Sharper Iron recently posted a fascinating article on the KJV Only debate. It is a treatment of Acts 19:20 in light of KJV Onlyism (of the TR Only variety). Doug Kutilek made the important point that the KJV departs from all editions of the TR to read “word of God” with the Vulgate instead of “word of Lord” in this verse. The modern Majority Text and the Critical Text both agree with the TR on this reading, as well.
While the article was profusely documented, it made one fatal mistake. It used “lemmings” to describe KJV Onlyists who mindlessly follow D.A. Waite, David Cloud and others. This was a big mistake, as reading the ensuing discussion demonstrates! I am not defending the use of that word necessarily: it can definitely be understood as an insult. But I think it unfortunate that such a molehill became the mountain which stopped any fruitful discussion of the article’s main point.
Eventually the thread was closed with a good explanation and defense by Jason Janz. I respect his decision to close the thread, but the problem Kutilek pointed out in his article had not been answered by the KJV Onlyists. Kent Brandenburg had promised to come back with an answer. And now he can’t. With all threads on the KJV issue closed at Sharper Iron right now, it is unlikely he will be given opportunity.
So, let me discuss what Pastor Brandenburg’s answer most likely is. I have discussed this issue with him and others at his church and I believe I have a good feel for his answer.
He would say something like this:
Using “God” instead of “Lord” amounts to a dynamic equivalent translation. There are some of these in the KJV but not many. In fact both the LXX and the New Testament sometimes use the word “God” to translate the Hebrew equivalent of “Lord”. Thus there is more than sufficient precedent for this translation.
I do not think that explanation cuts it. And here’s why.
Brandenburg and most TR onlyists believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word. For the New Testament the TR is the avenue of that preservation. Now the reason it is the TR is because that is what the church used. Which TR? Glad you asked! Since the KJV was universally used by the English church and respected by others so much and for so long, we use the form of the TR that the KJV translators used. Scrivener has providentially given us that very form in his TR edition from the late 1800s. Case closed.
But here is where Acts 19:20 becomes sticky. If we are to determine which TR to use on the basis of the KJV, and then the KJV arbitrarily goes with “God” instead of “Lord”, are not we to assume that the correct reading of the TR should be “God” not “Lord”? All the stuff about a precedent for using “God” instead of “Lord” doesn’t become practice for the KJV translators. They translate “God” when they find “God” in the Greek and “Lord”…”Lord”, almost without exception. So why in Acts 19:20 is it okay to now follow some great precedent?
The fact is Acts 19:20 throws a cog into the wheels of the TR only machine. And Acts 19:20 is not alone. Ruth 3:15 is another sticky situation. The KJV 1611 ends the verse as follows: “and he went into the city”. Yet the modern KJV (1769 and later editions) has “and she went into the city”. The Hebrew Masoretic Text has “he” while its qere reading (the marginal reading) has “she“.
Now when the churches accepted the KJV and thus that exact form of Greek/Hebrew text, did they accept the “he” or the “she”. “She” is not even in the margin of the KJV 1611. Some TR onlyists go with the MT and the original 1611 reading, while others go with the modern form of the KJV and affirm the qere reading of “she”. But this case illustrates the problem of deciding which TR to use on the basis of the KJV’s readings. Which KJV is to be accepted, and which group of churches (those before 1769 or after) are to be followed when deciding which TR to use? This problem is an Achilles’ heel in my view, I have discussed it in more length earlier here.
Other examples of such a problem where the KJV does not use the text that is accepted today as perfect, include Ps. 22:16 (Hebrew MT reads “like a lion” rather than “they pierced”), Job 13:15, Is. 10:32, Lam. 3:26, Jer. 3:9, Micah 1:10, Ia. 13:15, Gal. 4:15, Eph. 6:24, Phil. 2:21, 2 Tim. 1:18, 1 Pet. 2:13 among many others.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
At the risk of speaking out of turn, I can supply what Kent was going to say because he sent it to me. Here are his own words…
Quote from the Kutilek article:
Recognizing the precariousness of claiming inspiration, inerrancy or infallibility for an English translation, even the KJV, many in the KJV-only camp will declare that they believe in the perfect inspiration and preservation, not of the English version, but of the original language texts behind that version. In short, perfection in text is affirmed for the Greek “Textus Receptus†and the Hebrew “Masoretic Text†(now including vowel points and all). Of course, this view conveniently ignores the troubling questions: â€Which TR edition?†(since no two are identical) and “Which Masoretic text edition?†(no two being letter-perfect alike). But we will leave that matter aside in this discussion.
