Reformed Bibliology Special: Pastor Taylor DeSoto and Dr. Peter Gurry
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ธ.ค. 2019
- #textusreceptus #confessionaltext #petergurry
Associate Pastor Taylor DeSoto guest lecture on the Confessional Text Position with Dr. Peter Gurry and his ThD students
Nice job Taylor. Thank you Dr. Gurry for inviting Taylor to present a first person rationale for holding to the TR.
I agree Dr. Riddle! Praise God!
Which TR of more than 30 TRs?
@@Rightlydividing-wx1xbthat would be a question for the KJV translators who spent 7 years refining that 99% plus pure gold bar into a 100% perfect product.
I appreciate the discussion. I side with the Confessional Bibliology position, but was so encouraged to see the Christian unity between all of these brothers despite the disagreements. May John 17 and Christ’s Prayer for unity continue to grow and be actualized by the Spirit’s grace.
Great work!
Note for future sessions: if a person in the room is going to speak, that person needs a microphone.
I thought I would be the only one speaking, but the format was more interactive.
whao... this was awesome... and bravely done... this is a great example of how we are to go from here... fantastic that such a discussion can take place at all... it should have lasted two and a half hour instead of one and a half... thanks.... :-))
Great presentation. It's encouraging to see this kind of interaction. Almost made me become postmil😜
No sound for the first 3 seconds and I’m like nooooo! Then it kicks in and all is well.😊
Lying in bed with a terrible cold, I took down a bunch of words Taylor used to describe the TR: “Pure,” “Perfect,” “Certain,” “Absolute,” “Stable,” “Settled,” “Not changing,” “Completed,” “Agreed upon.” He said, “There’s not a single place where I don’t know what the text says.” He said (though this is a paraphrase) that if there is uncertainty anywhere, there is uncertainty everywhere.
And Dr. Gurry asked the question I pushed with my paper (soon to be published in the Detroit journal): how is it right for Taylor to use the language above when there is undeniable variation among TRs? There are more than twelve differences between just the two TRs I’ve looked at in detail: Stephanus and Scrivener.
There aren’t just spelling and word order differences, though there are those. There are differences in number (sg. vs. pl.); there are differences in person (“us” vs. “you” in Mark 9:40); there are differences in tense and mood (Matt 13:24; Rev 3:12). There are wholly different words (Matt 2:11; 1 Pet 1:8; 1 Tim 1:4; 1 John 1:5; 2 Cor 11:10; 2 Thess 2:4; Phm 1:7; Heb 9:1; Jas 5:12; Rev 7:10).
And, significantly, there is an entire sentence-one which to me feels doctrinally important-present in Scrivener that is missing from Stephanus: 1 John 2:23. (Interestingly, that clause is all italicized in the KJV, which is the equivalent of the very textual-doubtfulness brackets that KJV proponents complain about in the ESV, NIV, etc.)
There are also two overt contradictions between Stephanus’ TR and Scrivener’s TR (see James 2:18 and Rev 11:2).
All TR advocates in my experience wish to continue to wave the “perfect” and “absolute” and “stable” and “settled” and “completed” flags. I don’t actually relish taking those flags out of their hands: I want people to have a sure and settled faith. But it’s when they wave those flags before laypeople and therefore cause division that I must gently pipe up from the back of the room. In my experience, precisely 0% of laypeople (and maybe 5% of pastors) in TR-using churches are aware that there are multiple TRs with differences among them; nor are they aware that the main TR used by their churches is a record of the textual-critical decisions of the KJV translators that never existed in the history of the world until Scrivener put it together in 1881.
I am not trying to replace certainty with uncertainty. I am trying to fit my expectations to the amount of certainty God has actually provided-and not demand more when I have plenty.
I am no scholar, but I listened carefully to what Pastor DeSoto was saying, (it was a bit difficult to hear what the others in the room were saying) I found his reasons for pushing the TR texts were emotional ones and not based, or seemingly not concerned, with what the original autographs may have been. This was very enlightening. Next time you are sitting with a group of people around a table please consider the fact that more than one person probably would be speaking at some time during the discussion. Thanks, I really enjoyed this.
19:00 you say taylor we are inconsistent with textual critical uncertainty but certain in our practical theology. Great point.
Thank you for this discussion. I have a couple of questions, possibly for future discussions:
1. If it is the Confessional Text position that the received text was 99%+ settled by the 19th century, then what standard(s) should have been followed to change any of its readings?
