Ask Dusty Peterson about his articles on Bible Translations

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Jim,

It is true that I accused him of being KJV only. It is true that most are as I described. In the last post I did not accuse him of any of those thing personally. I only referred to the KJV only movement. I said earlier I believed him to be a KJV only believer and asked if it was true. He refused to answer. I asked a direct question relating directly to his quote in the second article. In his answers he has not denied it even though I've asked. He has only said it doesn't matter. His position is not irrelevant to the topic of his article.

I still believe his articles are deceiving regardless of whether the end result is true or not. I mentioned several times I am not judging his motives nor am I judging whether it was purposeful. I see nothing wrong with the logic of "you can recognize a tree by it's fruit". This again was not referring to him personally only to the KJV only movement. My point is if the KJV is God's true word than it should have evidence of changing their lives, yet the majority of those who believe that it is the only Word of God are most often the farthest away from acting like Christ.

I have good reason to not trust Dusty's articles and to call them deceptive. They are very biased and he refuses to admit his position. What happens is readers who don't know the facts read an article like this, assumes the person is writing objectively and therefore the fact will show which side is correct. But the reality is that this is not an objective article, it is biased towards one side, which means all those people almost naturally believe that the TR is the only valid option. This is misleading and deceptive in my opinion. If he stated his position in the article or at the very least told his position when asked about it I never would have called them deceptive.

I do not doubt that I have made mistakes in this discussion. I have been very blunt (ie. rude), this is wrong and not edifying. I am not making excuses for my actions. But I have good reason to not trust the KJV only movement.

Dusty,

I honestly do apologize for anything I may have said that is personally attacking in nature. But I believe it would be wrong to not say anything about your articles since I believe they are deceptive. I choose to say deceptive because you refuse to make your position known. If you would have made your position known I would not have accused them of anything more than biased. Please don't think I'm judging your motives because I am not. I have not questioned your salvation. I have not called you names. I have however been very blunt regarding what I believe your position is and why I believe the articles are deceptive.

I see no reason to continue this discussion. Are we getting anywhere? There are more important things we could be doing with out time. Regardless of what version we used, we both understand the Gospel and it would be a much better use of our time to be out sharing that with others than discussing this. Thanks again.

EDIT: I also brought up the question of whether or not Dusty was a KJV only believer because of this poem on his website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/index28.htm

My accusation is based on a little more than just "theory".
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hiya Guys. Thanks to you both for the very clear recent submissions.

I'd like, if I may, to offer my own summary of the situation in the light of Zach's latest postings. I'm a bit snowed this weekend, but I shall endeavour to get this summary organized as soon as decently possible. In the meantime, may God bless you both.
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi there! Here is the first half of my reply to Zach’s comments. I hope to post the second half tomorrow. Together, these two halves seek to respond to all of Zach’s key concerns. They also try to provide a logical, biblical, loving summary of the bigger picture. (Contributors to this thread have extended the discussion beyond my articles, so I have been obliged to do the same in order to answer them.)

BACKGROUND
Here are four basic principles I hope we can now all agree on.

(1) The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
It surely follows that:
:idea: It is a unique and spiritual book, and
:idea: Its accuracy is important (after all, our spiritual welfare depends on it).

(2) It follows from this that, especially in view of the number of translations around today, it is sensible for Christians to make some rudimentary checks to ensure that their personal Bible translation is trustworthy.
It surely follows that:
:idea: It is wise to start such an activity by gaining a basic overview of the source materials on which the translators of the Bible version in question founded their work, so as to make reasonably sure these primary materials are reliable. (Translators are not infallible, and the gifts required to translate God’s Word are substantially different from those required to be a textual critic of His Word.)

(3) [Apologies for repeating the following entry. Readers should find the rest of the posting new.] Even a very limited investigation into this topic will reveal that, although there exists a number of different views among those who profess to be seeking the original text of the Bible, by far the biggest feature on the landscape is a fundamental gulf in attitude – a gulf which I define below. (Every scholar I know of sits on one side or the other of this gulf, regardless of whether they call themselves “eclectic” or not.)
This gulf is a long-standing one and, although there are a variety of specific positions within each of the two camps, nevertheless the fundamental gulf between the camps can be characterized as having the following elements:
:idea: One side (I’ll call it “camp A”) adamantly reveres the “Byzantine” family of evidence (family A), whereas the other side is adamantly disdainful of that family,
:idea: One side is resolutely hostile towards the “Alexandrian” family of evidence (family B), whereas the other side (I’ll call it “camp B”) resolutely holds this family in high regard (the phrase “leans towards” is a big understatement!), and
:idea: Camp A sees family A as being absolutely key to identifying the original text, whereas camp B believes that family A is, at best, almost irrelevant and that family B is the main (if not exclusive) resource for recreating the original text. (There are additional facets to the gulf between the camps, but we shall come to these later DV. As an aside, this gulf in attitude is so fundamental that it is almost unheard of for a scholar to swap camps.)

