Your work has been immensely helpful to me as a TR guy to even explain and properly categorize what I believe. Thanks so much and continue to remain strong
Great article. We've been running into postmodern problems more often in our evangelism lately. Even if the 'evangelical' scholars won't take these things to their logical conclusion, the unbeliever in the pew will.
James White says using Critical theory or putting a letter in the middle is wrong, but the putting in a "T" and getting critical text theory, he finds no problem Kind of inconsistent.
@Dre'as Sanchez Yeah that's a nice assertion bud. Sorry, but I stand with the traditional church that always accepted the 'apographa' as God's preserved word. Lol this idea that God simply left a bunch of manuscripts for "wise men" (often secular scholars) to pour over and judge what is and isn't scripture is asinine. Inspiration and preservation go hand in hand. One without the other is absurd. These textul scholars use about 5 of 26,000 manuscripts to form their critical texts, and those texts have no pedigree or chain of custody, nor is there any evidence of an ancient church using or endorsing them. Iranaeus said that what was deposited by the Apostles was available to be viewed in churches all across the Mediterranean world, and that was the Byzantine text; faithfully copied for 2,000 years and perfectly captured in the TR. So nice assertion, but no nothing false about my statement.
I have noticed and experienced that Traditional Text and KJV folks are ridiculed and dismissed as being uneducated and ignorant. This is a red herring tactic to avoid the real issues. The church at large is at a critical tipping point doctrinally and theologically. We must get back to Sola Scriptura and once again be the Bible believers that characterized previous generations. Some of these hermeneutic and textual theories are not rooted in Scriptural principles but rationalism, skepticism and enlightment philosophies of men. This is a great topic you have covered. Keep putting out vids. We need sound voices of young people like yourself who will stand against the critics and infidels in our generation. Godbless...
your articles are excellent, of real scholarly quality, and spot on for the preservationist perspective, which perspective is, btw, the only viable one for the inspired text of scripture... you are far exceeding the usual "experts" in tc... it would be helpful to have more of this in video format... thanks... :-)
One thing Postmodernism says is that truth cannot be accessed through words because you don't know the writer or speaker's INTENT, i.e. you don't know the spirit that gave the word. So, if I listen to you or read your writing, I cannot know what you mean by it but only what it means to me, and what it means to the you that I interpret you to be! And I think this is at least partially true. But God's Word is the exception because He anoints believers with His Holy Spirit, who gave the Word and TEACHES IT TO THE BELIEVER ON THE INSIDE (1 John 2:27!!). This is how we know the Word, not by cultural context or any other interpretive scheme, but by God's Spirit which is given to us, Praise the Lord! This is also how we understand one another as believers, because we are of the same Spirit! And this is why I think these scholars you speak of are really just "unbelievers" handling the Word deceitfully (2 Cor 4:2). If they had the Holy Spirit, they would know true meaning of the Word, *and that would be their chief interest!* Their focus would be God and not "communities of men."
Your work has been immensely helpful to me as a TR guy to even explain and properly categorize what I believe. Thanks so much and continue to remain strong
Great article. We've been running into postmodern problems more often in our evangelism lately. Even if the 'evangelical' scholars won't take these things to their logical conclusion, the unbeliever in the pew will.
James White says using Critical theory or putting a letter in the middle is wrong, but the putting in a "T" and getting critical text theory, he finds no problem Kind of inconsistent.
Thank God for the providentially preserved text He left us!
@Dre'as Sanchez Yeah that's a nice assertion bud. Sorry, but I stand with the traditional church that always accepted the 'apographa' as God's preserved word.
Lol this idea that God simply left a bunch of manuscripts for "wise men" (often secular scholars) to pour over and judge what is and isn't scripture is asinine. Inspiration and preservation go hand in hand. One without the other is absurd.
These textul scholars use about 5 of 26,000 manuscripts to form their critical texts, and those texts have no pedigree or chain of custody, nor is there any evidence of an ancient church using or endorsing them. Iranaeus said that what was deposited by the Apostles was available to be viewed in churches all across the Mediterranean world, and that was the Byzantine text; faithfully copied for 2,000 years and perfectly captured in the TR. So nice assertion, but no nothing false about my statement.
@Dre'as Sanchez nice job!
I have noticed and experienced that Traditional Text and KJV folks are ridiculed and dismissed as being uneducated and ignorant. This is a red herring tactic to avoid the real issues. The church at large is at a critical tipping point doctrinally and theologically. We must get back to Sola Scriptura and once again be the Bible believers that characterized previous generations. Some of these hermeneutic and textual theories are not rooted in Scriptural principles but rationalism, skepticism and enlightment philosophies of men. This is a great topic you have covered. Keep putting out vids. We need sound voices of young people like yourself who will stand against the critics and infidels in our generation. Godbless...
Excellent work!
Thanks bro.
"If a number of separate things..." welcome to Oneness theology.
Hey bro, can you do another study/library tour in your new place?? Would love to see your setup and updated bookshelves
Yeah I can probably do that! I'll try to carve out some time soon
Lookin forward to it!
your articles are excellent, of real scholarly quality, and spot on for the preservationist perspective, which perspective is, btw, the only viable one for the inspired text of scripture... you are far exceeding the usual "experts" in tc... it would be helpful to have more of this in video format... thanks... :-)
One thing Postmodernism says is that truth cannot be accessed through words because you don't know the writer or speaker's INTENT, i.e. you don't know the spirit that gave the word. So, if I listen to you or read your writing, I cannot know what you mean by it but only what it means to me, and what it means to the you that I interpret you to be! And I think this is at least partially true. But God's Word is the exception because He anoints believers with His Holy Spirit, who gave the Word and TEACHES IT TO THE BELIEVER ON THE INSIDE (1 John 2:27!!). This is how we know the Word, not by cultural context or any other interpretive scheme, but by God's Spirit which is given to us, Praise the Lord! This is also how we understand one another as believers, because we are of the same Spirit!
And this is why I think these scholars you speak of are really just "unbelievers" handling the Word deceitfully (2 Cor 4:2). If they had the Holy Spirit, they would know true meaning of the Word, *and that would be their chief interest!* Their focus would be God and not "communities of men."
Critical textualism is atheistic.