Kent Brandenburg has rushed to the aid of Chris Pinto in an attempt to revive his reputation as a cutting-edge researcher. Regaling us with his expertise on the transmission of the biblical text, Kent began writing a series of articles excising an autopsy upon what he calls “the multiple version men.” That is Brandenburg newspeak for “Christians who are not KJV only and defend modern translations.” If you are wondering, that is like really, really bad.
The first one in the series was republished over at Noise of Textus Receptus, so obviously, Chris Pinto thinks he has written an opinion piece so astonishing and profound, his detractors must sit up and take notice.
I really don’t have time, nor really the interest, to engage all of Kent’s posts. I anticipate that Kent, or one of his surrogates, will stop by here and lecture me in the comments about what a sad deficiency on my part for not laboring through his series point by point, because they believe I can learn something; but honestly, I want to move on to other important things. With that said, let me interact with the first point he raises. It is a clear demonstration of the facile, slipshod responses masquerading as a rebuttal Kent provides.
He writes,
1. They leave men with the wrong source of scriptural bibliology.
The textual critic, multiple versionist has never started with the Bible. He didn’t go to history to find the historical, biblical position on the preservation of scripture. He didn’t and doesn’t develop a biblical position before he starts in with his textual criticism. He is not a man of faith, in other words, because faith always starts with what God says. You know you will be wrong when you don’t start with the Bible to come to your position. You will read zero development of theology as a basis of the multiple version point of view. Nothing.
The last issue of the Biblical Evangelist republished an article by Douglas Kutilek on Psalm 12, concerning the doctrine of preservation. A very, very long article was intended to establish that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of the poor and needy and not the Words of God. So here is Kutilek attempting to “liberate” the Bible from teaching on the perfect preservation of scripture, and what does that leave us with? We are to depend on a handful of scientific gurus to reveal what God’s Words are. Kutilek buttresses his point on gender discordance, and in so doing, is dishonest in not revealing the purposeful gender discordance that is found in pronouns that refer to the Word of God. There are multiple clear examples of this in the Bible, and, therefore, taught in Hebrew grammar and syntax. I and many others have communicated to Kutilek on this, but then he would have to admit that error, so he continues to propagate the misrepresentation. He says that “them” in Psalm 12:6-7 must refer back to poor and needy based upon gender agreement. Again, that’s not true. I’m not saying that the passage doesn’t teach the preservation of the poor of needy, but that the plain reading, and why many Christians have read it this way, is the preservation of God’s Words.
Kent’s words here are so full of inaccuracy and misstatement it is difficult not to call them intentionally dishonest. He seriously thinks any God-fearing Christian who has engaged in textual criticism and believes in the orthodoxy of modern versions really does not believe the Bible. That person is to be identified with the “multiple version men” (MVM) and thus does not have faith in God.
So if you are someone like myself, or one who is even more knowledgeable in the subject like James White, and you question the Simonides theory of Chris Pinto and reject the TR/KJVO worldview of the “single version men” (SVM), well then, you have no faith in God when it comes to the text of our Bible. Seriously. Who exactly argues like this?
As Kent moves along in his comment, he continues to pile on the dishonesty in taking to task Doug Kutilek’s article on Psalm 12:6,7.
Let me break it down,
The SVM will claim that God preserves every single word He inspired. I happen to believe that as a MVM, but how I see history telling us God did that preservation differs radically from the revisionism I read from the SVM like Kent and Pinto. One of the passages SVM (aka KJVOs) will cite for their view of preservation is Psalm 12:6,7 which states,
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.
It is claimed by the SVM/KJVOs that this is a direct promise by God Himself that His Word will be kept and preserved from the generation when God began revealing Himself, through to when David originally wrote Psalm 12, and into eternity. In other words, this is a promise that the entire Bible will forever be preserved and not a word will be lost. The truly devout KJVOs argue that the concept of “purified seven times” is a prophetic promise directly related to the various English translations that preceded the publication of the King James in 1611. I talk about that a bit in my series of posts answering the apologetics of KJV onlyists.
Contrary to what Kent asserts for the Pinto fans, Doug Kutilek has written a devastating article against their apologetic talking-point, showing that Psalm 12:6,7 does not, in any fashion, support the idea of an eternal preservation of the biblical text as is claimed by the SVM. In fact, it is a rather detailed, exegetically driven study that proves from the Hebrew grammar itself that the promise to “preserve them” is not the words of God, as in biblical manuscripts and texts, but relates back to the “poor and needy” mentioned in 12:5. God preserves “them,” i.e., the poor and needy, from the attacks of the wicked who seek their spiritual destruction. If anything, Psalm 12 is a Psalm giving God praise for the eternal security He provides His people.