(4) Although the great bulk of textual differences are very small in size, nonetheless there are thousands of them separating families A and B. This is true even of the most similar members of those families. (The only possible exception I know of is Codex A, but even this document still differs in many hundreds of places from any other manuscript. Besides, its constitution is so obviously rigged that no-one, on either side of the gulf, sees it as reliable.) Between them, these thousands of different readings between the families affect many thousands of separate words.
It surely follows that:
:idea: Only one camp can be right in their attitude towards these two families,
:idea: Given the extreme importance of God’s Word, it would be worth finding out which camp is right, and
:idea: An analysis of the history behind this fundamental gulf in attitude would help us to work out which camp is right.

ANALYSIS UNNECESSARY?
Here’s where we really hit problems I believe. Some folks within camp B argue that, for a number of reasons, their side of the gulf is so obviously in the right that no analysis of the gulf is necessary. I know of three such reasons and have attempted to deal with each of these below.

(1) MAJORITY: A common argument used to pre-empt an analysis of the gulf is that a clear majority of scholars today are in camp B. This, it is often claimed, pretty much settles the issue.
There are a number of flaws with this reasoning:
:idea: One problem with the principle that the majority of scholars must be right is that people applying this principle at different points in history would have ended up in different camps.
:idea: Another key problem derives from the fact that the Bible is God’s Word. As we have seen, the Bible is unlike any other book and is, crucially, a spiritual book given by the Holy Spirit. According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, the things of the Spirit of God are “spiritually discerned”, thus when attempting to discern which source materials are godly, only the opinion of saved scholars carries weight (because all other scholars are spiritually dead to God). What I am saying is that, even though it is certainly true that a majority of scholars are in camp B today, if any of these scholars are not true Christians then their opinion of which materials are godly is irrelevant.
:idea: Even among true Christians, the Bible says that knowledge puffs people up (1 Cor. 8:1), and we know that pride is an enemy of wisdom (e.g. see 1 Tim. 6:4). In other words, even the true Christian scholars in camp B need to be humble if their opinion about spiritual matters is to be of use. Similarly, both apostasy and a lack of fear of God are damaging to one’s discernment over spiritual issues.
:idea: Finally, where does the Bible (in any of the source materials in any of the families) teach that the majority of scholars must be right? Does the Bible not rather say we should beware of the scribes? (It is surely worth observing that God’s People famously made the mistake of blindly siding with the majority of scholars in Christ’s day – and ended up seriously disfiguring the Word on that occasion (i.e. the Word made flesh).

In Part 3a of my series of articles I plan to supply a fuller treatment of the problems with the idea that the “majority of scholars must be right”.

(2) SINNERS: Another common argument offered for rejecting the need for analysis of the gulf in attitude is that camp A contains, among its supporters, a significant number of ungodly people and that this camp must therefore be the wrong one.
I have two responses to that line of reasoning:

Firstly, it is unarguably true that there are some ungodly people associated with camp A, but camp B has its share of ungodly people too. (I demonstrate this in Part 3 in my series.)

Secondly, any reasonably complete manuscript (regardless of whether it contains the New Testament or the Old Testament), exposes Satan as an incredibly subtle and utterly implacable enemy of God and His People. It follows that Satan seeks to undermine the true Church and that he sometimes uses very devious means to do so. A few of the ways in which he undermines the Church are listed here:

(a) Stop believers from having access to God’s true Word (e.g. by burning their sound Bibles – and, if possible, burning the owners of those Bibles too),
(b) For those who escape step (a), discourage them from faithfully studying God’s Word (i.e. by sowing confusion and doubt about its reliability), and
(c) For those who escape step (b), bring division by inventing a variety of dogmatically-held and unbalanced positions and by raising up false brothers to promote those illogical positions within the camp.

It follows from the above that, even within the “correct” camp, there will be people who unswervingly and mercilessly preach illogical conclusions. These people serve the enemy because they:

(a) Give the correct camp a bad name,
(b) Obscure the proper (i.e. true and balanced) position within the correct camp,
(c) Cause division within the camp, and
(d) Cause confusion about God’s Word within the camp.

