Logic, Reason, and the Scriptures

On his site, What Is Truth?, a KJV Only pundit presented a rather lopsided perspective on the King James Only position being “the only logical position to take on the English Bible today.” He made it very plain that any other position is inferior to his own. He continues, “Yes. Any other position is illogical.”

Since I have commented on his site but never had a comment approved (largely because he has been banned from this site for insulting other commenters as well as the authors), I thought it might be worthwhile to answer his logic here. I will provide his syllogism and then present the logical fallacies.

Here is his central thesis: One set of words in one set order is the Bible.

(Because he takes such great care to submit this exact word order, I must assume that he intended to write it this way even though it produces a syntactically odd phrasing.)

Without addressing any of the syllogisms he develops from the thesis, let’s ask some questions about this idea.

Is one set of words in one set order the Bible?

We must acknowledge that in order for this statement to be true, it must be ubiquitous. There must be one definitive, absolute order for the set of words. There can be no variation, no alternate readings.

There must be an absolute authority setting down the one set of words in one set order, and that would include the ways the books are put together into an anthology as well as which books to include and which not to include. It requires that someone make a definitive declaration about the one set of words in one set order.

This is not what we see in church history. It took quite a while for the churches to come to a consensus on the books of the New Testament. What’s more, for most of its history, the church relied on a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) as its primary text rather than the original Hebrew. There are significant variations between this Greek version and the Hebrew originals. Which is the one set of words in one set order for the church?

Where is the one set of words in one set order?

Moreover, how does the English translation known as the King James Version represent this one set of words in one set order? Does the King James Version restore the one set of words in one set order? If so, then who knew the one set of words in one set order prior to the King James Version?

If it is not the KJV – if this one set of words in one set order is the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text, then how did one know the order prior to the publishing of Erasmus and the other TR editions? The manuscripts they have include a number of variants (which are easily sorted for the most part), but there is not a single manuscript that IS the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is a term for the printed editions composed from the manuscripts available.

Is the one set of words in one set order comprehensible?

Finally, if there is truly one set of words in one set order then it stands to reason that there must be one, absolute standard of understanding these words. The word set, which must be therefore divine and eternal, must be knowable in all ages. There must always be a set of knowledge for the words themselves.

But we find this is not true. The King James translators struggled with many of the words in Hebrew and Aramaic. The languages were dead for all intents and purposes, and the knowledge of the meaning of words was often difficult to decipher. Comparative studies and archaeology have helped us in the intervening centuries, but there are still many words in the original texts that we are not certain how to translate. Any translators will say this – even TR-only translators.

Conclusion

It simply does not make logical sense that God would preserve one set of words in one set order but then allow the meaning of those words to be lost.

It does not make logical sense that one set of words in one set order had to wait for the publication of the Textus Receptus or the restoration of the Hebrew Old Testament in order to be known.

It does not make logical sense that this one set of words in one set order exists in human experience.

What we have is transmitted, miraculously aligned manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. We have many translations in other languages, and multiple editions of those that appear in the original languages. We have a beautiful tapestry of manuscript tradition, woven by several millennia’s worth of believers who reverenced the Word of God. We have good manuscripts and bad ones; and we should reverence them all.

As you can see, logic relies heavily on the thesis. When you begin with a statement and take it as axiomatic, you can represent any position as if it is absolute. The core thesis presented can be demonstrated to be false, but when one does a deductive reasoning from the thesis without questioning it, the thesis appears to be true. As I hope I have demonstrated, this particular thesis is not nearly as absolute as it might first appear.

I don’t fault this pundit for his article or his logic. I believe his central thesis is faulty – but not because he is a bad person or wishes to mislead people. He has the core human right to believe as he does, and I understand that means he will be biased against those who do not accept his logic and ideals.

True objectivity is not as possible as our modernist fore-bearers believed it was.Logic is often faulty and biased because it is developed by humans. It is relative to the experience and beliefs we bring to it. It is a human tool which is used by humans for humans, and as such it falls short of the divine.

And that is only logical.

90 Responses to “Logic, Reason, and the Scriptures”

  1. Jack Brooks says:

    And: by what authority does someone say, “One set of words…”:, etc? Since the Bible itself never says that, where does the rule come from?

    You can’t successfully reason with willful ignoramity. But you can use it as a teaching and a warning to others, as you’ve done here.

  2. JasonS says:

    Brilliant!
    One question that I’m stuck with. How is it that some believe in “perfect textual preservation”, yet seem to hold that the text had to be recovered in the TR or KJV? Am I missing something in their argument?

    • JasonS,

      How exactly is the essay brilliant?

      To answer your question, we don’t believe Scripture teaches the “recovery” of Scripure, but the “reception” of it—textus receptus, not textus recoverus. We don’t hold a recovery of the text of Scripture. That’s a critical text view. They believe we’re still recovering it. That’s what you’re missing.

    • JasonS says:

      Yet it was lost until Erasmus compiled it as the TR?
      Where was it before Erasmus?
      In what text did it rest?
      Was there any manuscript that matched the originals totally, or did the compilers of the TR recover it by finding the correct readings and putting them into the TR?
      If so, which TR?
      If not, what?

    • In this case, Jason, I actually agree with Kent’s phrasing. The TR is considered received because it was the majority voice of the texts in use and available in western Europe at the time. It was not recovered because it was never lost. It was only technically in use in the Orthodox churches, but after the fall of Constantinople, the manuscripts came into the possession of western scholars – literally “received”.

      The TR was, however, compiled from existing manuscripts. These manuscripts were not in 100% agreement, but they definitely represented a very small amount of variation.

      For this reason, I would say the TR was compiled as it was received and published for use rather than saying it was recovered.

    • JasonS says:

      Erik,
      If all of the texts did not agree 100%, then there was not one set of words in one order in one place until the TR, correct?
      That is what I’m after. Was there one set of words in order in one place before the TR?

    • Obviously I don’t believe in Kent’s thesis – only his word choice. The TR was not, semantically speaking, a restoration of a text. It was a presentation of what was available at the time. A restoration would require that it was lost, but none of the publishers would have phrased it that way. They were making generally available what had been only available to a select few.

      I would call it a compilation if anything – but not a restoration. Kent is infamous for nitpicking word choice, but in this case, it is a worthwhile distinction even if not for the exact reason he wishes to make it.

    • JasonS says:

      Erik,
      I understand what you’re saying and agree that I could/should have been more precise in my terminology.
      Terminology not withstanding, if the TR is that one set of words in one set order (or however it is stated), then where was the Bible before the TR?
      We simply are always coming back to that question.
      That is where things truly break down; not only in that translation gives a different word order, but that we have to find that Bible that was in existence before the TR- the one that has one set of words in one order.
      Faulty syllogism or not, that is the issue.

    • Not denying that fact. I think I read something recently that made a similar statement. ;)

  3. Bob Hayton says:

    I think the “one set of words in one order” mainly applies to each book by itself of the 66 books. To compare with a Jane Austen novel, to rearrange words in the book, or to leave some out is to not have the actual novel Austen wrote. So with Deuteronomy, only one set of Hebrew words in one actual order can be considered the authentic, authoritative Deuteronomy.

    Where Eric is right to press Kent on, is that he doesn’t have the authoritative copy and neither do we. So now all we have are the many manuscripts that Eric mentions at the end of the post. In this reality, can we say only one set of words in one order is the Bible? Maybe from a modernistic standpoint that is true. But historically, as Eric shows, there have been a variety of different orders of words that have been accepted largely as the Bible.

    In my paper I posted last year about the geneaologies and etc. I show how parallel passages and quotes of the Old Testament in other Old Testament books, and in New Testament books, how these illustrate that the Bible itself doesn’t hold such a tight view of the text. Periphrastic quotations and loose parallels are standard fare, both in the culture of the age the Bible was produced in, and in the Biblical text itself.