The dishonesty of his words is only compounded when Kent writes that, “We are to depend on a handful of scientific gurus to reveal what God’s Words are….I and many others have communicated to Kutilek on this, but then he would have to admit that error, so he continues to propagate the misrepresentation.” Oh really? Provide me the names of the “many others” who have communicated this to Kutilek. Because as his article documents, the vast majority of Hebrew commentators, both ancient and recent, side with Kutilek, not the SVM on who the “them” truly are.
Take for example, John Gill, who writes on Psalm 12:7, “Ver. 7, “Thou Shall Keep them, O Lord...Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains, for the affix is masculine and not feminine…but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them….”
A fuller list of scholars is provided in Kutilek’s article, but the list includes John Calvin, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke and host of other excellent men, many of who, like these men, wrote way before there were any so-called multiple versions. If I take Kent’s words here, I have to conclude that those guys are not full of faith, started with textual criticism instead of the Bible, and are a group of scientific gurus. Or could it be they are God-fearing, Bible-loving, faith-filled Christians who just so happen to disagree – based upon the grammar of the Hebrew – with Kent and all the SVM.
Adding to the genuine, biblical understanding of Psalm 12:7 that Kutilek explains is the word “generation.” Rather than it being a way of speaking about a fixed point in time and the promise of total preservation of every one of God’s Words during the transmission of the biblical text, the word “generation” speaks to a condition or class of men. In this case, the wicked who attempt to bring down the poor and needy. They are referenced in 12:8 as those who “prowl on every side.” The point being is that David is contrasting a righteous generation with a wicked one.
One Psalm over in Psalm 14:5 the “generation of the righteous” is contrasted with those who have no fear of God, or what would be the “generation of the wicked.” The NT consistently uses “generation” in this fashion and Philippians 2:15,16 even mirrors what is being stated in Psalm 12:7,8 when Paul writes,
that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.
So where do the Single Version Men lead us? Are they leading us to the purity of God’s Word? Are they cultivating a solid commitment and faithful affirmation to the true Word of God? (Which of course is only found in the KJV or any other TR based translation).
Or are they teaching us horrendous Bible study skills that strip the biblical text of its true meaning? Are the in truth passing along a deceitful reading of history and facts about the transmission of the Bible? All in a desperate attempt to defend their single version perspective that leaves all Christians without a genuine understanding of what God truly said and how He brought us His Word.
hipandthigh 
The kernel within your boilerplate:
“In everything you read that indicates what men believed on preservation, they say what I’m saying.”
Ah yes. “What men believed.”
My response:
Everything found in Scripture about preservation says what I’m saying.
1) Preservation: Yes.
2) Method? Means? How? Where?: Nothing. Silence.
3) Prohibition against tools like Textual Criticism?: Nothing. Silence.
Thrall us with your acumen. Don’t cite extrabiblical sources, rabbit-trail links to other sites etc. Cite scripture (alone) that directly teaches TRO. Psalms 22 & Matt 5 are spent rounds.
GA Insane Diego,
I appreciate your desire to know. Read the debate I linked to above. Read our book. http://pillarandgroundpublishing.wordpress.com/thou-shalt-keep-them.
We deal with many of the preservation passages in their context. There are also a lot of good articles, some of which are mine, here: http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/
KB: you’ve been called. Throw down. tick-tock
Cite one or two scriptures, in context, which at face value (i.e. grammatical-historical hermeneutic) prove the Textus Receptus Only theory.
We won’t point to other links or sources controlled by other people. We won’t appeal to history or consensus, nor use any ‘appeal to authority’ tactics.
The onus is on you. Lay out one or two of the clearest most powerful scriptures which, in context, teach the Textus Receptus Only doctrine. Do it here on this informal, level field. Allowable are our own observations about the _words of the Bible alone_ that you claim make your TRO case. Let the readers decide whether the Bible teaches Textus Receptus Only (your view), or whether it teaches that God promises to preserve His word forever by unspecified transmission means (my view).
Same rules for each of us. First guy to cite consensus, Byzantine beards or extra-biblical sources has tapped out.
No reason to fear, you should have me whipped in no time. Bring it. I’m a nobody; you’re a master debater.