Bburg: First, Kutilek starts by judging the motive of anyone who takes this position. He knows why they all take the position. People who take an original language preservation position do so because they can’t take the position they really want to take, that being, an English translation preservation position. Essentially, they are all disingenuous; that’s his explanation, so it must be true.
Second, he takes a couple of pre-point shots—those taking an original language preservation position ignore questions, only the ones that are repeated hundreds of times like a mantra by the CT/electic. We are ostriches with heads in the sand on CT questions. It must be true—he says it. And by the way, CT/eclectics answer all questions posed. We should all assume that. Because they have the answers to all questions on this matter. Another shot—“now including vowel points and all.” Here are some names of men who believed in the inspiration of the vowel points, and this is in print, such far out modern “lemmings” like Ben-Chayyim himself, John Owen, Francis Turretin, and John Gill. “Now” including vowel points?
Kutilek: (Let it be noted, the Trinitarian Bible Society 1980 reprint of Scrivener’s text behind the KJV NT omits a number of features of Scrivener’s edition, including this important appendix showing KJV departs from the 1598, and from all TR editions. It does, however, read as Scrivener’s text, i.e. “the word of the Lordâ€).
Bburg: Conspiracies abound at Trinitarian! They were hiding the annotated Scrivener’s for fear of embarrassment until they were finally outed by the very sinister D. A. Waite, who finally exposed them, ooops, and himself with the Dean Burgon Society printing of the Scrivener’s Annotated. We all need to thank Dr. D. A. Waite for exposing the wiley guys over at Trinitarian and their “cover-up.”
Then Kutilek spends quite a bit of time documenting his opinion that the TR reading (ho logos tou kuriou) is actually a good one, and that a reading (ho logos tou theou) is very bad and not found in any TR edition. Please enjoy the rare defense of the TR by Kutilek. We don’t get these kinds of moments that often.
Then Kutilek: But, some will object–“the KJV wasn’t the first or the only English version to abandon the Greek for the Latin here.†Indeed, that assertion is correct. Wycliffe’s version, made from the Vulgate, naturally reads “God†with the Vulgate. But so too did Tyndale (in all three editions) and the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva (1557, 1560), the Bishops’ (1568) and the Rheims (1582–made from the Vulgate). Indeed, I could find no English translation before the KJV that read “Lord†instead of “God.†Yet, that does not acquit the KJV translators. As translators, they were to work from the original language texts, and to revise previous versions on the basis of the Greek. The very first rule given to them by the King was: “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.†The standard, then, was the “truth of the original,†not previous English versions of whatever sort. The translators were under solemn obligation to revise any places where the Bishops Bible did not conform to the truth of the original, and here, indeed, they failed in their duty.
Bburg: He attempts to disarm a King James supporter argument before it can be made. But does he actually disarm it. He essentially criticizes the KJV translators heavily for not following the instructions given them. These were the men who had their discussions over an English translation from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in the Latin. But they could not follow instructions, at least according to Kutilek. Question: Where did all these other English translations—Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Cranmer’s Bible 1539, the Geneva Bible 1599, Matthew’s Bible, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Wesley’s 1755—get the same “Word of God” instead of “Word of the Lord.” Is it possible that all of them thought that there was some good reason to translate that Greek text like they did? The Septuagint that we presently possess twice translates a phrase that is “Word of God” into “Word of Kuriou.”
Here I am, a TR/Masoretic perfect preservationist, and I believe it is ho logos tou Kuriou. I don’t know why the KJV men translated it that way. I still believe that preservation stands with the TR reading.
In our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, we said this on p. 154: “The MT of Ruth 3:15 reads “and he went (wâyyavo’) into the city,” referring to Boaz, not Ruth, as the one who went into the city. The immediate context (v. 16) indicates that Ruth went, but the later context (4:1) indicates that Boaz went also. There is no reason to think that there is an error in the MT since both Ruth and Boaz did go to the city. The editors of the 1769 AV opted for giving the readers the sense of the context (“she went”) rather than actually translating the Hebrew word in an effort to minimize questions about inerrancy of Scripture. The Hebrew text must stand because it is not erroneous.” Does that sound like people who will not commit to the Hebrew text? It doesn’t, does it?