    Even if “only one set of words in one order” can qualify as the Word of God, we’re still left to have to figure out which set of words fits that bill.

    The perfect textual preservation folk, just assume what they want to and ignore history. They assume that God’s people were just a very small group or something who did have access to the words of God all along, but we just don’t know what they had, it wasn’t preserved down to our day. So since we can’t disprove the assumption that they did have pre-KJB 1611s in whatever language they spoke, then they probably did (based on their faulty interpretation of the Biblical passages on God preserving His Word).

    • The logic of one set of words in one order applying only to books would be inconsistent. If he is going to claim that as his thesis, then he has to claim it in its entirety. He did not say books of the Bible. He said Bible.

      And I know it is a little thing, but my name is spelled with a K.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Sorry Erik. I agree, that the order of the books matters in relation to his theory. He has claimed that canonization extends to the wording too, so he does have to deal with that.

      Thanks for taking the time to answer his post, too.

  4. There are two different issues.

    One: a set of readings.

    Two: actual definable words.

    The Autographs were correct in regards to readings, but it is not fully possible to define the exact words in the original languages today.

    Therefore, to argue for one set of words ultimately is a very exclusive English Bible perfection view, because if inquiry is to be made to the exact words, say, the word “and” in “and the Hivites” at Exodus 23:23, you have to conclude that the KJB is the ultimate authority of what exactly God’s Word is. (That is why some people reject KJBO, because they are not convinced of this certainty.)

    • “You have to conclude that the KJB is the ultimate authority of what exactly God’s Word is.”

      Actually, no we don’t.

    • redgreen5 says:

      BP
      you have to conclude that the KJB is the ultimate authority of what exactly God’s Word is.

      We do?

      Why?

    • Sorry, let me re-word,

      If you believe in only one set of words in one set order, you would have to conclude that the KJB is it.

      Because various people do not agree with the premise, therefore, they do not think the KJB is perfect.

  5. j. francis says:

    The entire viewpoint of KJVO is nothing more than mere idolatry. Bibliolatry is the preferred term here. If the goal of the Christian life is to intimately cultivate a life in Christ, then making “the only true translation” a sticking point of the Christian faith is a mere sideshow or distraction from this. KJVO’ism therefore becomes a substitute for a life in Christ, thus making it even borderline heretical. And if we who seek to defend ourselves against this conversation aren’t careful, we risk becoming guilty of idolatry ourselves. We are Christians because we follow Christ, not Biblians because we follow the Bible.

    And in the end, when did Jesus or his first disciples ever teach something akin to “…make sure that the new Scriptures you eventually pen will be taken as inerrant and infallible doctrine, and be sure to treat them as such.” The only people who ever had that debate in Jesus time were the Pharisees and Sadducees. As Christ addressed them, (and i capitulate to the KJVO crowd): John 5:37-43 “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Great line here, J. “We are Christians because we follow Christ, not Biblians because we follow the Bible.”

      Very much agreed. I wouldn’t necessarily say that inerrancy is optional, however. (Not saying you’ve actually said that.) I believe that we only know Christ by means of the Scriptures which testify to their inerrancy. But the ultimate point is to know Christ, not to uphold inerrancy.

    • Carl says:

      FWIW, I actually know of one KJV-Only extremist on a discussion forum (CARM) who has openly admitted to worshipping the KJV Bible itself the same way he worships Jesus Christ and has admitted to his Bibliolatry proudly. This extremist also believes that if one uses any version other than the KJV (he never specifies which) then one is not Christian.

    • j. francis says:

      Thanks for the thoughts there Bob! Glad we have some similar lines of thinking on the topic. Your leanings toward my non-inerrancy suggestions were in the right direction however. I do actually side with the non-inerrancy approach, and for this reason: The Bible never calls itself inerrant, and neither does does it contain the word infallible with respect to what it calls itself. Sharper than any two-edged sword, useful for teaching, etc — yes and yes. But we shouldn’t call it something that it never refers to itself as. And neither did the early church ascribe to any doctrine whereby they called it such. By doing so it allows the reader to fall more readily into Eisogetic trappings (i.e. rature, age of accountability stuff.) Not that the spirit of wanting the Bible to be inerrant is bad, just my two cents in attempting to stay true to the spirit in which it was written.

  6. Bob Hayton says:

    So, BP, you are saying: “to argue for one set of words ultimately is a very exclusive English Bible perfection view”. And I think you would hold that “exclusive English Bible perfection view”, right??

    In my estimation the difference between Brandenburg and your view would be this. You point to the acceptance of the KJB by many churches and believers, to indicating that this is the candidate for the perfect preservation of Scripture you see in Scripture. Since deciding which Greek/Hebrew words are behind the KJB is difficult and/or speculative, you have instead pressed on to make each English word choice absolute. The result is a perfect English Bible (in your view).

    Brandenburg and other TR proponents would say the acceptance of the KJB is a starting place for finding the preserved Hebrew/Greek words. The KJB was accepted because it was using the right Hebrew/Greek. So they go a step back from there and find which available Greek and Hebrew texts were likely used by the translators and say they are the perfect Bible.

    Your position is more consistent, because you at least have made decisions on every word choice and can point to how you did that. The TR proponents’ position is less stable because if pressed, you find that no printed Greek or Hebrew text available today matches up exactly with the English readings of the KJB.

    Am I tracking with you here? I know I’m slightly off topic, but it’s interesting to see your application of logic to the debate as opposed to the TR position’s.

    • Yes, Bob, they are good observations.

      If someone is really going to argue for one Bible, they have to go the whole way, and basically say that God intended when inspiring in Hebrew in the Autographs that one day it would be perfect for all in English, and that the Hebrew books were just the means of getting the Scripture to the perfect English one for the world. (Notwithstanding the use of the Hebrew Scripture by believers in its “scattered” form. And it is possible that there were perfect copies at Herod’s temple of the entire OT scrolls.)

    • Why does going “the whole way” mean the Bible has to be perfect in English? It clearly wasn’t perfect in any number of other languages for centuries. It wasn’t perfect in Latin or French or Anglo-Saxon or Coptic or medieval Bulgarian. It wasn’t perfect in Russian or High German or any of the other groups who claimed to be the successors of Christian Rome. Why does modern English get special treatment?

      Sorry, but that argument is just nonsensical. You are once again beginning from the premise that the KJV is perfect and then working back.

    • Erik,

      We all know that many people and many languages did not have the Bible for years. In the time while the KJB has existed, many people did not have the KJB, and even today it is the same.

      The sound KJBO view then is that the KJB is for the future, to be the world standard, and that its perfection is only being understood and discovered in time (which is why this KJBO doctrine was not being articulated in the seventeenth century).

      The reason why “modern English” gets the special treatment is really because of providential factors. It is generally recognised that English is global. One day we expect it to be more universal. So it fits in with the idea of having a perfect Bible, that the KJB is really the only Bible God has ultimately designed for everyone to have.

      Moreover, it is consistent with a pre-millennial and pre-tribulation HISTORICIST view of Bible prophecy and history that before the return of Christ, there should be a world wide witness of the Gospel: having one perfect Bible as a standard is consistent with that (e.g. Revelation chapter 10).

      Finally, no person really has faith that is past-tense, and they do not become Christians by believing that “the Word of God was true in the year 30 A.D.”, but by believing the Gospel now which is come unto them … now faith is. Thus, the argument for the perfect Word is not in the arguments concerning its origins, but in its self-authenticating reality as the Word of God present at hand … or rather, in the hearing heart.

      So then, if you start from what is (and the KJB is), then you see how it came to be. But faith is required to see what the KJB really is (because so many speak against it, and its true majesty and glory is largely unknown), and likewise for what the KJB shall be (again, almost no one dares believe that one day the KJB will be the world standard, and they hardly admit that it has God’s special providential care today). So of course I understand that plenty of people just do not see the KJB as special and perfect.

