the whole of scripture so as to encompass the physical copies of the original autographs? Let me state here that I do affirm God's preservation of His revelation as it is contained in the pages of the Bible. I believe God has preserved His Word with such care that any reputable, conservative English translation conveys accurately what the original authors wrote. I reject, however, the KJV only claim that God's promise of preservation involves God providentially guiding the transmission of one group of manuscripts down through history and protecting it from any variation among the copies.

I further reject the KJV only idea that God supernaturally directs the copyists of the biblical text to copy the original biblical document with exact precision so as to keep it from containing variants, and that God guided the copyists to re-insert words and phrase that allegedly fell out from the text either accidentally or intentionally. Yes, I believe God preserves His Word, but I believe it is in the totality of all the available manuscript evidence, variants and copyist errors included. Again, I will cover preservation in fuller detail at a later time.

Allow me to address a handful of problematic areas with the promise argument:

First, I believe the KJV advocates falsely equate the idea of "God's Word" or "words" with the exactness of the physical text. Now, I need to be absolutely clear here. I am not saying that we can't point to a physical Bible and affirm it is the Word of God. I certainly believe that. What I am saying is that the biblical idea of God's Word has always been God's divine revelation, and not the physical text.

Through out the Bible, the writers of scripture speak of God's revelation as the Word of the Lord, or in the plural, the Words of the Lord. The Word of the Lord is either revealed by speech, the proclamation of a prophet or apostle; or by writing, the written sermons of a prophet or the epistles of an Apostle. The term, Word of the Lord or the Words of the Lord, is synonymous with the whole of God's divine revelation. Eventually, that divine revelation was encapsulated in the biblical documents containing the 39 books of the OT and the 27 of the NT. The Bible then is a written record of the divine mind revealed to man, particularly God's redeemed people and can properly be considered, The Word of God.

The Word of the Lord testifies to itself as being infallible, pure, true, trustworthy, holy and all the other theologically descriptive terms used to explain its source being from God. Once God's revelation was written down, however, men had to maintain copies of that revelation in order to transmit it through history. Those copies, unlike the divine revelation with its source in an infallible God, are man-made with their source in fallible men, and as a result, errors of transmission seep into the copies. In fact, variants are an unavoidable reality with handwritten documents like the manuscripts for the Bible. Regardless of how meticulous a person will be to guard against mistakes when copying, mistakes do happen. We have about 3,000 pieces of manuscript evidence for the OT documents and 5,500 pieces of manuscript evidence for the NT documents. Even the cleanest, most intact manuscripts from this collection contain variants and mistakes. (I recognize that KJV onlyists exaggerate the significance of these variants as to their impact upon scripture, but I will take that up in a later post).

Men make mistakes in copying and God in His wisdom was pleased to allow that to happen. However, the mistakes found in the physical texts of copied scripture do not equate the loss of the divine revelation. The divine revelation is still infallible, pure and trustworthy. It is the copied physical text that contains the errors. KJV advocates insist that if any deviation takes place in the actual physical copy, then God's revelation has been marred or worse still, lost. Yet, God has never promised that He will prevent the miscopying of His divine revelation that is written. What God has done is to entrust godly men to copy His Word and do the best they can under normal circumstances in maintaining the text's integrity. And, in spite of all the many copying mistakes, godly men have done a remarkable job of keeping the text's integrity despite KJV advocates accusation of intentional corruption by heretics.

Furthermore, God allows His written divine revelation to be translated, and translation definitely alters the original, autographic text by removing it from the original biblical language and rendering it into another, entirely different language. The presence of foreign language versions of God's written revelation that have been used of God to bring men to salvation, along with guiding His people, is alone enough to disprove the promise argument as put forth by KJV advocates.