Pastor Jeff,
Thanks for posting Brandenburg’s reply. it is helpful.
The sense of my assumption of Brandenburg’s reply before you gave it is still accurate, I believe. And my point about the KJV being the reason to back the TR and yet differing from the TR in this place and others still stands as well. That fact has not been addressed in Brandenburg’s above reply.
Again, thanks for sharing in the interest of accuracy.
God Bless.
Personally, I find Ruckman’s position to be the most defensible KJVO position. [i]I don’t agree with Ruckman’s position[/i], but when it comes down to the details, Ruckman gets his facts right, and the TR-Only guys consistently gloss over the fact that there are multiple editions of the TR.
Kutilek does make some gratuitous stabs at the Onlies, and that’s unfortunate, because it allows them to shift the focus onto his belligerence and away from the facts.
Bob,
I don’t know if you ‘knew’ it, but KJV-only topics or threads on SharperIron have been suspended for several weeks. Previously, SharperIron had a separate forum for English Translations issues, but it got shut down due to the vitriolic nature of some of the posts (and posters). Inadvertantly, you started a new thread, and that threat Greg Linscott had closed. I hope you got a personal message from him regarding this, and an explanation. Considering that you haven’t been on SI that long, you might have not known of this ‘moratorium’ on Bible versions topical issues over at SI. Secondly, I’d tend not to discuss/converse with a few persons due to their belligerence and schismatic personalities (Titus 3:8-10); Mr. Brandenburg is one of them.
Larry,
I guess I’m guilty as charged. I knew of the moratorium, but I was disappointed that the responses to Kutilek’s article which were promised were cut off. Due to that article being posted, I felt discussion should be allowed.
Obviously they didn’t. No big deal, really. I thought it would be more fair to KJV only guys like Brandenburg to hear their reply. My reason for wanting that reply is to show that it still does not answer the point Kutilek makes. I do not believe they have a good answer on this and other issues. That fact makes a good argument against their position.
Truthfully, it was Acts 19:20 and other such difficulties in the textual evidence which eventually forced me to leave the TR only position.
As for inviting discussion from Brandenburg, I agree. He can be a bull and hard to converse with. Actually there are some comment threads on this blog (back in January) that have been quite vitriolic (and I suspect Brandenburg is behind it). I have had email exchanges with him that have been very troubling. Since I was in his church, he especially does not give me any leniency. Often he follows me around on Sharper Iron (or so it seems) and intentionally tries to cast doubts on my personal character, etc. in hopes of poisoning the well so any points I make are not considered. He hints at things that he knows in a wrong and purposefully defaming way. His facts and interpretation of events are just plain biased and wrong. It is frustrating. But it also is enlightening as to the tactics used by him and others. I was defending his chance to respond, for once. Maybe I should get a medal for that, or something. I don’t know.
Anyway, I leave Brandenburg and his blog alone, and he does the same for my blog. So that is nice. It really does not help either of us to be duking it out on the other’s blogs. That is kind of him, anyway. I have tried to just not make a big deal out of defending my reputation. Let others think what they will, I am flawed, that is true. But it doesn’t help me or further the cause of Christ to be constantly defending my own reputation. I would rather just be hurt than be vicious and ruthless in promoting my honor above that of Christ’s.
Now, I hope that the thread at Sharper Iron I started will bring some KJV/TR onlyists out of the woodwork to come over here and defend their position. Or at least to interact with the problems I see with their defense.
We shall have to see if that materializes or not.
Thanks for stopping by, Larry.
Bob, know this, I love you. I don’t want to make a big deal about the supremacy of my love for you over those who sympathize with your new views, except to say that the things I tell you are the most loving that you can get, because they are the truth. You know by experience how lovingly I, we, at Bethel treated you. You act like I am exposing you, when I’ve said very, very little. I’ve purposefully left out many things that would make you look bad and worse. I know God forgives, and I would be willing to do that if I believed you were repentant. Turning on what you former church believed is the worst thing you could do to us. I’m sure some memories of us might enlighten you to the truth.
Speaking the truth in love may have something to do with style, sure. Warning the unruly isn’t unloving, because it is what God told us to do. It is also speaking the truth that is in love. Not speaking the truth is not love. I think that is part of what it means too. My conscience is also clear with you because I have not held back at all from telling you what I believe. I didn’t follow you around at SI; you may have felt like. I just wrote when I happened to see you.