2. If the proper standard(s) were not followed back in the 19th century, and have not been followed by Biblical scholars up to this point in time, then does the publication of critical texts according to a scholarly consensus validate the critical texts or invalidate the confessional or received text?
3. Therefore, is it not a logical fallacy called "burden shifting "to ask a proponent of the received text to prove its validity? Is it not true that it is the critical text proponent that has the burden of proving the validity or superiority of the critical texts?
How many places of uncertainty does it take to become categorically different? When you have an open text (canon) that allows any and every scrap of manuscript to be admitted into the data set and the formulation of that text (canon) is never closed because it needs to remain perpetually open to admitting any and all new data.
A J MacDonald Jr the canon is closed... that’s not the issue ( how I approach it) but that we have biblical manuscripts that connect to the first century originals “directly.” That specific passages are not found in any connecting manuscripts is whats in play! When you have centuries of evidence that is missing “this or that verse” should give one pause, to ask tough questions. If we continue to uncover books of Mark and they continue to omit the longer ending, do we just bury our heads in the sand? If we find just one 1st or 2nd century copy that includes it, that’s a game changer. Blessings
This is so edifying Taylor. I want to see you and Dane do debates with Dan Wallace, James White, Mark Ward, and Bart Ehrman.
It would definitely be productive I think.
Why did that exchange have to end?... I was just getting into it and the class ends... shucks.
One of the students had to go unfortunately! About five seconds after the clip ends he gave me a camera to take a picture lol
Good dialogue though. I appreciate you posting this.
Heated discussion.
What a difficult discussion this must be to navigate.
The most basic and foundational questions that under-gird this conversation (which get brief mention), should also guide this conversation, not be jumping off points to undermine the "other side". Otherwise the whole thing just spirals into a tu quoque mess, until someone stops and tries to introduce a foundation again, only for it to get attacked and back on the spiral we go.
There's a very cool demeanor when talking about variants, translations, bible changing, pastors picking variants, etc; so why the hostility against the KJV and TR?
Kind of like the atheist who says he's cool with all beliefs, until he meets the Christian.
Christianity is the foundation for atheism like the traditional text is the foundation for the critical text.
This is definitely a discussion that needs to be had again, but there has to be a better way to have it. More focused and structured? There are too many unsaid presuppositions underlying any given thing that's said. A sluggard like me has a tough time untying knots while trying to follow the conversation at the same time.
48:00 - Exactly where does the person claiming that the text's transmission was "not entirely decentralized" proposing was the center? What is the one "center" producing the Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine forms of the text?
The apostolic churches.
@@alexanderalbano5897
What?
The coctrine of Inspiration relies on a single verse???
KJV strongly preferred here (Im convinced it's the best english translation we have by far, I sometimes use the NKJV also but mainly the KJV).
But I've always wondered this, why is it that whenever someone presents a logical and reasoned explanation for the received text position as being the best or why they hold to it with faith and the fruit of the spirit it's always met with in a mocking or condescending tone:
- "Which TR?"
- "You're a KJV onlyist church splitter!"
- "I know people who've been saved reading the ESV!!"
etc..
Why can't they just let us have our text and our preference? Something tells me the fruit they produce (pride, arrogance, being puffed up in their own mind) does not at all help their position. Where does all this come from? Are they so into their man-made science of textual criticism that they think before their methodologies came along there was no bible?
One might say, well what about the pride in the KJV only camp. I'm not talking about the Ruckmanites, I would argue they are an extremely small % of people who hold to the KJV or TR position.
But all in all, thank you so much Pastor DeSoto for this presentation, I agree so much with the presentation you shared!
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion I equate texts with books.
first
Very much appreciated the effort on both sides to have a temperate dialogue. Bravo to both. The final question Gurry asks is the one I, too, have tried to press: the TR side sees the number of variants between the critical text tradition and the TR tradition as constituting a difference in kind. But when exactly does a difference in degree become a difference in kind? Gurry didn't get an answer-or it got cut off at the end! He was right to say that that is an essential question. Why are TR advocates allowing themselves some uncertainty, some variants, among their TR editions-while still telling laypeople that their view offers "stability" and "maximal certainty"? And what of my own argument, where I show that precisely the same kinds of differences occur between just two TR editions as occur between the CT and TR traditions more generally? vimeo.com/362360495
The class time was over (we exceeded the time actually) so that is why the discussion ended.