The most problematic area where the KJV promise argument falls apart is with the abuse of scripture KJV advocates utilize in order to defend their claim of God's promise. For example, D.A Waite examines 15 passages of scripture in his attempt to demonstrate that God has promised to keep every word in tact to this very day that was originally written by the original authors. Though many of the passages he cites speak of God's promises never failing, none of them have any relevance to God promising to preserve His Word on a textual level exactly as the original authors wrote it. Waite ignores the context from where the passages are taken and infers his own conclusions by reading into them what he wants them to say in an eisegetical manner.

The one passage nearly all KJV only advocates appeal to in order to establish the promise argument, however, is Psalm 12:6,7. Probably the first KJV advocate to use this passage in defense of God's promise of preservation reaching into the King James translation, was 7th -Day Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson, in his book Our Authorized Version Vindicated and re-published in D.O. Fuller's book, Which Bible?

Psalm 12:6,7 reads:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (KJV)

Removed from its immediate context, and read with KJV only presuppositional glasses, the passage appears to vindicate what KJV advocates argue. God's words are pure words and He will keep and preserve those words through every generation forever. The immediate antecedent for the plural pronoun them is the plural noun, words. Thus, it would make sense to conclude that God has promised to preserve His words.

However, the Hebrew language is sharply different from English in that it has grammatical gender, something not common to English. In Hebrew, the pronouns will match the antecedent nouns in both number and gender. Here is Psalm 12:6,7, the two thems of verse 7 are masculine in gender and with the second them actually being singular (literally, him). The closest antecedents in our English translation, the two words in verse 6, words, are really feminine, so the two nouns do not match the masculine thems. The closest masculine nouns are found back in verse 5 with poor and needy. Hence, God is not promising to preserve the text of scripture, but preserves the poor and the needy from being overwhelmed by the ungodly. When considered in its entire context, that interpretation appropriately fits. Doug Kutilek has an excellent article detailing this passage in light of the KJV only promise argument.

In summary, the KJV only claim of God promising to preserve every word written in the original autographs so that even this very day we can hold what amounts to a photo copy of Paul's letter to Titus, fails in light of the historic evidence. Yes, God is faithful to keep His revelation from corruption and this I believe He has accomplished. However, it was not in the manner that KJV onlyists claim.

Next time, I will take up the KJV argument for textual preservation. Does their view of textual preservation stand against the facts?

Labels:

12 Comments:

Blogger Pickle Boy said...

You mention that the gender mismatch argues against associating "words" with "them." However, I've read arguments suggesting that the Psalms contains other examples of mismatched pronoun gender to antecedents referring to "words" of the Lord or other synonyms for "words" of the Lord. I believe Dr. Thomas Strouse argues this case, citing examples in Psalm 119: 111, 129, 152 and 167. In these verses, he argues, the feminine plural synonyms for "words" have masculine plural pronominal suffixes. He also argues on the basis of nearest proximity being the most natural association, but I don't accept that particular argument since it ignores context (something kjvo's are very skilled at). The details of this argument can be found at:

http://www.bibleword.org/preservation.htm

Thoughts?

9:14 AM, November 09, 2005  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Well, from what I understand, there are some examples in the OT poetry that may have mismatched gender pronouns to antecendents, but those are rare exceptions. Moreover, in the article I linked for further study, Doug Kutilek points out that the Hebrew word translated as "preserve" almost always refers to individuals, i.e. God's redeemed people, never to physical objects, i.e., tangible, physical texts.

When I was researching my post, I was looking through a handful of commentaries I have on Psalms. A lot of them are from before 1900, J.J. Perowne, H.C. Leupold, W.S. Plumer, Matthew Henry, and none of them suggest the interpretation that Strouse and other KJV advocates insist must be for this passage. Only Plumer mentions one fellow by the name of Hammond, who believes the two "words" are the antecedents to the two "thems," and even this Hammond fellow believes the promise of preservation is the fulfillment of God's word toward His people, not the preservation of actual copies of original manuscripts.

As far as I can determine, the KJV interpretation does not exist before the 1900s and seems to have originated with this Wikinson guy. In my opinion, KJV advocates like Strouse are virtually out in left field with their convictions about Psalm 12:6,7.