Larry, if you pop back on here. Your words belligerence and schismatic seem to belie what you say you favor as a mode of communication. I actually think we could have a good discussion. You just wouldn’t get rubber stamped if that’s what makes things peaceful for you.
As far as representing me, Bob, I can appreciate it to some degree. My wife was on SI and told me you got a post about me published and so I clicked on your link to come here. You probably thought I could answer you on Sharper Iron. I can’t. No one knows, but I’m excommunicated by the owner/operator. See the previous post from my last to find out how. It is a unique situation. I’m not banned. I’m vaporized.
Regarding your representation of my answer. Why does Acts 19:20 and other places create a problem for me? We don’t have a problem with the “Which TR?” question. Our position, even in TSKT, has been and continues to be general accessibility to the Lord’s churches. We have never taken the one TR edition view or even the one copy view. I have an article prepared that the owner/operator at SI promised me I could publish there as a response to the materials on the Mike Sproul review, but that is not happening. It is a synopsis of what might be book 1 and book 2 of the TSKT two book series. I also noticed that you didn’t mention anything about my Ruth 3:15 dealing and the vowel point dealing. Kutilek said many things absolutely untrue, judged motives, but you like it when he does that? How does he get a free pass when you are sensitive to these things? He tries to make Trinitarian look like they have a conspiracy with their NT.
We believe preservation is in the text. You can’t actually prove what the translators had and didn’t have when they did their translation. What I’m left with is faith in God’s preservation and a perfect Bible based on Scriptural presuppositions and sufficient history. And you are left with subjectivity, Darwinistic science, and an errant Bible. I feel sorry for you. Oh ye of little faith.
In the interest of truth here, I write this.
Pastor Brandenburg,
Thanks for coming on here and clarifying some things. You are welcome to comment here and are subject to the same rules as everyone else (see my commenting policy).
I should also mention that somehow your comment ended in wordpress’ “Akismet Spam” folder. This means I was not notified of it at all. And since 99% of comments in the spam folder are spam, I don’t check it that often. Anyway, just wanted you to know I was not purposefully playing games with your comment.
I understand your perspective regarding “tough love” and saying what I need to hear. And I can respect that. I also appreciate that you’ve said comparatively “very, very little”.
Here is my beef, though. As regards Sharper Iron, when you have encountered my comments you went out of your way to discredit me. I have tried to interject meaningful comments or thoughts into discussions at times. You refuse to listen or allow others to consider those thoughts because you view me as totally discredited. The way you have done this has been troubling as well. At times you have insinuated things and spoken about things no one else would know of, all in the interest of putting me in my place. Then you just brush off whatever point I made, hardly even dealing with it. This tactic is demeaning and just out of place in a public forum, in my opinion.
And beyond Sharper Iron, at your blog and some other blogs you frequent, you have gossipped (I can’t think of another way to term it) and seemingly gloated over the depths of my fall. At times you have talked about me without actually naming me, although it was very clear to anyone familiar with my blog. At other times you have mentioned me by name. Sometimes what you have said amounts to simply mocking me. It is as if you are pumping up yourself and others by agreeing that what I have said and what I have done is simply preposterous.
If you look through this blog, the discussion here is the closest I have come to any of that. I have gone out of my way to make sure that others know I have great memories of my time at your church. I still do. I speak very highly of it. And while I disagree with some positions and tactics of IFB/IFBx people, I have labored to not have a belittling and demeaning approach to them. Check out my new “about this blog” post for the latest clarifying post with regards to my view of fundamentalism.
I have taken different positions, being convinced by Scripture on a number of issues. Rather than patiently deal with the issues, or spend time on the blogs you frequent answering my charges or destroying my exegesis, you just discredit and belittle me. I have labored to explain how and why I came to these changes. I have tried to explain my true motives. Over and against what I claim, you have read into me the motives you think I have.
I find this statement of yours above to be most enlightening: “Turning on what you former church believed is the worst thing you could do to us.” I do not know how my changing my own beliefs on issues that your church deems important has anything to do with your church. How is my leaving fundamentalism a personal insult of the worst kind to your church? Yes, I think many points of what my former church (your church) are wrong. I am now trying to help people see why those points are wrong. But this does not mean I disrespect or hate your church. I respect them and understand them, since I used to believe everything they did. I wish your church would change its positions, but knowing they most likely will not, I am happy they are serving Christ. I wish the best for them.