In other words, the fact that camp A has some ungodly people within it does not mean it is necessarily on the wrong side of the aforementioned gulf in attitude.

(3) INSTIGATORS: A third way to dispense with an analysis is to argue that it was the KJV Only people among the populace of camp A who created the gulf in the first place – and therefore that camp B must be the right one.
Here are two responses to that position:
:idea: Since the gulf in attitude is all about the route/method of transmission of the true NT text, the gulf predates the KJV Only movement and even the KJV itself. Indeed, it predates Erasmus. The gulf patently existed at least as far back as the Waldensians who refused to swap their Latin bibles based on family A for Latin bibles based on family B (and who were martyred in numbers for their trouble). This occurred long before the KJV was ever dreamt of!
:idea: Each camp blames the other for originating the rift. Since the rift goes back so very far, we cannot know when it started. That information has been lost in the mists of time. If we cannot know when it started, we cannot safely discern from history alone which camp created it. Once again, we are dealing with the Bible - i.e. a spiritual book. Therefore we must approach the question of who/what caused the rift by approaching the issue from a spiritual angle rather than a purely historical one.

SUMMARY
For those folks who love the truth, there is no need to fear a godly analysis of the gulf in attitude between the two camps. There is no need to come up with reasons to avoid such an analysis, for – as long as it is performed in a Christian way – such an analysis will only confirm the truth of the situation. Put another way, authentic Christians have nothing to lose by performing or reading such an analysis. If camp B is in the right then this will be demonstrated by the analysis, so it is interesting that camp B seems very unhappy for analyses to be performed or circulated. Camp A have no such qualms as far as I am aware.

But it doesn’t stop there. Once it becomes clear that an investigation into the gulf is already at an advanced stage, Camp B’s apparent efforts to stifle analysis moves on to claiming that such an investigation is unhelpful. Once such an investigation is complete, they seem to then search out any reasons they can find – no matter how trivial, superficial or tangential – to argue that the analysis is invalid. In the second half of this reply I plan to look at the ways in which these twin claims are verbalized by folks in Camp B, and then give my thoughts on them.

Apologies for the length of this posting, but I felt I had little choice. Actually the posting could have been even longer were it not for the fact that I intend to give a more extensive treatment of this whole subject in Part 3 of my articles :)
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi All. Sincere thanks for your ongoing patience. I am hopeful of posting the second half of my reply about five hours from now. God bless, Dusty
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi again. Here, as promised, is the second half of my reply to Zach’s comments. Not wanting to push people too far too quickly, I was hoping to keep this material back until I had had a chance to present it in a more gradual fashion in Part 3 of my series of articles in Media Spotlight, but under the circumstances it seems appropriate to post it here. The following submission is probably not as polished as the first half was, but I hope it will prove of use nevertheless and that readers will forgive the blemishes.

ANALYSIS UNHELPFUL
As we saw last time, a number of arguments are commonly employed to give the impression that any attempt to investigate the gulf in attitude between the two camps would be redundant. If these fail, other arguments are brought up to head off such an investigation on the basis that it would be unhelpful. I can think of five arguments in this category.

(1) MINOR: We are regularly told that, in practical terms, the textual differences separating the two camps are all trivial - and that any analysis of the gulf would therefore be a waste of everyone’s time.
Even if we accept that the differences are all minor, there are some problems with the above line of reasoning:
:idea: We’ve already agreed, in the ‘Background’ section I posted yesterday, that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore that its accuracy is very important.
:idea: We’ve also already agreed that thousands of textual differences separate the two camps. Since only one of the two camps can be right, the other camp is in error and (in view of the importance of accuracy) it needs to be shown this. Thus it is wise to find out which camp is on the right side of the gulf and it is wise for the other camp to be open to correction and to accept the truth.
:idea: Even if all the thousands of textual differences at issue are accidental or well-intentioned, (a) they are numerous enough to cause damage to the pure and intricate text of God’s Word (as I hope I established in Part 1 of my series), and (b) they are of a type and quantity which promotes doubt about the inspiration and hence reliability of God’s Word (as I hope I established in Part 2a of my series). Regardless of whether or not the textual differences within one’s chosen camp are trivial, it is clearly advisable to ensure that we are at least on the right side of the gulf!