10:53 AM, November 09, 2005  
Blogger Pickle Boy said...

It's not just Strouse. I can't even think of a single kjvo who doesn't rally behind this interpretation of Psalm 12:6,7. From what I've gathered thus far, any commentator on this Psalm from before the 19th century has either emphasized people preservation, or they believe it speaks of word preservation as in "my word is my bond" - and this assurance is spoken of with respect to the certainty that God will protect his people. As you say, it seems that only in recent history has this turned into a proof text for a perfectly preserved text of scripture that would be handed down through every age.

12:32 PM, November 09, 2005  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

I haven't read Kutilek's dealing with Psalm 12:6,7 recently, but he made a huge deal out of the gender argument, as the end all, but hadn't even studied Psalm 119, the locus classicus of Scripture on the Word of God to see that it happens and for a purpose actually explained in Hebrew grammars. When I mentioned that to Kutilek, he wouldn't admit, which exposes his attitude about such things. He referenced me in one article, saying that I had written something in a book that takes an opposite position of mine. When we informed him, he couldn't have cared less. As long as he stands in good favor with the choir, he'll keep singing. The earliest Jewish commentators believed this meant preservation of words. The plain reading of that text says words. That's really how people came to believe that. You make your "them"/"him" argument based on a textual variant. People ought to know that. It only works if people don't know you're doing it. Much more could be said. Know this though too---we don't buttress our view on preservation on one text.

11:47 PM, March 13, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Kent,
A couple of things.
You write that early Jewish commentators believed it was the preservation of words. Could you supply some references for your claim? Who were some of these early Jewish commentators, what did they write, and where can I access them? If I have access to them, I would be curious to run your research by a couple of my Hebrew profs at Masters College and Seminary.

Second, I have corresponded with Doug for a couple of years now via email, so I can email him your comments and let him give his side of the story?

Let us say for the sake of argument that your position is correct; the Psalm is addressing the "words of the Lord." Where does the promise then move from it being a verbal promise of God keeping his word to his people, to being God promising to preserve every word intact in physical copies of Hebrew manuscripts. Seeing that no two Hebrew copies look alike due to variant reading and marginal notes, I cannot see how God can maintain his integrity with this promise.

Fred

5:17 AM, March 14, 2006  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

The earliest of these is rabbinic commentator Aben (or Ibn) Ezra (d. 1167). I gladly have you run my charges by Mr. Kutilek. I've already done it at least twice, and to no avail. Here is the place where he says I wrote a book that actually takes an opposing position to what I believe. He was confronted three times on that, to no avail. http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_septuagint.htm

Fred, here's where your interpreation comes from: "Seeing that no two Hebrew copies look alike due to variant reading and marginal notes, I cannot see how God can maintain his integrity with this promise." This is the Thomas argument, Unless I see the nail prints. Historico-rational apologetic.

Also, he didn't preserve his "word"---the singular wasn't lost on me. He did preserve His Words (Mt. 5:17,18; 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Mt. 4:4; etc.).

Pickle Boy earlier wrote: "He also argues on the basis of nearest proximity being the most natural association, but I don't accept that particular argument since it ignores context (something kjvo's are very skilled at)." We are skilled at ignoring context. First, what about Kutilek ignoring Psalm 119? Second, what about the seven-fold mention of God's Word in Psalm 12. What about the chiastic structure of Psalm 12 which contrasts the words of men with the words of God, yes, about God preserving His people, but based on His trustworthy Words.

2:19 AM, April 14, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Hey again Kent,

The earliest of these is rabbinic commentator Aben (or Ibn) Ezra (d. 1167).

(Fred) What exactly did he write? Do you have a specific commentary or better yet, an internet source I could reference? I have discovered that when people cite some individual as an authority for a particular belief they may hold, 9 times out of 10, they selectively cite those portions of the "authority" they believe supports their contentions. However, when the source is actually checked in context, the so-called "authority" isn't saying what they want him or her to say.