I am saying all this to explain why I said what I did in comment #5. I am trying to explain my perspective. I do plan on answering Tom’s second letter. It will be difficult, because it seems he never read my initial response to him. So much of what I said fell on deaf ears. Tom has tweaked his arguments a bit, increased the rhetoric and tightened his stance but it is basically the same letter I already answered. I already know how he’ll answer this response, and so I am having a hard time getting motivated to give it. Anyway, that is enough personal discussion. I will discuss your responses to my article in the comment below.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I think your “general accessibility” view has holes in it. It does not really dodge the main thrust of this post. Okay, so God’s Words are to be generally accessible. So both “word of God” and “word of the Lord” were accessible. So how do we know which is correct? Which is God’s intended word?
Regarding Ruth 3:15, I had forgotten you addressed it specifically. Pastor Voegtlin included your email to him which mentioned it. I purposely left out Ruth 3:15 in my post on Sharper Iron, since your position on it seems reasonable. Although, I still think you have to address how you know the MT to be inerrant. My understanding of what you would claim is that since the churches accepted the MT and used the KJV which is based on the MT, then this means the MT is the authorized edition of the Hebrew so to speak. Now the MT does have some indisputable errors. Ps. 22:16 (mentioned in my post) and Josh. 21:36-37 (omitted in the MT, included in a few Hebrew MSS as well as the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac) are two examples. I wonder how you can simply state “The Hebrew text must stand because it is not erroneous”?
As for Kutilek, at times he is harsh with the KJV onlyists, that is true. He seems no harsher with them than they are with him and those who hold his position, truthfully. I think I understood what he was saying with the “lemming” line, although I think it may have been simply a slam. But I did not see “many things absolutely untrue”. On the whole it was fairly balanced. His beliefs might be wrong and sometimes he might misjudge KJV onlyists, but generally he presents the facts in a no holds barred fashion. I know you have had past run ins with him, and perhaps you filter what he says through a different grid than the rest of us.
As far as the Trinitarian thing, I think Kutilek has a point. In their preface, the reader is lead to believe he holds the Greek text which underlies the KJV. However, if you look at the preface to Scrivener’s Annotated TR, he expressly says that there were many times the KJV departed from all Greek texts for the Vulgate or for no known authority. In these places, he gives Beza’s 1598 instead of what the KJV used. He also lists 40+ readings based on the Vulgate in the appendix with the note that the list he gives is most likely only a small sampling of the number of times the KJV depends on the Vulgate. At one time I thought the Trinitarian TR was equal to the KJV, but later I learned better. So in a sense, the Trinitarian Bible Society is hiding this small truth from those who use their TR. I would venture to say that many who use it do not know this fact. They think the Trinitarian TR is absolutely equivalent to the text the KJV is based on, when in fact it isn’t.
I will comment on some of your other things in the future perhaps, but I might, instead, bit by bit take apart Kutilek’s Sharper Iron piece on my own blog. However, here let me say a couple of things about what you’ve said above. You will be welcome to comment on that when I’m through.
First, I haven’t gossiped about you unless we define it differently. I have already confronted you personally and you are unrepentant. You have a public blog. I am warning about you. Was John gossiping about Diotrephes? Scripture says: “Lay hands on no man suddenly.” I don’t think people should get in the habit of listening to you. If you truly think that you understand us, as you regularly say, then I don’t understand why you can’t understand this, because you were with us. By the way, if you think that you are on a different rhetorical level, one of peace, the word cult takes it to a different level. I don’t call you a cult, but you lump what you left altogether neatly into something like leaving a “cult.” I don’t take personaly offense. I’m just pointing out that you should look in the mirror on your complaints about rhetoric. Do you think that Larry’s comments about me were gossip, incidentally? To check your standards of gossip?
Second, this could go on ad infinitum, the Tom doesn’t listen to me; you don’t listen to me, as if you have these superior arguments, but people won’t listen. We have, I believe, much more credibility on the listening side. I never knew you were so close to pushing the eject button on so many different doctrines when you were at our church, especially for someone who talked as much as you. You certainly weren’t lacking in opportunity to tell us.
Third, I have been very, very non-revelatory as it relates to you. Even about positive things we did for you, which I’ll name one—I taught you third year Greek and advanced homiletics for free for at least a month until you had to opt out for non-revealed reasons. Does that sound like your cult-like, IFBx–teaching people Greek? Very KJVO too.