‘(Christ) was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” ‘ -Mark 7:9
GA Insane Diego,
I might be able to debate, and I have, but I hardly believe that people here would give me any credit for that. Look at some of the comments. So you’re not going to lure me with that. If you really thought I, or this, was something, you’d be defending me against some harsh stuff all the way through. This is not a great setting for a debate. I think it is best to have a moderator, etc. I would suggest and encourage, if you want to hear the historic and biblical position, read the debate with Turk and some of the articles and buy the book.
I was a biblical language major in college. I started taking Greek in high school and took 8 years. I have taught 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year Greek. I’m teaching second year this year by skype with a group of guys. By the end of this year, I will have taught/preached through the whole NT, studying it in the original language.
I believe the standard KJVO position is as bad or worse than the eclectic/critical position. A majority of KJVO do not take a historical or biblical position, and are actually neo-orthodox. However, folks like me get lumped in out of convenience. It’s actually a dishonest debate technique. I get that it’s being used, but it should understood for the desperation that it is. Look at Fred with the gender discordance. Rather than dealing with it, he calls Tom Strouse, a very humble, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth guy, a name. He name calls. It’s typical. And do you hear the crowd here calling him on it — which is why I can’t take the insults seriously. It’s like being a player at a visiting ball park — you will hear it from the crowd. You’ve got to take it with a grain of salt.
Our book, TSKT, is essentially an exegesis of those passages on preservation. It really isn’t fleshing out the application of the passages to TR/KJV so much. We’ll have another book come out that looks at the history at some point in the future. What I’m saying about the history, which you seem to be admitting, is true. However, you are saying, let’s deal with scripture, see if it says what I’m saying it does. I say it does and other men have said. They have ways of explaining it too that are what I too believe.
For a tip as to the “how” that people will say doesn’t exist — study the use of natsar and shamar in the OT as it applies to the Word of God, and then look at tareo in the Greek NT. We can see that God did in fact tell us how it would be done. Divine and providential, but the Bible explains how He would do that.
Scripture does not specify how or where God has preserved His word. Only a Catholic-Lite approach (aka tradition) could possibly produce a phantom doctrine like TRO. This is done by arbitrarily granting the medieval church certain cult-like powers & abilities. That power grant is divined by eisegesis, not a clear, face-value exegesis of scripture.
The words natsar, shamar, and tareo become terms within scripture. Their usage, in context, does not teach anything about the ‘how, where or which’ matter of textual choice, which is the ONLY issue at hand. KB could have cited his top two instances of their use, and shown them to everyone on this thread. He didn’t do that because he knows they don’t teach TRO, and the jig would be up. Instead, he cites three words & asks folks to buy his book.
TRO is a made-up doctrine like it’s hillbilly cousin KJVO. Like the papacy, purgatory, the immaculate conception, etc.
Having wandered off the Sola Scriptura reservation, TRO sits pouting on the island of Sola Ecclesia.
This “buy my book” guy pimping the TRO on this site is on a fool’s errand, and he wants company.
A careful, eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament is completely appropriate. Nothing has been shown on this thread to indicate otherwise. At this point, we’re beating a dead horse. A dead donkey called tradition. (KJV: “ass”.)
GA Insane Diego,
Your statements are funny — they work the audience well. Most of them aren’t true. Just like with Fred, when he gives an “answer” to use of gender discordance, he thinks that it can be wrong because someone who is a geocentrist believes it. I guess, it’s sad, but I guess that works here. Gender discordance remains, but it’s wrong on Fred’s orbiting planet because one person on earth who believes it takes a different view from him on the center of the universe — are those two related? Um. No. Was the Jewish rabbi I quoted also a geocentrist? Because if not, you can see how that this would really shake things up, right? Crazy, crazy stuff. This is not about the truth, when people operate this way. I guess I’ll be lectured now for saying “crazy.” This blog should be off limits for the tone police.
Your speculations and theories are wrong. It’s obvious you don’t know the history of this doctrine, because you wouldn’t be writing what you are writing. I don’t say that to chide you. I say it because it’s obvious if you’ve read the literature. I’m not going to rewrite all the things I’ve written and that others in the 17th century wrote just because you’ve drawn a line with chalk on the sidewalk and dared me to cross over it. It indicates you’ve got the psychology of it messed up too. What makes it obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about is that you provide no exegesis and no history. None. You just make outlandish statements. They’re entertaining — I’ll grant you that — but they have no basis in truth. Perhaps you can start with your own presuppositions and the history of the doctrine that differs from what I’m saying, rather than just trash talking. The Seattle-San Francisco game isn’t until Sunday. I’ve already written mine multiple times in multiple formats. Have you written yours one time anywhere. I get that you can take shots at mine, but I’d like to hear your biblical position.