      But I have seen, over and again, that there are Bible passages which are in line with the KJB specifically; and also that examination of the very wording of the KJB reveals the exactness of meanings which could only be the result of divine providential designs.

    • Wow…

      That’s all I can say.

      I honestly cannot understand how you can hold the position you do.

    • Bob,

      I don’t understand our inconsistency. We’ve supported the preservation of words, not a printed edition, mainly because that’s what the Bible teaches. A printed edition position would be the inconsistent one.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Two things come to mind quickly.

      1) You use the English to get back to the Hebrew and Greek. So with the word order being so vital, you actually don’t have the word order anywhere exactly in Greek or Hebrew in one book. But that is still the only Bible there is.

      2) The decisions as to what the word order is, and how you came to those decisions are much less clear than with BP’s view. He at least can trace the English printings and point to which readings he holds and why he has chosen them. All the decisions to be made haven’t even been completed, with varying TRs and Hebrew editions being touted. Some don’t even admit that the Scrivener’s does not follow the KJV perfectly, in spite of Scrivener’s own insistence that it doesn’t.

      If only one set of words in one order is the Bible, and if all the Hebrew and Greek words are not in one order, and all of them without missing any of them, all in one accessible – readily accessible, format…. then what do you have? By your own standards you don’t have the Bible. You have something awful close but not perfectly so. The English may be adequate but it is not all that God said, all the connotations and nuances aren’t able to be in one translation. You know that. So it does boil down to a matter of degree after all. Your comfortable with that level of variance. I am too, frankly. But your logic fails to back it. Yes the variance between my ESV and the KJB is greater, much more going on. But not really much different, when it comes down to it. There are some choices I’m not sure of when it comes to selecting a reading. But both readings or all three choices are there for me. There’s nothing sinister going on. I have God’s words. The doctrinal differences are way overblown and exaggerated from your side, too.

      Anyway. I’ve rambled on enough now. I’ve said my piece.

    • Bob,

      Rambling or not rambling, your comment doesn’t do it. We’re still talking about logic here, and the Bible has only one word order, not saying a thing about a printed edition. And we do know how we came to that position, from Scriptural presuppositions. And we explain those presuppositions. You can’t get an English preservation view consistent with scripture any more than you can get a critical text position.

  7. Nazaroo says:

    ‘One set of words in one set order is the Bible.’

    What doesn’t appear to have been openly addressed in the discussion so far, is the source for this idea, and its implications for any theory regarding the original autographs.

    If we believe in the inerrancy and precision of the original autographs, then the idea of a specific and unique word-order is inevitable, both historically – (a) Evangelist X and Apostle Y wrote or dictated specific words in a specific order at a specific time and place, and objectively – (b) The revealed word of God is stable and fixed for any reasonable time and place and language, and does not and should not require any re-ordering, word-substitution, or reorganization (i.e., it is ‘complete’ and ‘perfect’ in itself, and sufficient as given).

    When these two necessary premises are seen as statements about the nature and objective reality of an original and initial revelation in a spoken and written (NT) Holy scripture, and their implications followed to their logical conclusion, we get a few more basic observations and perhaps even axioms:

    (1) Although similar ideas can be expressed in different words, expressions, and idioms, God has chosen a specific expression for His revelation in 1st century Greek, and this was and remains adequate and complete for its purpose and task.

    (2) In the first century, although God did give and empower translation into other languages (i.e., Pentecost), He gave no further instructions to modify or alter the expressions given through His apostles and evangelists, or suggestions, beyond oral preaching of the message as each was able.

    (3) The early Church also was strongly aware of the dangers of paraphrase, and editing to the core Gospel message, and ultimately rejected “harmonies” of the Gospels like Tatian’s as replacements for the original written gospels. The impulse of the Holy Spirit was always conservative, preserving what went on before, and not replacing either OT or NT documents with innovations.

    (4) Translations likewise should always then be based on the originals, and once made in a competent and sufficient manner, they ought to be left in their chosen form, so as not to unnecessarily multiply confusion or doubt as to statements in Holy Scripture meant to be taken at face-value.

    From this perspective, the idea of a ‘fixed’ word-order and means of expression for an authoritative NT in any language is a normal and reasonable development of what has taken place historically and in light of early church practice.

    This doesn’t require ‘demonization’ of other translations or arrangements or idiomatic expression, but only that these be left in their own place, in the hands of oral preachers and teachers, meeting the needs of those without the educational background to fully absorb the traditional text.

    peace
    Nazaroo

    • redgreen5 says:

      If we believe in the inerrancy and precision of the original autographs,

      I think we all do. The problem is that we no longer have the original autographs. As a result, any attempt to define the word order of the original autographs is doomed to failure.

      Then naturally, any attempt to infer or doctrinally enforce a particular word order in the *translations* is likewise pointless, since there is no original autograph to use as a measuring standard.

      I’m pretty sure this one point – the lack of the original autographs – totally undercuts and invalidates any attempt to define “One set of words in one set order.”

      What happens is that people start talking about the underlying Hebrew and Greek, and they allow themselves to forget that what we have today is not the *original* Greek or Hebrew autographs. It’s easy to do; we often catch ourselves saying “In the original Greek, it says….” But we don’t have the original Greek. This mental substitution happens because we subconsciously s-l-i-d-e the attributes of the autographs over and apply them to the later manuscript copies.

      Because people forget this fact, they make claims about the particular Greek/Hebrew texts that might actually be appropriate for the autographs, but are totally inappropriate for fifth, sixth, tenth-generation copies.

      then the idea of a specific and unique word-order is inevitable,

      Well, no. That does not naturally follow. You can have a fixed, unmoving source autograph that still results in arguments and debates about how to translate it:

      1) There is not always a one-to-one mapping between languages – loss of semantic information sometimes occurs;

      2) There may be uncertainties about what the source is actually saying – ambiguities, words with multiple meanings, difficulty tracing the antecedent – these items result in different outputs;

      3) There may also simply be differences of opinion among translators about the proper translation to use, even when the source is clear; is the English word “shriek” the same thing as “screech”?

      Translations likewise should always then be based on the originals,

      Which we don’t have. So trying to infer (or authoritatively declare) what should be the word order in the translated version is rather pointless.

      As a simple exercise in translation, even when working with a known original without manuscript differences (such as the Presidents State of the Union Address), you don’t always have the same output. The translated versions of that text will vary in the target language (for example, Spanish).

    • Redgreen5,

      What is your Scriptural basis for saying that “an attempt to define the word order of the original autographs is doomed to failure”?

  8. Several aspects are wrong here, Eric.

    One, you personally were banning me, which was convenient for you at the time, but your own blog rules, which were written after I last commented, invited me back to comment. I just haven’t commented.

    Two, your careful rhetoric implies that I banned you, when I have very clearly made it known that I haven’t banned anyone at my blog. I’m not saying I wouldn’t, but it has never occurred.

    Third, if this blog cared about its own rules, and I’m saying it’s own rules, not what I think it’s rules should be, it would be editing some of the comments in this comment thread. The intro to your piece above is itself at least inflammatory based upon what you say your own standard is. What bothers me is not how you talk here, but the rank hypocrisy of the way you regulate your so-called standards. Allow people to talk, but don’t judge one person to be the boogie man while you are as bad or worse, based on your standard, yours, not mine. If you want it to be the standard fine, but then police it with equality and justice. Acting like you are a paragon of peace and justice and then behaving equal or worse to the people you are criticizing is what bothers me.

    Nazaroo has actually said something pretty similar to what I would say. All I was talking about what the logic of a position. And so my statement that you call odd phrasing was written for the benefit of a logical syllogism. Have you taken logic before? I won’t hold it against you if you haven’t, but if you have, then you know that the phrasing is written for the benefit of the syllogism.