Fourth, you are glossing over Kutilek’s faux pax on the Trinitarian issue. They did not reprint the notes in the back which showed the difference between the 1598 Beza and the text behind the KJV. Kutilek makes it a conspiracy. If so, then why did Waite not get in on the conspiracy? Oh, and how do you prove what the KJVers had and didn’t have in the way of Greek text, besides quoting James White or Price?
Fifth, On the “general accessibility,” we not only take the view of Scripture, availability, but we also take the view of history. The article I had prepared for Sharper Iron would tell you this. I’ll probably post it on our website when I’m through with a final edit.
Sixth, leaving fundamentalism wasn’t the shot at our church, but leaving so many of the doctrines we preached without every questioning it a year earlier when you left in such ‘great fellowship.’ And then immediately thinking you, now Mr. Unity (you like it for you right now especially), was fit to attack these doctrines publically.
Seventh, your view of what Mr. Kutilek writes indicates the unwillingness to listen. If you can’t see the problems with what he writes, you are selectively closing your mind. You choose not to see it.
I actually, the bull, say these things quite calmly.
Pastor Brandenburg,
A few responses.
1) An example of the gossip would be talking on your blog about my submitting my wife’s dentist bill days before our coverage by your school ran out. It was an eyeglass bill not a dentist bill, and we had not yet used the coverage (even though we had it 2 years) but were looking at having no coverage soon, and there was a definite need. If it had been a dentist bill, and she had broken a tooth or something, would you fault us for trying to use the coverage we had for a legitimate need?
Larry merely mentioned he considered you to be belligerant and schismatic. The first entry in my desk dictionary says gossip is “rumor or talk of a personal or sensational nature”. I don’t think Larry’s warning fits the bill. Merely warning people not to take me seriously would not fit the bill either. But the example above, and a few others like it, do.
2) I understand “cult” could be offensive. I stand by my description however. Coming out of the strictness of fundamentalism results in a disorientation similar to that which attends one’s leaving a cult. Doctrinally, there is no comparison. You guys are no cult. I am saying that some of the practices and customs you have are exclusive to your group and strange to people in general, and that there is limited interaction with others outside your group–very much like some cults.
3) Your statements under your second and sixth points belie a basic misunderstanding. I was not secretly plotting an ejection from fundamentalism while at your church. I was not close to rejecting some positions while there. I was finding answers to all the questions and objections I encountered or thought of. I wanted to remain in fundamentalism. I was proud of many of my beliefs.
It was not some secret plan of mine to leave fundamentalism. When I left I had no intentions of rejecting the positions I held to. It was through further interaction with my brother and more reading and study, that I came to leave the positions I held. Before I left your church there was much pressure to conform and stay conformed. There was not much opportunity to objectively evaluate beliefs, as exclusion and expulsion would result if I changed even one position. After leaving, we were not as closely connected to the church we joined as we had been with yours. Distance and I admit some fear prevented me from asking for further input from you and your church as I encountered yet more objections and questions after I left. I did feel that I had heard all the answers on some of these things, and felt that the understanding I was seeing would not be changed by further input from your church. I had studied and come to many of the conclusions I had previously held to on my own. Or at least I had come to really know why I believed them. Once I took the first step of actually being wiling to change and look at one of my beliefs without the prejudice I held for it, more and more questions arose. Things became crystal clear. The answers I had previously marshalled against questions raised or encountered, were seen to be as dull as they really were. I have explained this elsewhere, but it seems you and others will not take my explanation at face value.
4) It was almost a year after I left fundamentalism before I started the blog. I even said a big part of the blog was to document and put down on paper the ideas and understanding I had on the issues I had recently faced. The blog was mainly for my benefit at first. I don’t pretend to be ordained. And I do not believe that I need to be an authority figure in order to have permission to speak about these kind of things. People are free to not listen to me. But discussing theology and defending your own views are not the sole propriety of pastors. I respect elders/pastors and am to sumbit to them, but they are not to be pontiffs. People can understand Scripture on their own and talk about it and defend their views.
5) Waite is not connected to Trinitarian. What he does is one thing, what they do another. Trinitarian chose to leave out the preface and appendices of Scrivener’s text. Waite chose to provide them. Trinitarian’s own preface judged on its own merit can easily lead one to conclude falsely that its text is an exact representation of the KJV in Greek. This is what Kutilek objects to and suggests that Trinitarian may have intentionally left out the preface/appendices for that very reason. If it is not a conspiracy, it is still not fair scholastically for them to leave out info which would shed a whole new light on their own preface. They should at least have gone out of their way to explain what text it was they were giving in their preface. The error was either planned or unintentional, but either way I agree with Kutilek that it is an error on Trinitarian’s part.