KB wrote: “What makes it obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about is that you provide no exegesis and no history. None.”
I don’t have to. I’m not making the TRO claim.
There is no exegesis supporting Textus Receptus Only, because it’s not taught in scripture. The onus is on those making the absurd claim. This is why you’ve embarrassed yourself with appeals to Psalms 12 & gender bender gobbledegook. You wouldn’t have done that if you had one or two clear passages that teach TRO.
Folks: good exegesis of inspiration & preservation passages reveals that the Lord promises to preserve His God-breathed word, and fulfill its purposes.
Note the grandeur: the promise to preserve & divine indestructibility. I urge every interested reader to open their Bibles & read the entire context of these pericopes:
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” Isaiah 40:8 NASB
“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)” -John 10:35 NASB
Notice these passages don’t say anything about the Textus Receptus Only, nor do they say how, where, or through what human methods God would accomplish these promises. Is that so little?
KB & Cult-like eisegesis. You’ve used cherry-picked history like it’s on a par with God’s word, authoritatively. Passages like Psalm 12 are dry, empty donuts needing a good TRO filling. Likewise, you pimp your books & articles, & make self-aggrandizing claims about your language & teaching skills. These are things people do to peddle snake-oil doctrine, not found in scripture.
The plain truth is: you love tradition.
TRO insertion into preservation passages and your gender-bender parlor tricks with Psalms 12 reveal your low view of scripture, and its _resultant_ abysmal hermeneutic. A person can teach Biblical languages for 40 years & still end up in gross error if their hermeneutic is flawed. (Recommended reading for those holding to a high view of scripture & a grammatical-historical hermeneutic: Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, by Robert L. Thomas)
Catholics beat their apostolic succession drum over “upon this rock” in Matt 16 the same way you beat your TRO drum over Psalms 12, your tradition, writings, & resume. Apostolic succession is not native to the text; it must be imported. Likewise TRO is not found in any text, it must be smuggled in.
Flawed hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) travel hand-in-hand with a faulty i.e. low view of Scripture. I, being a nobody, appreciate the opportunity to expose the TRO error and to highlight the authority & sufficiency of God’s word, the Bible, taken at face value.
GA Insane Diego,
I really do like discussing the Bible with people, but I don’t think you are open actually. I don’t think Fred is either in many different ways, but you come across even less so. It’s easier for you, because you’re anonymous. I wouldn’t allow for anonymous comments of the nature that you write, on my blog. If you are going to be tough, you’ve got to let people know exactly who you are.
You say you don’t need any exegesis. Why not? You’ve got a position. What is the basis for your position? There is not historic basis for your position. Christians haven’t believed it. I still know of no biblical position for the new position your position. You are making claims too, and you have no basis for them. You just ask for mine. This is where the irony comes in. You are the one with the traditional position, the one with no biblical basis. And your tradition is secular. It’s sad, really.
I’ve given the cliffs notes of the traditional text, ecclesiastical text position. Scripture backs it up. And the way I’m arguing it is the way it reads in the historic theology. One, God preserved every word and all the words in the language He wrote them. Two, they are generally available or accessible to God’s people in every generation. Three, God would lead His churches to those Words and they would receive them. Four, there will be a settled text of Scripture. This is the same argument for biblical canonicity, except that canonicity is actually less defensible scripturally, because there is no promise of the preservation of books, per se.
You have a kind of neo-orthodox position that separates the actual words, the letters, the jots and the tittles, from the “word” singular, the message, the concepts or the ideas. No, the words, the letters, would be preserved and available.
The “can’t find the TRO in there” is a straw man to the max. What words were available? What words did the church receive? Only the TR.
The position isn’t buttressed on Psalm 12. All I’m saying, and this is the last time, is that Kutilek builds his position on the gender accordance, and he purposefully leaves out the gender discordance point. That looks desperate. If someone cares about good exegesis, he looks at all of the syntax. What he says is false, and no one has proven that here, just mocked and slandered. You don’t get it, so you mock it. I understand. A lot of time, people who don’t get things have to mock them, to cover for their ignorance. Just say you don’t get it. You are actually mocking something God does in Psalm 119 several times, refers to His Words, which is a feminine noun in the Hebrew, with a masculine pronoun. Maybe you elevate the English above the original languages. God does it again and again, and then you mock it, call it gender bender.