    And I don’t think that the order of the biblical books is an issue here, but what Bob said, the original words in their original order. The first commenter says that the Bible has nothing to say about this. Yes it does. It’s called inspiration. God inspired the writings, the graphe. There was one original order. Are you saying that changing that order is not at all changing the Bible? This is where logic would come in to play, as Nazaroo has explained.

    I don’t know how you showed a logical fallacy, which you said was the point of your article. With all of those words, I wasn’t able to ascertain one fallacy that you pointed out. And I was clear in my article that I was talking about original languages, not the words of the translation. Bob recognized that as seen in his comments. I would be open to a logical fallacy, but I haven’t seen it yet. You should show the premise to be not factual or to show that the syllogism is not valid. You did neither.

    • I am sorry. If there are any inflammatory comments in the intro to my article, they are your own. You made exclusionary remarks and then presented what you perceived as a logical argument to support them.

      As I commented before, I cannot ban people on this site. I have no interest in having a tit for tat with you. I was asked to present an answer to your article. I thought I did so in a respectful and rhetorically sound manner. The majority of commenters seem to agree.

      Since you perceive anything I say as an attack on you, I have nothing more to say to you.

    • Carl says:

      Kent, due to your past behavior and prevarications, your claims are dubious at best.

    • Erik,

      You wrote:

      “a KJV Only pundit”

      The word “pundit” is pejorative, even by definition.

      “lopsided perspective”

      You wrote:

      “He made it very plain that any other position is inferior to his own.”

      I didn’t say that. I said nothing about inferiority in that article. And I wasn’t calling it “my position.” All I was doing was answering the charge that KJV only is illogical. That was it.

      You wrote:

      “Since I have commented on his site but never had a comment approved (largely because he has been banned from this site for insulting other commenters as well as the authors)”

      Have you not had a comment approved on my blog because I was banned from this site? Is that true?

      The above were all your words. You said only my words were inflammatory. None of the above are my words.

      You wrote:

      “I will provide his syllogism and then present the logical fallacies.”

      You never show the logical fallacies. You do not show errors in logic.

    • Believe what you want, Kent. I am not arguing with you. You are a KJVO pundit. The term was not used as a perjorative term until conservative politicos started using it. It means a “learned man” in Sanskrit, and is defined in the dictionary as “a person who makes comments or judgments, especially in an authoritative manner.” I would say it is a very accurate use of the word.

  9. JasonS says:

    Erik,
    Since the argument is dealing with the original languages, we must still contend with translations, too.
    If the “logic” is to stand it will require a translation to be inspired, I think, in order for it to be “One set of words in one set order” and thus the Bible. Otherwise we are left with the Bible in the original autographs.
    I simply cannot see how this “logic” stands.

  10. Eric,

    You don’t want to tit for tat, but then you tit for tat. If you don’t want to do that, you just don’t do it. If you do it, then you did want to do it. So I believe you do want to tit for tat. A good logical syllogism could be written from that.

    Carl’s comment is an example of the hypocrisy I was talking about. “To prevaricate” is a synonym for “to lie.” He’s calling me a liar, which is within your regulations here depending upon the target. If I said you prevaricated, Eric, I would receive a ban or at least the comment would be edited now with the new rules with a verbal warning, but no.

    JasonS,

    Without googling or asking anyone else, what are the “original autographs”? No help. Only on your own.

    No one has yet showed a logical fallacy. I’ll await that, since that was what my post was about.

  11. redgreen5 says:

    BP

    If you believe in only one set of words in one set order, you would have to conclude that the KJB is it.

    You have restated your claim without>/b> answering the question: *why* would we have to conclude that the KJV is “it”?

    • Let me say it another way:

      If one believes in only one set of words in one set order, and that it must be extant, one would have to conclude that the KJB is it.

  12. redgreen5 says:

    BP

    The reason why “modern English” gets the special treatment is really because of providential factors. It is generally recognised that English is global.

    God make English a global language? Funny; I thought it was trade, commerce, the British empire, American commercial and military presence, etc.

    Are you aware that English wasn’t really global until after the Second World War? Given that reality, where was the preserved Word of God prior to ~ 1950 or so?

    Moreover, it is consistent with a pre-millennial and pre-tribulation HISTORICIST view of Bible prophecy and history that before the return of Christ, there should be a world wide witness of the Gospel: having one perfect Bible as a standard is consistent with that (e.g. Revelation chapter 10).

    As usual, there is nothing in your scripture citation (Rev 10) to support the claim you want to make about the scripture. A world-wide testimony does not require a single version of the bible, and you cannot simply cite a piece of scripture and shoe-horn it into whatever useful role you want it to play for you.

    Thus, the argument for the perfect Word is not in the arguments concerning its origins, but in its self-authenticating reality as the Word of God present at hand … or rather, in the hearing heart.

    Which also does not require a single version of the bible. And if that is where you think the “argument” lies, then your position is doomed. The events of Acts chapter 2 seem to indicate that the word of God in multiple languages creates “self-authenticating reality” quite well.

    If God had intended there to be one bible in one language, it seems reasonable that the Holy Spirit would have done the reverse: instead of apostles speaking in different tongues to all the assembled people there — witnessing to them in their own languages — the Holy spirit would have given the gift of “hearing in tongues”, allowing everyone there to hear the original gospel in Aramaic (or Greek).

    So then, if you start from what is (and the KJB is), then you see how it came to be.

    No, what you see is a decent (even high quality) translation for the 1600s that has since been nevertheless realized to contain:

    1) significant translation flaws;
    2) inaccuracies when compared to original source languages;
    3) compromises made for the sake of Anglican sensibilities;
    4) outdated words, phrases and grammar that make the text hard to read, obscure, and in some cases, carry meanings exactly opposite from the modern meaning;
    5) occasional flowery language that masks important lessons and obscures the meaning for today’s readers;
    6) in the minds of many respected scholars, a reliance on mediocre NT texts

    The idea that this very fine version should somehow become the reveealed single word of God – to the point where it can be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek, according to your position – is not merely bizarre, it is also heresy.

    But faith is required to see what the KJB really is (because so many speak against it, and its true majesty and glory is largely unknown), and likewise for what the KJB shall be (again, almost no one dares believe that one day the KJB will be the world standard, and they hardly admit that it has God’s special providential care today).

    What you have managed to convince yourself of is not truth; it is your own wishful thinking brought to life, and dressed up to sound like it came from God. You are – as the scriptures put it ” Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

    • RedGreen,

      Divine Providence is behind the natural phenomena which has made English global. See Daniel 4:17, 25, 32.

      The Word of God has existed in Earth since inspiration. Various factors have occurred in bringing it all together. Thus, after 1950 it is more evident than before. After 2000 even more so.

      If you look at Revelation 10, and understand historicist prophecy, you will see at least general attestation to the KJB there. I am able to show that the symbol of a little book open is ultimately related to the KJB.

      There is no proof that the Scripture was in all those languages in Acts 2. However, it has been proper to have translations in many languages, until the Babel problem has been reversed. Thus, the modern emergence of global English is a significant accomplishment in helping fulfil the positive, spiritual aspects of the Noahide Mandate.

      The witness of multiple languages in Acts is actually because of the curse of Babel. God is acting in history to ensure a proper Church unity that is for one Bible and by using one common language. (What a boon for world evangelism!)

      The objections you list to the King James Bible are either subjective opinion, or are misinterpretations of concepts. I am honest and sincere in my view, and I understand the reason why you see the KJB has error is because you do not seem to believe that it is possible for God to work to actually have perfection today.

  13. redgreen5 says:

    BP
    If one believes in only one set of words in one set order, and that it must be extant, one would have to conclude that the KJB is it.

    This is the third time you’ve repackaged your claim, to no avail. There is no reason why the KJV “must” be it. There is, in fact, no reason to believe that only one bible version is required at all. You have two assumptions/claims here, neither of which you have demonstrated.