Mark Ward It seems to me that it is only the reformed confessional guys who allow for variants. I personally cannot see why people advocate for that, as the TR was a process which had a final text.
I don’t advocate for every crashed edition of a plane the Wright brothers used, even though they were close and important. I advocate for the one they used that worked and flew. A final TR.
59:30 - "No one has ever used the majority text" -- say that again, slowly.
What I meant is that there are no translated editions of the majority text that are used. If you count the Eastern church's text as majority that counts, though I think that resembles more of a TR type than Majority type.
Guy in front of Taylor and to Dane's right is a troll. He is by definition a church wrecker. Very rude and prideful. Gury was gracious but he asked pointed question. This video shows that critical text camp proponents speak pass the TR proponents. They do not understand the TR on their own grounds whereas the TR guys understand the CT on their own grounds. Keep up learning and your debating skills, Taylor. I thoroughly enjoyed you and Dane defending our Traditional TR text. Amen!
Dane
Hoping you clear this up.
You made a movie with Pastor Steven Anderson that was released in July of 2019. In this film you state that you had long held the opinion that you could use the TR, which is written in koine Greek, to win souls in Greece (or more specifically to people who speak “modern Greek”). In March 2019, in podcast #9 episode 1, you say this:
“If I were to take my Greek New Testament down to (uhh)...I mean even most places in Greece, you know, and try to...and start reading it to people (Uhh)...they wouldn’t understand what was being said because they don’t understand koine Greek, they don’t speak Koine Greek “
This is a massive contradiction to what the film portrays.
Could you please clarify your position? When did you change your mind?
In the movie you say that it was a long held belief of yours that people who speak “modern” Greek could easily understand Koine Greek. Only 3 months prior to the making of this film, you stated the above quote.
Thank you.
Lara K,
It looks like in the early parts of the documentary with Steven Anderson, Dane says that he had some doubts that modern Greek speakers would understand the Greek of the NT, but after seeing Anderson's interaction with the tattoo shop owner he changed his mind. Start watching around the 13:00 minute mark.
I was wrong lol. I was proven wrong.
Wish there would have been less of a monologue and more discussion across the table to get to the heart of the matter sooner. It seemed to have been raised, but not discussed, seconds before the abrupt ending. Grrr.
I’m tempted to say I appreciate the irenic dialogue, as others are quick to commend, but there is serious disagreement at a theological level between these two sides that may be being sugar-coated by such a spirit. I’m disappointed that pastor DeSoto’s final point was abruptly cut off, the “I can’t have a Bible, so neither can you” characterization, which although somewhat inflammatory, is spot on. Fundamentally, critical text advocates assert that no one has a genuine Bible. Whether intentionally devious or not, they insist that the people of God must accept uncertainty regarding the text of Scripture. I find this position to be diabolical, in the most literal sense (Gen. 3:1; 2 Cor. 2:11). In this context, I’m not sure an irenic dialogue is appropriate.
Today's kjv is NOT THE SAME as the 1611, I have one, and if this Pastor was as concerned as he claims concerning a text not changing, he would be concerned about the many 10s of thousands of changes since 1611, including reinstalling the translators/revisers (of the bishops bible) LETTER TO THE READER- that contradicts and refutes this Pastor at every point. Why does he seem to keep their quotes from this discussion, it is NEVER brought up by onlyists, he is an onlyist, I know he claims he isn't, but I understand English, his grammar is CRYSTAL CLEAR.
His claims are incompetent altogether, onlyists ignore truth and lack ability and concern for utilizing context. They completely disagree with the Catholic translators who would destroy the idea of onlyism.
*Gets popcorn out while reading all the James Snapp comments attacking the TR position*
I have seen Snapp interact with people in multiple threads, as well as my own videos, and my conclusion is that he has no perspective other than confusion. He has no text to hand you that is perfect and without error, his goal is to take yours away from you and cause doubt and confusion in you as well. His comments always breed confusion and seek to tear down or state why he is smarter or your wrong. In time you will also realize this.
Delusional. What in the WORLD do you mean You came first? The translators of KJV did Textual Criticism. KJV did not come first, it did not come around for 1600 years, Soo what we did not have the Word of GOD until 1600s?