Sadly, and I don't mean this as any ill will toward you, but KJV supporters are notorious for this sort of apologetic in defense of their beliefs. They mis-cite or selectively cite Hoskier and Burgon, for example, and will rip from context statements by Westcott and Hort to make them believe things neither one of them really believed. Honestly, until I can actually read Aben Ezra's exegesis, please forgive me if I appear to be dismissive of your claim.

I gladly have you run my charges by Mr. Kutilek. I've already done it at least twice, and to no avail. Here is the place where he says I wrote a book that actually takes an opposing position to what I believe. He was confronted three times on that, to no avail. http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_septuagint.htm

(Fred) I took the liberty of writing to Doug this past Friday (4/14) to see if I can get a response against your charge. This is what he emailed back to me in return:

Brandenburg is hallucinating. He raised one minor possible objection to my paper, ignored all the other lines of evidence, and claims he refuted what I wrote. Remarkable.

I'm sure in my reply to him I wasn't the least bit evasive--he just probably didn't like my answer, and therefore deemed it unacceptable!

You have seen my article, haven't you--posted at www.kjvonly.org? I wrote that article originally in the mid-1980s, and have wanted to up-date it on several points--which would tend to strengthen my argument further (I, e.g., said that Jamieson, Faucett and Brown took no position on whether the promise of preservation was of the "poor" of v. 5 or the "words" of v. 6. I based this statement on an abridged edition of their work [that it was an abridgement I was not aware], and have learned since from the original edition that they in fact agree with my conclusion that the promise applies to the "poor" of v. 5). but I am swamped with other "must-do-now" stuff. It would probably take several days, in a city with good theological libraries (not Wichita!) to re-check all the sources I noted. Well, maybe someday.

Doug


Fred, here's where your interpreation comes from: "Seeing that no two Hebrew copies look alike due to variant reading and marginal notes, I cannot see how God can maintain his integrity with this promise." This is the Thomas argument, Unless I see the nail prints. Historico-rational apologetic.

(Fred) Thomas's doubt was against an objective historical promise that Jesus Himself said would happen. He was rightly rebuked for disbelieving what the Lord predicted would happen. Though Thomas is to be faulted, do notice that Jesus did provide his request, tangible proof. That aside, your criticism of my apologetic would be valid if I was arguing against something God has promised to do. I believe he has promised to preserve his word. What I deny is the KJV only view of preservation, that God promised to preserve it fixed in one specific, 17th century English translation so that that translation is to be considered the Word of God and to change it by updating the language, clarifying a translation, etc, is to be equated with altering the very Word of God. There is a big difference between the two positions. The first position, God preserved his Word, I can demonstrate clearly from both the scripture by faith and the historic facts affirm my faith. The second position is unsupportable. The KJV advocate begins by having an errant understanding of the promise of preservation and their beliefs fall apart from there on. In a manner of speaking their entire system is a Fide-absurdum apologetic.

Also, he didn't preserve his "word"---the singular wasn't lost on me. He did preserve His Words (Mt. 5:17,18; 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Mt. 4:4; etc.).

(Fred) Can you demonstrate from the text that those passages infer your view of preservation? The idea of "words" in all of these passages speak to God fulfilling his prophetic promises. Nothing suggests pristine integrity of physical copies of one manuscript family that will remain unbroken by divine providence and the supernatural intervention upon a group of translators from 1604-1611 to choose the correct words by which to translate one final Bible for the English people.

Fred

12:41 PM, April 17, 2006  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

"Brandenburg is hallucinating. He raised one minor possible objection to my paper, ignored all the other lines of evidence, and claims he refuted what I wrote. Remarkable." I never claimed I refuted what he wrote. See, that is dishonest. I never ever said that. Kutilek does that kind of thing all the time. You guys seems that you could care less. Hallucinating? What is that all about? And yet, he doesn't care that he quotes me from a book written from a totally different position that I take. I wasn't even trying to disprove his paper. I'm just giving you this as one example of how he works, and again, there he goes again.