    • I don’t think you are getting what I am saying.

      So, let me ask it as a question. If a person starts from the idea today that only one set of words in one set order is correct AND that it must be present on Earth right now, what would a person with those views conclude is the answer?

  14. redgreen5 says:

    Divine Providence is behind the natural phenomena which has made English global. See Daniel 4:17, 25, 32.

    And as I said earlier: there is nothing in your scripture citation – Daniel 4, this time – to support the claim you want to make about the scripture.

    Nothing about Divine providence for the King James Version.
    Nothing about a one-language-for-the-whole-world bible.
    Nothing about anything even *remotely* close to your claim.

    You cannot simply cite a piece of scripture and shoe-horn it into whatever useful role you want it to play for you. Scripture is not silly-putty for you to bend and fold so that it takes the shape which you want it to play for you.

    If you look at Revelation 10, and understand historicist prophecy, you will see at least general attestation to the KJB there.

    No, you will not.

    I am able to show that the symbol of a little book open is ultimately related to the KJB.

    Fine. Proceed.

    There is no proof that the Scripture was in all those languages in Acts 2.

    Really?
    Perhaps you should read it before commenting on it?

    And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

    What were “the wonderful works of God” if not the witness of the Word and the revealed scripture?

    However, it has been proper to have translations in many languages, until the Babel problem has been reversed.

    Which it has not. Nor will it ever be; there is no indication from Genesis that the confusion of languages was something that would ever be reversed.

    Thus, the modern emergence of global English is a significant accomplishment in helping fulfil the positive, spiritual aspects of the Noahide Mandate.

    Except that – as I said, and you failed to address – English has only been a global language since around 1950. Where was the word of God prior to that?

    Additionally, English may be “global” in one sense of the word (that it is widely understood) but it is not *universally* understood by any stretch of the imagination. Almost HALF THE WORLD is ignorant of English, as a first, second or third language – very inconvenient for your theory.

    So if that’s your idea of the “Babel problem being reversed”, I think you might want to re-acquaint yourself with a good encyclopedia and world atlas.

    The objections you list to the King James Bible are either subjective opinion, or are misinterpretations of concepts.

    No, they are valid problems that you have tried repeatedly to sweep under the rug with special pleading, double standards, and distraction.

    • Redgreen,

      I was using Daniel 4 to show that natural events are under God’s control, where before you implied that natural events were not. Those Daniel 4 are not directly about the KJB.

      You only have to look at historicist commentators (e.g. Sir Isaac Newton, etc.) concerning Revelation 10 to see that they allow the KJB to be meant. One even says it means Luther’s Bible.

      The wonderful works of God in Acts 2 were spoken, not written. Most, if not all, languages of Acts 2 did not have Scripture in them.

      As for the reversal of the confusion of the languages of Babel, that is seen in various ways in the Scripture, including that fact that the Scripture says that Christ has redeemed us from the curse.

      I have been saying that the Word of God existed and is used in many places. The thing about English becoming global is for the easier use and widespreadness of Scripture. It has nothing to do with whether or not Scripture existed before English existed, or before 1950 or something.

      While English is global, I am well aware that it is not yet the common tongue, nor universal.

      The Babel problem being reversed is spiritual, not based either on current problems, nor on some New World Order agenda.

  15. redgreen5 says:

    BP
    I am honest and sincere in my view, and I understand the reason why you see the KJB has error is because you do not seem to believe that it is possible for God to work to actually have perfection today.

    No. I grant that God can work in any way that He wants to work today. But the facts demonstrate that He has not worked in the way you are claiming. Given that abundantly clear reality, I do not then assume that God has worked that way anyhow, just because I really, really want it to be that way.

    Doctrine is not decided by how we (or you) think things should work, or what particular configuration of beliefs would make you feel the most comfortable. Doctrine is not optimized to make you feel good or remove doubts or any other secondary consideration. Doctrine starts with scripture – the scripture as it is written, not creatively interpreted or misinterpreted.

    As for sincere – Harold Camping was also sincere. He built up his own little theories, and he was 100% sincere and convinced that he had discovered prophetic key scriptures that allowed him to go beyond the ordinary boundaries of doctrine to a unique revelation for the end times. The two of you have a lot in common.

  16. redgreen5 says:

    BP

    I was using Daniel 4 to show that natural events are under God’s control, where before you implied that natural events were not. Those Daniel 4 are not directly about the KJB.

    Sorry; still doesn’t work. Your claim wasn’t that “natural events are under God’s control”; your claim was that “Divine Providence is behind the natural phenomena which has made English global.”

    There is a world of difference between saying (a) events are under God’s control and saying that (b) a specific sequence of historical events is God’s intentional handiwork. You claimed (b), not (a).

    You only have to look at historicist commentators (e.g. Sir Isaac Newton, etc.) concerning Revelation 10 to see that they allow the KJB to be meant. One even says it means Luther’s Bible.

    So? Who made Isaac Newton an authority on end-time prophecy or biblical exegesis? And if Newton said that Rev. 10 meant the KJV and someone else said it meant Luther’s bible, then obviously Rev 10 can’t be referring to both. So why would I listen to a contradictory stream of commentary?

    Moreover, I’m not even interested in what historicist commentators think. You proposed this idea; you need to defend it.

    The wonderful works of God in Acts 2 were spoken, not written.

    Which doesn’t address my question: why bother having spoken foreign languages in the first place, if the Divine intent was to move the world to a single bible in a single language?

    As for written vs. spoken — if you think that actually matters, then it actually works against your argument. Again: why have the “gift of speaking in tongues” instead of the “gift of hearing in tongues”?

    Finally, if you think that the autographs all started out as written scripture instead of being first spoken, that’s an interesting claim. Provide whatever proof you have.

    Most, if not all, languages of Acts 2 did not have Scripture in them.

    You have no idea if they did or not. In fact, nobody does. They may have, and it may simply be lost to us or destroyed by now.

    Why would you claim something for which you have no evidence? Perhaps you don’t realize that absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence?

    You are making up claims on the spot to fill the holes in your argument. This doesn’t work with me; I doubt it works with anyone else.

    As for the reversal of the confusion of the languages of Babel, that is seen in various ways in the Scripture, including that fact that the Scripture says that Christ has redeemed us from the curse.

    There is no scripture for this.

    1. The “curse” that Christ redeemed us from was sin and death, not confusion of languages;

    2. That redemption from that “curse” isn’t complete yet, because people still suffer temptation and still suffer disease and death now;

    3. There is no scripture *anywhere* that indicates that humankind would return to a single lanuage at the end times;

    4. Finally, the confusion of languages at Babel is nowhere described in scripture as a “curse” to begin with.

    Again: you cannot simply plug any random verse into your theology and bend it to support whatever purpose you want.

    I have been saying that the Word of God existed and is used in many places. The thing about English becoming global is for the easier use and widespreadness of Scripture.

    Which makes no sense, because it implies that excellent translations of scripture were not available in the languages before the spread of English. We know the contrary to be the case; many excellent translations existed before ~1950 or so.

    It has nothing to do with whether or not Scripture existed before English existed, or before 1950 or something.

    I’m afraid it has everything to do with your position, as I’ve explained to you at least three times before. In order for your pet doctrine about the PCE and the KJV to be correct, you need to explain where the true Word of God was before ~ 1950 or so.

    The Babel problem being reversed is spiritual, not based either on current problems, nor on some New World Order agenda.

    The Babel problem being reversed is quite simply, not happening. There are no facts on the ground to support such a claim, no scripture to suggest that this would happen, and no reason to believe that it forms any part of Divine plan for this current age (aeon). It is, quite simply, the product of your over-active imagination.

  17. redgreen5 says:

    BP
    There is a great difference between a proven false prophet and a person who is for the traditional use of Scripture.

    Except that your “use” is not traditional at all.