Christians have taken this teaching on perfect preservation from Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 5:17-18; 24:35; etc. The position comes from the passages, not vice-versa. This is where you’re ignorant. You haven’t read what believing (non-Catholic) men have written about it. They saw the apographa as equal to the autographa. Actual historians know this.
Apostolic succession isn’t a parallel. Of course, you would know I would reject that as well. The reason your position is in fact a low view of scripture is because you don’t argue from scripture, and you are not left with a perfect text, which is what scripture promises. Sola scriptura argues from scripture, but you argue from science, putting that over God’s promises. The Bible is the only authority. When you add science to it, which you do, you undermine the Bible.
My comments (on Fred’s articles about Pinto) are posted to expose the bankruptcy of the TRO position, from a scriptural standpoint. They’re not about my doctrinal views on other topics, because a) that would be off topic, and b) it’s not about me. These posts have been about whether scripture and scripture alone teaches Textus Receptus Only.
You wrote: “Christians have taken this teaching on perfect preservation from Isaiah 59:21;Matthew 4:4;5:17-18;24:35;etc. The position comes from the passages, not vice-versa. This is where you’re ignorant. You haven’t read what believing (non-Catholic) men have written about it.”
Ignorant about what some Byzantine beards wrote? You say that like it’s a bad thing. I don’t need to be an expert at the Talmud to understand the OT. I do know what those scriptures teach, and none of them teach Textus Receptus Only. That’s good enough for me. Why? Because I don’t put the “historical theology” opinions & tradition of _some_ men, at a certain cherry-picked time in history, on a par with holy writ. In de facto practice, you do.
You wrote: “And the way I’m arguing it is the way it reads in the historic theology..(i.e.) ..there will be a settled text of Scripture.”
Here it is, clear as day: “Historical theology” is an oxymoron, the way you use it, because you use it in a Catholic, ecclesiastical way. Ergo it produces error like the prediction, “there will be a settled text of Scripture.” The Bible is my authority for theology. Nowhere does the Bible teach “there will be a settled text of Scripture.” Historical theology appeals to a science of selective history (big sucking sound) to add to & sit in judgment on the words of scripture. Why not use the Watchtower or Book of Mormon?
So deal with it KB, ya whiner. While in Fred’s house, I’ve played by his rules including registration.
You’ve set the bar high, revealing exactly who you are on your own “me..me..ME..me..ME! did I mention: ME!” website. (parental guidance suggested):
“I got lots of learnin when I was in cemetery. I also gots books I try to read. I has preecht throo most of the books of the Bible spositorally. I is marreed and has 4 youngins—3 is gurlz. Me am indipendint Babtist. Pleeez reed my blog.”
You’ve not called for the identities of all the other folks posting on Fred’s website. Probably because most of them haven’t exposed the root cause of your TRO error (i.e. history = theology), the birdbrain eisegesis it requires, or stood up to your blowhard antics. It drives you nuts that you can’t censor the speech of others (here) who just hold up the Bible as divine authority.
That said: it’s not about me, because I’m a nobody. A fact you should relish because now you can tell Chris Pinto and his twelve TRO supporters (including the guy who hits like a girl) that, “Nobody kicked your keester on Fred’s Hip & Thigh.” And nobody kicked it with just a ‘for the sake of argument’ demurrer, a little scripture, and an unanswered challenge for you to produce scripture-only proof of the TRO snake oil you peddle.
GA,
I’m done here basically. You have zero exegesis and only eisegesis for your secular, so-called scientific position. Christians, not Byzantines or Catholics, have believed in perfect preservation. That is the historic, scriptural position. You’ve done nothing to debunk it. I think all insulting commenters should give their names, but you’re the only one who keeps going and going like an energizer bunny. Snake oil would be something that draws people from the faith once delivered, which is what your position does. I’m very fine with my position, because I didn’t find in a cracker jacks box. If people enjoy your material, it speaks a lot for them. It’s like reading reformed Egyptian. It’s indecipherable. You can attempt the last chicken scratching if you wish.
Kent Brandenburg, ladies and gentleman! Let’s all give him a round of applause!
Clap Clap Clap…..
I will give my thoughts on Psalm 12:7 in due time but first I wanted to give a bit of background information. I’m in the process of leaving a IFB over this KJV-onlyism issue. I have no problem with a Church deciding that they will use the KJV only in the Church. I have a major problem when the Pastor and other preachers go on the attack of other translations then say things that in my best opinion at the very least should not be said and at the very worst are flat out dangerous to say.