For the most part, and I mean this respectfully, Fred, you argue a strawman on preservation. Here's the Scriptural view: God preserved all the Words, they would all be available generally to believers of every generation, the church would canonize them, the standard is perfection. This is the TR/MT view that is found in the Baptist confessions. The KJV fits that position as a translation of that text. Your interpretation is a new interpretation of these passages to fit the new view on preservation. The Baptist confessions don't take your position. You take the revisionist history of Warfield, in which he spun the providential preservation of the Westminster Confession into a pseudo-scientific textual criticism.

10:38 AM, April 20, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Greetings again Kent,

I never claimed I refuted what he wrote. See, that is dishonest. I never ever said that. Kutilek does that kind of thing all the time. You guys seems that you could care less. Hallucinating? What is that all about? And yet, he doesn't care that he quotes me from a book written from a totally different position that I take. I wasn't even trying to disprove his paper. I'm just giving you this as one example of how he works, and again, there he goes again.

(Fred) Kent, you state that you never claimed to have refuted what Doug wrote, but you seem to infer just such a thing in your two comments up above. Even if you were not intending to suggest that you "refuted" him, your overall attitude is that Doug is dismissive of your particular points you raised to him, that he was not thorough in his research, and that in the end, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. Perhaps you don't think you are coming across this way, but the entire tone of your comments have been, "you and Doug are idiots."

What is more is that you accuse Doug of being a dishonest man, a liar. That is a rather bold charge against a man's character, and I would even add, his walk with Christ. This is especially a grave charge, because scripture is clear that any individual who regularly practices lying and other forms of dishonesty is in danger of eternal judgment. According to you, this is a pattern for Doug: he apparently works in some dishonest fashion when dealing with his critics. He misrepresents their comments, twists their words to make them say something they never were saying to begin with, and then misreports what actually took place during the interchange. Is this what you are charging to Doug as a person?

I cannot honestly evaluate your all's email exchange, because I have never read the correspondence. Personally, from my vantage point of a third party, I think you wrote Doug believing you had some trump card argument against something he wrote and when he did not think it was too compelling, perhaps he was a bit too dismissive, you took that as a slight against your beliefs and your ability to defend those beliefs. Because Doug was not thorough in your mind with responding to your supposed arguments, you now take that as proof you are correct and that you must have really got him good, because he didn't interact with those arguments and now he is spreading falsehoods about what you wrote. Hence, those arguments must be really good if non-KJV/MT people won't take the time to interact with them.

For the most part, and I mean this respectfully, Fred, you argue a strawman on preservation. Here's the Scriptural view: God preserved all the Words, they would all be available generally to believers of every generation, the church would canonize them, the standard is perfection. This is the TR/MT view that is found in the Baptist confessions. The KJV fits that position as a translation of that text.

(Fred) I am sorry Kent, but I can't agree with your objection, especially your charge about the straw man view of preservation. I would like for you to furnish some more details as to how I am setting up a straw man and then arguing for its erection.

Furthermore, I would pretty much agree with everything you wrote regarding the "scriptural view" of God's preservation. However, I would modify your creed thus: I do believe God preserved all the Words. God's revelation is tied to His character. He is sovereign, omnipotent and eternal; He has always and will always safeguard that revelation. Though there were periods in redemptive history when the written words were not in public circulation (2 Kings 22 for example, as well as the time after the apostles when the Christians were affirming the canon), God's Words were never lost. God directed men in the process of canonizing His revelation. The standard is perfection, as you write.