    There is no “traditional use” that says that the English translation of the Bible is authoritative over all other translations and can even be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew originals.

    There is no “traditional use” that says that Divine Providence was behind the rise of English as a modern global language, and thus the whole world is supposed to give up their language versions of scripture and read the King James Version instead;

    There is no “traditional use” that says at the end times, mankind will receive a new revelation that a particular publisher’s printing of the King James Version (i.e., your so-called “Perfect Cambridge Edition”) would be letter, word and punctuation perfect Word of God;

    “Traditional use of scripture”, you say?

    It is transparently dishonest for you to claim that you’re merely advocating “traditional use of Scripture”. By now it should be obvious that what you’re advocating are entirely new doctrines that you’ve made up from scratch – there is nothing “traditional” about any of this.

    You and Harold Camping are very much birds of a feather. You’ve both arrogated to yourselves the authority to go beyond the boundaries of scripture, church tradition and established orthodoxy. You both have crafted roll-your-own doctrines to suit your personal tastes. And you are both every bit the false prophet; the only difference is that Camping’s implosion was more spectacular and covered by the media. Yours won’t even raise an eyebrow, except in KJVO circles.

  18. redgreen5 says:

    I don’t think you are getting what I am saying.

    I am getting what you’re saying. You’re just avoiding a direct answer to my question.

    So, let me ask it as a question. If a person starts from the idea today that only one set of words in one set order is correct AND that it must be present on Earth right now, what would a person with those views conclude is the answer?

    Most likely that the NIV is God’s word in English, since it commands the largest market share by readership.

    Not the answer you were expecting, obviously.

    The problem with your thinking can be summed up by using a parallel to your question:

    “if a person concluded that the earth was flat AND that it has always been flat AND that it will always BE flat, then what would a person with those views conclude about the Apollo moon missions that showed a round earth as seen from the moon?”

    The answer, of course, is that such a person would conclude that the Apollo mission was somehow staged or faked.

    Such a person would also be rigidly impervious to contrary evidence or information, sufficiently paranoid as to weave all contrary information into the web of paranoid conspiracy (“oh, that’s what they WANT you to think”); and carry their belief around like an article of faith.

    And such a person would rightly be described as three bricks short of a load.

    The logical inference is intact, but the starting premise is so outrageously mistaken that the end result is buffoonery. Hint.

  19. redgreen5 says:

    Kent Brandenburg says:
    June 4, 2011 at 10:06 pm “buffoonery”

    Indeed I did say that. But had you paid *closer* attention to what I was writing, you would have seen that I was still talking about my parallel example of the hypothetical flat-earther. I think there are lessons for BP in that example, of course; that’s why I left him the trail of breadcrumbs, hoping he would follow. But the “buffoonery” was not directed at BP.

  20. אַל־תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּ‍אִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן־תִּשְׁוֶה־לּוֹ גַם־אָתָּה׃
    עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּ‍אִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן־יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָיו׃

  21. Carl,

    How so? What are you talking about? I think you should be more specific, like I think Erik should be. Then he could be a true help to someone, if that’s what he’s trying to do.

    Erik,

    What I don’t understand is that you write this article, which screams out for me to answer, especially with the introduction you wrote, and then when I do, you act like it’s not something you wanted. If I wrote a whole blog on something you wrote, you would be more than welcome to comment on my blog in answer to it. I would want you to have that opportunity. You know, due process.

    • Actually Kent, you DID write an article answering something I wrote, and when I tried to comment, my comments never showed up in your blog. I can only assume that the moderator of your site, which I assume is you, did not approve them since I got a confirmation that they were being moderated and would appear after they were approved. I even sent you an email asking why my comments were not approved, but got no response.

      That has nothing to do with why I refuse to argue with you, however. If you want my honest opinion, you don’t discuss things. You bully and cajole anyone who attempts to engage you. You come off – whether it is intent or not – as having the attitude that you know more than everyone.

      I did not write this article because I wanted to. I was asked to write it, so I did. It was an honest evaluation of your article. I can’t help that you disagree, and to be honest, I don’t really care about what you think about it. Our past interactions are more than sufficient evidence that we will never see eye to eye, and I am more than willing to let that fact stand. You on the other hand take every opportunity to see accusation in everything I say when in fact, I am simply expressing my position and leaving it at that.

      You don’t like it. Fine. I am fine with that. You’ve said your piece. We’ve let it stand. Now drop it. Walk away. I am.

  22. Erik,

    First, you should reread what you just wrote.

    Second, you and I didn’t start off very well, because I was highly critical of one article. That, I believe, had been our only interaction. As far as not taking your comments, I’ve never deleted one of your comments. I wouldn’t do that. Even if you used foul language, I would publish it without the foul language. Love believeth all things. Love hopeth all things.

    We don’t fold up into a fetal position when someone disagrees. You guys are myopic as to tone. You see yourselves as a group of peacemakers and those who talk back to you just like you talk as being bullies. I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with your tone, just that you can’t take what you give out. And that is obvious every time I come here. The people that don’t notice it are the ones who like what you say.

    Carl,

    I’m still asking you what you are talking about in your last comment. With what you’ve said, you obviously have a specific thing in mind, and I don’t know what it is, so why not help me out here. You wrote your comment under Erik’s Hebrew comment.

    • Kent, let me reiterate. Walk away. This is not a debate, and I am not interested in playing comparative games. You said your part. Walk away.

    • Carl says:

      Kent, take it elsewhere. Your words and manner have grown quite unChristlike. You know what you do.

  23. Erik,

    One more thing. I’m still truly wanting to know the logical error in my syllogism. You said you had a specific fallacy in mind. I’m fine with knowing what it is for evaluation. That’s what you said you were doing, and I would await that.

    Thank you.

  24. redgreen5 says:

    Kent Brandenburg

    What is your Scriptural basis for saying that “an attempt to define the word order of the original autographs is doomed to failure”?

    What is your scriptural basis for saying – in the utter and total absence of actual autographs – that the original word order can nevertheless be reconstructed:

    (a) nineteen centuries after the fact;
    (b) using fifth, sixth, and tenth-generation copies;
    (c) almost all of which are incomplete;
    (d) and with known discrepancies among each other?

    • redgreen5 says:

      I should also add that asking me for a scriptural basis for a negative statement is a case of the logical fallacy of proving the negative. Scripture does not actually have any comments on the topic of defining the word order of the autographs. In light of that reality, we are left with the evidence at hand; or in this case, the lack of any such supporting evidence, along with the four practical problems I outlined above, letters (a) through (d).

      And of course, in any debate the affirmative position – i.e., the claim that scripture *supports* such a position – bears burden of proof, not the negative.

  25. I am going to “walk away” as has been requested. It is unlikely I’ll ever come back, but I leave open that window. I had already decided not to come over here, but someone emailed me about this particular post. Here’s why:

    First, I don’t get a substantive, honest discussion here. If I ask a question, it doesn’t usually get answered. I get dodging and ad hominem.

    Second, very closely related to the first, I don’t think people generally listen here. This is a closed club for the already “convinced,” telling “atta-boy” to each other. Good example was when I said something to JasonS and he wouldn’t believe it unless Erik told him it was true. That is normal here. When I point out that I didn’t delete any comments from Erik, which he has no reason not to believe, he isn’t willing to clear up that bit of “mischaracterization” (I wrote that one for Carl), just let it stay out there. There are many other examples of this, but this is an easy one to grasp.

    Third, I can’t accept the hypocrisy of the standard of enforcement. One guy has to dribble the ball and others pick it up and run. Whether you get to travel are not depends on who you are, which is very subjective.