Kent, I hope you know the King James translators themselves believed the Hebrew was best translated “him” and not “them”. So says the KJV translators notes and you can also see a Old King James Bible online and sure enough it’s in the margin. You can also see this noted in the Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown commentary.
We can add to the list provided in the discussion Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament commentary also agrees with the author of the article here. As well as Albert Barnes’ notes on the Bible. I’m sure this list could be added too. I would assume you have to go inside IFB circles in order to get the other interpretation of this portion of Scripture. Charles Spurgeon certainly did not take up on this modern day interpretation of Psalm 12:7.
In a way so what to what any man might have to say. Considering Noah was right and the whole world was wrong. But never the less it is the IFB that is bringing in a new teaching concerning Psalm 12:7. There is a book at the Church I was attending that I assume by it’s title used Psalm 12:7 as a launching point I have heard the man teach the particular verse in question. If you would do a study on the word preserved in the Bible you will see it always refers to the preservation of men I do believe. It has been some time since I took a close look at it.
John R Rice was not in agreement with this New Teaching.
This needs to stop I doubt it will, this KJV-onlyism has hurt the cause of Christ in my best opinion. You want people to believe the Bible can be translated into every language on the planet except modern day English. It has gained a cult like mentality. I write KJV only websites from time to time I don’t think they have ever written me back. They can’t even debate a nobody like me with no real education. I know about the word “unicorn” and “Easter” and neither should be in the word of God.
It breaks my heart to see the potential the IFB Churches of America hold. You think they could have lead the way on issues like Christmas, Easter, and would not defend things like the wrongly translation of words like “unicorn”. One would think they could have lead the way with using the Hebrew names of God and Christ. When we meet a foreign person we ask their name and try to repeat it best as we can we don’t translate it. I’m not caught up in the Hebrew Roots movement as some are. I have done battle online with the Judahizers. I know all about them and many other false teachers.
I have learned Midrash another thing the IFB Churches could bring back as it should be. It is how persons in the New Testament interpreted the Old Testament.
Almost finished, it is a sad thing that IFB Churches only allow IFB preachers in their pulpits. If we truly are a body of Christ then there some outside Baptist circles that have something to offer the Baptist of America. Where can I find a Church where a man brings it from the Old Testament like J V McGee did? Or a Eric Ludy today?
One final note, if we Christians ever really saw our Churches and the country we live in like the living God of heaven does we would fall on our faces weeping uncontrollably. We are the reason revival does not come. Silly discussions like this would become “null and void”. Islam is coming to chastise the Church in my best opinion and Islam is antichrist. ((Col 2:21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”)) And what are we talking about READ NOT. Are we talking about Occult ligature? No! Are we talking about pornographic material? No. What are some telling people not to read? The Bible! Yes we have some Bibles today that need not be read but we also have some very good translations at out fingertips today that can and are being used to bring glory to the living God of heaven, being used for the cause of Christ.
GA/Fred, you’ve been called. Tick tock.
Cite one or two scriptures, in context, which at face value (i.e. grammatical-historical hermeneutic) prove the 66 books of the Bible are the completed Canon theory.
We won’t point to other links or sources controlled by other people. We won’t appeal to history or consensus, nor use any ‘appeal to authority’ tactics.
The onus is on you. Lay out one or two of the clearest most powerful scriptures which, in context, teach the “66 books Only, not 65 or 67” doctrine. Do it here on this informal, level field. Allowable are our own observations about the _words of the Bible alone_ that you claim make your 66 books case.
Same rules for each of us. First guy to cite consensus, Byzantine beards or extra-biblical sources has tapped out. You’re welcome to surrender early and admit you teach the traditions of men rather than the Bible.
No reason to fear, you should have me whipped in no time. Bring it. I’m a nobody; you’re a master debater. If it helps I can bring a boatload of snark and bombast, because I’m posting anonymously, so my parents will never stumble across this, know it was me, and thrash me despite my years.
Rev_4:4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. That should cover the Old Testament.
Psa 12:7 Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve them, Thou keepest us from this generation to the age. (Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by J.N. Young, 1862, 1898 (Author of the Young’s Analytical Concordance))
Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh
Kent is a moron. There is nothing “secular” about rejecting his theory of textual criticism. I tend not to take these IFB individuals very seriously, even if they have credentials. I feel sorry for people who attend churches with such ideologies.