However, with that being stated, that does not affirm the TR/MT view. In fact, even putting the TR and MT together as fitting that view is inconsistent, because there are several readings in the TR not found in the MT. That alone contradicts your particular view of what constitutes perfection. Where I part company with you, Kent, is that I disagree with how TR/MT/KJV onlyists argue for preservation, because your position is untenable and is not affirmed by the historical facts as we know them. This is not an appeal to rationalistic reason, but handling truthfully what has happened in Church history. A good example of handling historical truth accurately is found in your very statement. You write, This is the TR/MT view that is found in the Baptist confessions. What Baptist confessions Kent? I did a survey of every major historical Baptist confession of any real theological significance. The 1644, 1646, 1689, Philadelphia, the Carter Lane Declaration, New Hampshire, and the Abstract Principles. None of them affirm your view of preservation as you have it outlined here. They all do affirm the authority and sufficiency of God's Word, but none of them argue of a TR/MT line of preservation. It is just not there and to suggest that it is, is reading way too much into those creeds.

Your interpretation is a new interpretation of these passages to fit the new view on preservation. The Baptist confessions don't take your position. You take the revisionist history of Warfield, in which he spun the providential preservation of the Westminster Confession into a pseudo-scientific textual criticism.

(Fred) Kent, that is easy to say but can you demonstrate it? You write as if Warfield is near being a theological quack. Revisionist history? Where in his written works on the Westminster Confession and inerrancy have you found this? Demonstrate to me where Warfield revised history in regards to textual transmission. Again, I can affirm the WCFs view of preservation, but nothing in that statement affirms the MT/TR view as the only text to be utilized by Christians. This is something KJV onlyists (who hypocritically misuse the confession at this one point, but spurn the other aspects of the confession like the strong Calvinistic affirmations) simply infer upon the confession, but it something the confession in and of itself does not affirm.

Fred

7:16 AM, April 21, 2006  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

I'm not going to go for the "tone" thing. Just deal with what I say--you can't hear my "tone" even if you tried. I didn't say "hallucinating," and that is much more than "tone" from your friend, Doug. I gave one point, his misquote, and you extrapolate from there. The fact that neither of you will concede on this, I'm saying, is tell-tale. I can't very well judge Doug any more than in how he deals with me. I'd be glad to change my opinion of Doug. He could help me very easily. You ask for proof, I give you proof, and then you argue with me. Give me a good reason why I should give you any more proof.

MT=Masoretic Text, not majority text. Confusion on that affects everything else you write.

For the Baptist Confessions study, click on my name, go to my blog, and two days ago I included an article with the Baptist confessions that will help you.

Get Warfields works. I have them to my right. Get the volume on the Westminster Confession. Read what he writes about the section on bibliology, specifically preservation. That will give it to you.

You talk about us "using" the Confessions, but spurning the Calvinism. The MVO (multiple versions only) crowd continually cries for historicity, historicity. We give it, and then they say, well, why not be a Calvinist? Come on, Fred. Please stay on point.

Again, read the presentation on Confesstions. I will hope that you are sincerely seeking the truth.

10:19 AM, April 21, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I'm not going to go for the "tone" thing. Just deal with what I say--you can't hear my "tone" even if you tried. I didn't say "hallucinating," and that is much more than "tone" from your friend, Doug. I gave one point, his misquote, and you extrapolate from there. The fact that neither of you will concede on this, I'm saying, is tell-tale. I can't very well judge Doug any more than in how he deals with me. I'd be glad to change my opinion of Doug. He could help me very easily.

(Fred) I completely understand that electronic communication is faceless and emotionaless, but deny as you might, Kent, you are coming across as arrogant and proud. If you wish to dismiss my observations, that is your business.

Y ou ask for proof, I give you proof, and then you argue with me. Give me a good reason why I should give you any more proof.

(Fred) Here is a good example of the arrogance I mention. I have asked you for proof and you haven't provided any, or it is easily refuted and just plain inadequate. For example, you claimed there were early Jewish commentators (plural, meaning more than one) who held to your view of Psalm 12. When I asked for you to provide their names and what they wrote, you gave me one guy. OK. So, when I ask for what he wrote and where I could locate his work to check on it, you never answered me. When I question what you provide further, you take that as arguing? Amazing. Am I suppose to just bow down before you as if you are correct when your stuff as been answered and shown to be erroneous time and again? You seem to think so? I call that a tone, bud.