    On this last point, my problem with Erik started with what I thought was an odious piece on the nature of KJV supporters. It smeared them. I came back and said that it smacked of left-wing propaganda, and then JasonS calls me a racist. I went after JasonS, and then Erik says I’m banned for saying something far less than what was said in this comment thread. Just read it yourself. You have these terms: willful ignoramity, false prophet, unChristlike, prevaricate, buffoonery, bully, and fool. Erik calls me a fool (albeit in Hebrew) and then when I ask who is the fool, Carl tells me I should leave, of course, he not knowing what Erik had written. To be consistent, Carl would now need to tell Erik to leave, which is an interesting piece of irony in all of this.

    In the meantime, I can’t have Erik once show me what was illogical about what I wrote, when he said that was what his piece was about. It’s like the lawyer in the opening statement telling the courtroom what he’s going to do, not doing it, and then being angry at those who think he should be able to show what he said he would. I’d be glad to see it, but I haven’t. Asking for it here is characterized as “cajoling” and “bullying.” And unfortunately, this is all about par for the course here.

    I would think that if you wrote an expose about someone’s article that you might think that person would come over and comment about it, especially if you think it is important enough to write about. If you can’t handle that, I would suggest not writing about the article in the first place.

    • Carl says:

      Kent, your melodrama and sanctimoniousness amazes me and disgusts me at the same time. You have a lengthy history of posts sans substantive, honest discussion and also a lengthy history of dodging and ad hominem all of which preceded you. If you cannot see the hypocrisy in this post of yours then you have bigger personal issues you need to face and overcome.

      For a long, long time you have been asked by many people to support your KJV-Only claims with sound, documented evidence and with sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis and you have consistently failed to do so. I’ve witnessed this. Many have witnessed this. Rather than support your claims, many times you were the one dodging and engaging in fallacious responses including, but not limited to, ad hominem, poisoning the well, begging the question, et al.

      So please spare us your melodrama and sanctimonious attitude. It got old long, long time again and it’s not impressing anyone now.

      [Sorry, folks, but this nonsense from Kent is something I've witnessed far too often and it truly bothers me. However I can't say I'm surprised. I've seen this sort of behavior and attitude with KJV-Onlyists far too often in the decades I've encountered them. It's almost guaranteed from the extremists in the movement.]

    • Carl, the moderators of this site are perfectly capable of dealing with comments when they get out of hand. I’ve been busy dealing with comments from Kent and another user on a different post, so I have not really had an opportunity to read your entries. Having read them, I will give you the warning we give to everyone who comments here. Despite Kent’s protests, we do our best to keep things civil here – and we will handle any moderation. Please keep your focus on the content and not on the character of other guests.

      And for everyone who is reading, remember that you are guests commenting on this site. We do not restrict commenting, so your comments appear when you post them. False and/or misinformed accusations cannot be retracted after they are posted, even if we moderate the comments. This is not what we are here for. We are here to have a civil discussion and I think that the moderators do a good job.

    • Carl says:

      Point taken, Erik. My apologies.

    • Look everyone. This is how you’re supposed to respond to moderation.

      Thank you, Carl.

    • Kent:First, I don’t get a substantive, honest discussion here. If I ask a question, it doesn’t usually get answered. I get dodging and ad hominem.

      Erik:
      Clearly we don’t see eye to eye on what constitutes an answer in your opinion, Kent. Whenever anyone – moderator or commenter – answers something you write, it is almost a guarantee that you will pick up on some minute detail of their answer and nitpick on it. Any ad hominem attacks have come from commenters and not moderators.

      Kent: Second, very closely related to the first, I don’t think people generally listen here. This is a closed club for the already “convinced,” telling “atta-boy” to each other. Good example was when I said something to JasonS and he wouldn’t believe it unless Erik told him it was true. That is normal here.

      Erik:
      I don’t see where you get this at all – particularly between JasonS and me. We disagree all the time, but we do so in a very civil and Christian manner. Rather than do it out in the open where people like you can jump in and muddy the water, we do it through personal emails.
      This is true not only with the commenters and moderators but also people who do not wish to be trapped and misinterpreted by people who comment – well, not to be blunt, but like you do. People regularly contact us with statements like, “I did not want to write on the blog because I know how some of the people are, and I don’t want them to get involved.” This is almost always by people who hold differing views from our own. Over email, we have vibrant and informative discussions without interference.

      Kent: When I point out that I didn’t delete any comments from Erik, which he has no reason not to believe, he isn’t willing to clear up that bit of “mischaracterization” (I wrote that one for Carl), just let it stay out there. There are many other examples of this, but this is an easy one to grasp.

      Erik:
      Allow me to quote an email I sent to you on June 11, 2010, after I twice attempted to comment on an article in which you accused me of fabricating facts and lying: I knew you wouldn’t post my comment. At least we publicly censure our critics rather than just not showing their comments. You didn’t even provide a hyperlink to the original article so your readers could read your tirades.

      I received no response, and my comments never appeared on your blog post. You stonewalled JasonS the same way in May. You take great umbrage that a commenter said you were prevaricating, and yet you did the same thing to me and expect it to stand.

      You repeatedly say that you will approve comments as long as they don’t contain profane language. You quibble over the fact that you never “banned” me from your site – which is probably technically true. My email is probably not on a “banned” list, but the point still remains. You called me a liar, and when I attempted to comment, the comments miraculously disappeared. When I emailed to inquire as to their status, I was stonewalled.

      I am not an idiot, Kent. You are no injured victim in this situation.

      Kent:
      Third, I can’t accept the hypocrisy of the standard of enforcement. One guy has to dribble the ball and others pick it up and run. Whether you get to travel are not depends on who you are, which is very subjective.

      Erik:
      I think my previous two answers are sufficient to answer this accusation.

      Kent:
      On this last point, my problem with Erik started with what I thought was an odious piece on the nature of KJV supporters. It smeared them. I came back and said that it smacked of left-wing propaganda, and then JasonS calls me a racist. I went after JasonS, and then Erik says I’m banned for saying something far less than what was said in this comment thread. Just read it yourself. You have these terms: willful ignoramity, false prophet, unChristlike, prevaricate, buffoonery, bully, and fool. Erik calls me a fool (albeit in Hebrew) and then when I ask who is the fool, Carl tells me I should leave, of course, he not knowing what Erik had written. To be consistent, Carl would now need to tell Erik to leave, which is an interesting piece of irony in all of this.

      Erik:
      Do you genuinely define your own conduct by that of others? Carl is a relatively new commenter and we dealt with his situation. He has accepted our moderation with grace.

      I never called you a fool. I quoted a passage from Proverbs – completely unconnected to any thread with you – as is my practice. I have done it several times over the years when a discussion dives off the deep end. In conversation with people, I have often quoted King Lear or Hamlet when things start to get insane. It not directed toward anyone in general, which is why I responded to your question about who was the fool by pointing out that the decision is really in the hands of the observer. Indeed, I said that exact thing in response to you: I’ll leave that decision up to the observer.

      Kent:
      In the meantime, I can’t have Erik once show me what was illogical about what I wrote, when he said that was what his piece was about. It’s like the lawyer in the opening statement telling the courtroom what he’s going to do, not doing it, and then being angry at those who think he should be able to show what he said he would. I’d be glad to see it, but I haven’t. Asking for it here is characterized as “cajoling” and “bullying.” And unfortunately, this is all about par for the course here.

      Erik:
      The article stands on its own merits, Kent. And I stand by that statement. Why should I waste time reiterating what I already pointed out in the original content? Just because you don’t see the fallacy does not mean it isn’t there. Everyone else seems to see it, even if they are answering it with fallacies they see in the article.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that I have no interest in arguing with you. I am perfectly content to have written an answer to your article and letting the observers decide. You on the other hand feel it is necessary to push and pull and split hairs to prove that you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.