6) I will read what you post on Kutilek’s article on your blog. And I am not sure how I am “unwilling to listen” because I do not see how Kutilek is so full of prejudice and errors as you make him out to be. The facts he shares speak for themselves with or without any invectives.
I appreciate that you say these things calmly. I trust my response is so, as well. I do not think we are going to see eye to eye. And these responses could go on ad infitum. You have said what you need to, and I have as well. If you have further clarification, I am fine with you posting more. I just do not want to see this devolve into discourse of a considerably less calm nature.
Respectfully,
Bob Hayton
You give answers, you say we don’t listen. I give answers, I say you don’t listen. We have a whole church; you have you, but you alone is fine for you. You have a lot of excuses for why you wouldn’t talk about this huge change—pressure, etc.—but you did talk a lot and about many controversial things. Everyone’s memory here was that you didn’t hold back at all or even seem like it. These pressures you talk about also happen to be the ones Scripture designed to hold everything together in a church.
The word “pontiff,” for your info, is inflammatory language—I say this mainly for a kind of false-piety that guys of your ilk seem to carry that you are ‘above the frey’ and very peaceful. It isn’t so. I’m not upset; I’m just desirous for you to see the telephone pole in the eye while you judge the Louisville Slugger. And you stand by “cult” whether it offends or not—this is part of the peace and unity strategy?
We didn’t protest your use of the medical (it was eye/dental for the fastidious detail correction, which we call dental coverage); just would like a little balance in your pseudo-coverage. You don’t want certain details like that, which are positive, they’re gossip, but you seem to provide one thing after another about your former places very selectively to paint a very negative picture—those are “good reporting.” A false picture.
I will deal with Kutilek on my blog.
Pastor Brandenburg,
You said: “We didn’t protest your use of the medical”.
Quote from your own blog:
“…To end, he skips out of town and then sends us his wife’s dentist bill three months later, a day before that benefit, paid by our non-profit school, runs out. Himself disloyal to everyone but himself. The world revolves around him….”
Yes you guys paid the bill and stuck to your word, but this sounds like protesting or complaining (at the least gossipping) to me.
You have made your point, and I have made mine. I see that we are not moving anywhere in this exchange. Anyone reading this exchange is welcome to contact either of us for more on our point of view, and they can make their own conclusions.
Discussion on this aspect is now over under this comment thread. We may perhaps further discuss Kutilek’s article here. I probably won’t interact with it on your blog, unless you want me to. I wouldn’t get a warm reception from your readers, and I don’t want to make a big stink. Most of them know about this blog and so they don’t need me to be coming over to their blogs policing them, so to speak.
I am thankful for your ministry, really. I was encouraged to read about the Sikh thing, on your blog. I do hope God continues to bless your ministry and grow the faith of you and your people.
God bless,
Bob Hayton
“Now the MT does have some indisputable errors. Ps. 22:16 (mentioned in my post) and Josh. 21:36-37”
Not at all. What is “the” MT? On both of these there is minority support for the true KJB reading. Also lots of auxiliary support, Ben Hayim even put in a fascinating margin note about the evidences of the Joshua verse.
Just like we are slow to speak of “the Greek” or even “the TR” we should be slow to speak of “the MT”.
Kent, thanks for your time of support for the pure and inerrant KJB at Sharper Iron while you were there.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
To
Bob Hayton ,
Sikh is not a thing, its a religion. if you want others to respect your religion then learn to respect and accept other religions.
thanks,
-singh
Singh,
I am well aware of the Sikh religion. You’re coming in a year later here and reading my use of the “Sikh thing” and making a judgment on what I meant by that. If you were to go to Brandenburg’s blog and search through the archives to a few weeks or so prior to the date on the comment above, you’d find out what I meant. “Thing” refers to the occurrence or happening he wrote about in connection with a Sikh parade that he observed.
Respecting other religions does not also require we allow for their equal claims to the truth. I believe absolute truth exists, and the God of the Bible is the only true God. That belief does not make me superior to others, it helps me love them more, as I believe God made us all.
Blessings be on you through Jesus Christ the Lord, may you come to know and love the truth as I do.
Bob