MT=Masoretic Text, not majority text. Confusion on that affects everything else you write.

(Fred) Come on now, Kent, let us not become condescending and petty. No where in your previous comments did you establish the abbreviation of Masoretic Text as being MT. You know very well that MT is also short hand for Majority Text. Even Thomas Ross, who wrote the article you linked on your blog, uses that abbreviation. Your assumption on that affects everything else you write as well.

For the Baptist Confessions study, click on my name, go to my blog, and two days ago I included an article with the Baptist confessions that will help you.

(Fred) Well, I read it with rapt attention over the weekend and I am still not convinced. Ross never conclusively demonstrates that the historic Baptist position was a TR position as you wish to suppose. What he does do in his paper is cite examples where some creeds and confessions will appeal to TR readings like 1 John 5:7 and 8 and Acts 8:37 and claim that is "proof" those individuals writing the confessions held to your modern day view of textual transmission. Nothing in his article demonstrated this view point. It is inferred by you and your friends onto these individuals.

Get Warfields works. I have them to my right. Get the volume on the Westminster Confession. Read what he writes about the section on bibliology, specifically preservation. That will give it to you.

(Fred) I have them to my left, but that is no matter... At any rate, I also read the section on preservation with the same rapt attention Saturday evening. Your case is still not vindicated and in point of fact, it is weakened when you read not only Warfield's comments, but the citations from the original works of those men who wrote the WCF who agree with what Warfield is saying. None the less, you argue that Warfield is revising history. You have yet to lay out Warfield's position, demonstrate factually what the "historical" position is, and then demonstrate how Warfield departed from it. If Warfield departed from it, so did Ussher and the whole host of other Westminster divines who wrote of the doctrine of scripture and essentially articulated what Warfield is arguing.

You talk about us "using" the Confessions, but spurning the Calvinism. The MVO (multiple versions only) crowd continually cries for historicity, historicity. We give it, and then they say, well, why not be a Calvinist? Come on, Fred. Please stay on point.

(Fred) Well, first off, I have cried for historicity, but you have failed to give. You may think you have given it, but your presentation is so woefully inadequate and riddled with tremendous holes. Moreover, I contacted Mike Sproul about your accusations against his book, and he told me of a whole lot of interesting conversations he has had with you. Also, he sent me along a fine critique of the book you edited by a fellow named Larry Oats who teaches at your alma mater and as far as I am concerned, it alone devastates your position. Most telling was the horrendous inconsistencies between the various contributors to the exact same book!

As for the Calvinism, I raise that, because the vast majority of KJV advocates, like David Cloud, for example, are as vehement against Calvinism as they are for defending KJV onlyism. Their criticisms of Calvinism are so terribly muddled and embarrassingly inaccurate, it is obvious they have an agenda. If it can be so easily shown how wrong these same writers are about Calvinism, then it is to say they are just as wrong about their view of biblical transmission.

7:31 AM, April 24, 2006  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

You should read our book instead of just reading Larry Oats review. I think if you read the book, you would enjoy it if you read it with an open mind. I critiqued Larry Oats review, so if you want that, email me and I'll send it to you. Larry Oats himself has written zero books so far, something you would think the head of a Bible department of a relatively large Bible college would have already done. So do you take the vox position like Oats? He doesn't believe the very words of Christ are found in the Gospels. Unless you read our book, you won't know how much of a hatchet job Oats review was. I think you know that people can do that kind of thing, so again I ask you to keep an open mind.

I'll also send you my review of Sproul's book when I'm done reading it. I do have a review of the chapter in which Gephart reviews our book. If you haven't read his book, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on his bandwagon.

1:58 PM, May 06, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home