      Kent:
      I would think that if you wrote an expose about someone’s article that you might think that person would come over and comment about it, especially if you think it is important enough to write about. If you can’t handle that, I would suggest not writing about the article in the first place.
      You came. You commented. I said I would not be drawn into an argument with you. You commented again and again, making as if you just couldn’t bear having this article exist and claiming that it has no merit. I think I am handing you attitude the proper way. I have told you plainly that I am not here to argue. You wrote. I wrote. Let others decide.

      Erik:
      I believe that it is not necessary to argue incessantly – going round and round in rhetorical circles with people you disagree with. I don’t have the time for it, frankly, and neither do you. I don’t understand why you can’t say, “We disagree and I don’t like you.” And walk away. No. You have to go on the offensive and prove your superiority.

      Okay then. You win. You’re position is superior logic. Clearly since you see no logical fallacy, there is no fallacy. Clearly since you don’t see any value in my article, there is not value.

      But do not think that this does anything for you. You have only demonstrated that you are incapable of dealing with criticism. Just as in our previous encounters, you found it necessary to blast my research and reputation without even providing so much as a link back to the original content so observers could decide for themselves, you have come on here and demanded that we bend to your indomitable and superior intellect.

      You win. You are the better blogger. You are the smarter person. You are the superior mind. What the rest of us think has no value because you have spoken. Isn’t that what you want us to profess? To suddenly repent of our evil thinking and wrong beliefs and be won over to your positions? It is not going to happen.

      You wrote. I wrote. Let the readers decide, or don’t you believe that other people are capable of making their own decisions based on two contrasting points of view? I do.

    • Kent has posted again in respect to the article here, so I provide a link for the readers.

      His Response

    • Carl says:

      I read Kent’s response via the link and also the comment he left on his own entry and I am amazed at the blatant misrepresentations and slanderous comments he made. Sad.

      But that seems to be the norm the more extreme the KJV-Onlyist becomes.

  26. d4v34x says:

    As to the actual article: I don’t agree with Pastor Brandenburg’s doctrine of preservation, but his basic proposition is indeed sound, if poorly worded. I think we’d all agree on plenary inspiration, which is the very words and implies the order. God inspired an exact text (even if not by direct dictation). If we don’t have that exact text, we, in a technical sense only, don’t have the Bible.

    I’m not saying God didn’t preserve His Word, I’m just saying that all of us who approve of textual criticism for the reconstruction of the original text would agree that if the text is exactly preserved in one manuscript, we don’t know which one, and unless we happen to be using that one, we don’t have the complete Bible, or perhaps we have an augmented Bible, which, in an extremely technical sense, is not the Bible inspired by God.

    Furthermore, I think this is perhaps my third post here, so I realize I don’t have much standing in this community, and perhaps the following comments are out of line. But I’m shocked that the management of this blog has allowed Pastor Brandenburg to be treated the way he has been treated here, with one contributor participating in that treatment. From my dealings with you folks in other places, I expected better.

  27. d4v34x says:

    Carl,

    I’ve got my own history with Kent. Regardless, one of the implication of imitating the God who “remembers no more” is that we strive to leave the baggage of past conversations out of current conversations.

    I’ve said enough, and probably more than is my place to say. I’ll leave it at that.

  28. Bob Hayton says:

    Dave (d4v34x),

    Thanks for stopping by. You are welcome anytime and I do appreciate your perspective.

    In hindsight, I think we did get to personal too quick in this comment thread. Carl should not have been allowed to be so snarky early on in the comments. I understand they’ve had run ins before, and really that’s what makes this messy for people.

    I’ve kept out of the fray here for the most part. I didn’t even read anything past Erik’s long reply to Kent’s last comment until this morning.

    I think that Erik was trying to avoid a blow up in the comments. He let Kent defend his position but repeatedly said he didn’t want to engage Kent. Kent kept pushing though. As he pushed harder, Erik responded harder. No one else beyond Carl was really over the top, and Erik was responding in kind, up until his quote of Proverbs (in Hebrew). You can debate if that was mean-spirited or not, or if it was just a warning to us not to keep pressing the issue endlessly. Erik told us he was purposely being vague to apply the comment, presumably that both sides would view the other as foolish and so both should just let it lie. Kent took it personal, and Erik sort of let him.

    That came out though due to the back history I think. Then Kent’s last comment was over the top and uncharitable for sure. He’s insulting us on his way out. When your buttons get pressed like that it’s hard to know how to respond. Since Kent was claiming that he never deleted a comment and had not responded when Erik said he had done that before, and for other reasons, Erik eventually, after looking for help from Jason and I in an email (which I hadn’t had time to even look at yet), just went ahead and answered him point by point.

    That could be seen as harsh and unkind. I’m not sure. I’ve ceased interacting with Kent very much anywhere because of our past interactions and it just isn’t worth it for me or good for me to interact.

    You are aware that Kent won’t leave things lie very often and has to have the last word. So he goes and gets it on his blog. That’s fine. For me this is done.

    I’m not going to reply to his comments about me in the opening of his post except in private by email to anyone who asks. We’re talking more than 8 years have passed since then, and the truth isn’t as clean and clear as Kent remembers. There’s two sides to every story, and I have people who could vouch for me who were there then and saw what happened first hand. I have tried through all this to not speak ill of Kent and his church, I still have good memories of my time there and praise for many things that they do. I wish them the best, honestly, I do.

    At this point, I’m going to ask everyone to stop talking about Kent or about me in this thread. The logic point is what this is about, and we’ve had decent discussions on that. In some senses I agree with Dave here that the logic is sound, so far as it goes. I think finding the original autographs is the sticking point, and you have to insert a belief in perfect preservation to get to the conclusion that we can have a correct word order Bible.

    Thanks everyone, and let’s try again (and it is something we strive for and don’t always hit) to keep the interaction clean and above board.

    Erik, Jason and I aren’t going to be going over to Kent’s blog and interacting on that thread. We are going to walk away from this, and apologize if we threw Pastor Kent under the bus. There are plenty of online interactions we’ve all had with him before and for whatever reason, this gets personal, and non-edifying, and it ultimately proves fruitless. Erik said his piece in reply to Kent’s post. Kent defended it on his blog and here. End of story.

    Striving to be true to Christ,

    Bob Hayton
    Site Owner and Moderator.

    • Carl says:

      Again my apologies, Bob. And yes, Kent does manage to push my buttons. Oh well. It’s something I pray upon often.

  29. Bob Hayton says:

    One addendum here, on Kent’s blog he explained about the issue with Erik’s comments getting deleted. I’ll quote it here to round out the matter.

    Regarding comments of Erik deleted, I don’t have a policy of deleting comments, but I do delete comments. I didn’t think I deleted comments of Erik, but as I go back to that blog comment section, I did delete two of Erik’s because he didn’t interact with my post—he just engaged in personal insults, and I wasn’t going to give him a forum for that. I don’t mind his being tough, but there had to be something of substance in the discussion or it wasn’t going to go anywhere. If he had some substance and some ad hominem, I would have posted it, but it was only personal shots. So I moderated those. So there we go. I moderated two of his comments. That is the truth and allow that to correct anything else that I have said regarding deletion. I still have a general policy of not banning and not deleting, even as I have explained it again and again here.

    • Carl says:

      Bob, due to what I have personally encountered, I have a hard time believing Kent’s account.

    • Of course, we’ll have to go on Kent’s word that the comments were personal attacks since I did not think to save a copy of my comments for posterity. I don’t remember being insulting, but people have varying definitions of the term.

    • http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2011/06/presuppositionalism-fool-irony-and.html

      Just to keep everyone up to date, Kent continues to disparage me, apparently not accepting any explanations I offer to him. This is precisely why I chose not to engage him, but I want to make sure everyone is aware of his conduct so that you can understand why his comments will no longer appear on any articles I write here. Everything and anything I do becomes fodder for his blog, and I were to write about him as he writes about me, he would be railing on the double standard we supposedly have here.

    • Carl says:

      Erik, now you see why I have issues with Kent and his character.

Staypressed theme by Themocracy