(2) DOUBT: Ironically (in view of the preceding entry), it is sometimes argued that analyzing the gulf in attitude is unhelpful for the very reason that such an analysis can itself lead to doubt about the reliability of one’s preferred translation of the Bible – i.e. because such an analysis draws attention to a gulf that most “laymen” don’t even know exists.
This argument assumes that the textual differences between the camps are spiritually negligible. But even if that is the case (and we will obviously need to check it later), there are still problems with this argument:
:idea: As I noted in entry “(1)” a few moments ago, doubts about the reliability of God’s Word are already caused by (among other things) the very nature of many of the textual differences between Bible translations. (I hoped I’d proved this in Part 2b.) Put another way, plenty of folks already have a significant distrust of their Bible version thanks in no small part to the textual differences between the camps and their respective translations. A sound and clear analysis of the gulf in attitude between scholars will ultimately deal with this and hence will increase one’s faith in Holy Writ rather than diminish it.
:idea: We’ve already agreed that “it is sensible for Christians to make some rudimentary checks to ensure that their personal Bible translation is trustworthy”. For those “laymen” who do this, some doubt about God’s Word is inevitably caused in their minds by having the scholars in each camp insisting (unshakeably!) that their side is right and that their preferred Greek family is the best. Scholars in both camps are forever impugning the reliability of the family exalted by the opposite camp. A solid analysis of which camp is right would actually remove said doubt.

(3) DIVISIVE: Another common argument used by camp B to deny the value of analyzing the gulf is that the textual differences between the two camps are not as important as unity.
This line of argument seems to assume (a) that true Christians divide from each other if, on investigating the gulf, they reach different conclusions from each other, and (b) that, no matter how serious the textual differences are between the camps, God sees these accumulated differences as less crucial than the visible unity of His People…

Let’s look at these points, starting with point (a):
:idea: Every Christian must, on the basis of their conscience and their understanding of God’s Word, decide to what extent – if any – God requires them to divide on this matter. Just because some Christians divide over issues is no reason to keep them ignorant about those issues. Each of us is responsible before God for our actions, and God is big enough to cope. (He has promised that He will build His Church and we must not tell Him how to do it!)
:idea: As I said at the start of Part 2a, “we are on holy ground here (Rom. 1:2; 2 Tim. 3:15). We are supposed to love God’s Word and treat it with awe (Psa. 119:161-168). We should guard its purity as we would our life – if not more carefully. In view of the fact that men and women have indeed died for the sake of the Bible over the centuries, it seems to me that the least we can do in return is seek to protect its accuracy.” Unless God has shown us that it is impossible to determine which camp is on the correct side of the gulf, we should – with patience and grace - seek to do so!
:idea: “Division” can take many forms, and the Bible makes plain that not all division is wrong. (I looked briefly at this matter at the end of Part 2a. It gets discussed much more extensively in Part 4 of a book I have co-authored called Alpha – the Unofficial Guide: Church.)

What about point (b)?- For now, let’s continue to assume that the textual differences between the camps are spiritually minor. It is interesting to note in passing that there exists plenty of division between the supporters of camp B! For instance, and as Jim has observed, there are folks who are happy with camp B’s New American Standard but who are strongly opposed to other translations emanating from that same camp (and not just the extreme paraphrases either). Indeed there is division even among camp B supporters who use the “same” translation as each other! Many fans of the original NIV are up in arms about the new NIV editions coming out now. (It is rather surreal to see these folks be so deeply upset about the relatively small differences involved here, given that they are comparatively relaxed about the far greater number (and more serious type) of differences existing between translations produced by camps A and B. I have come across people in this very NIV category who blow a fuse if anyone shows even a hint of divisiveness over the much wider gulf involved between the two camps.
:idea: The argument about divisiveness only makes any sense if the textual differences between the camps are harmless. But even if the differences are merely accidental or well-intentioned it does not follow that they are harmless. Beyond this, and as we have already established, Satan is incredibly subtle, and an utterly implacable enemy of God and His People. It surely follows that:

(a) Satan is unimaginably keen to corrupt God’s Word in whatever way he can in order to reduce its efficacy as much as possible, but
(b) He is limited as to the quantity and nature of these corruptions because his overriding need is obviously to ensure that the purposes of his alterations are hard to discern, else the whole endeavour will have been pointless. In other words, what may appear at first glance to be a bunch of unrelated and minor differences could actually represent deliberate corruption by the enemy. I hope Part 2b in my series went into all this and showed that some of the textual differences between the camps are indeed important, especially when taken together.
(c) It goes without saying that if brothers are using Bible versions based on what is effectively a counterfeit Greek text then they ought to be told.

:idea: The Bible is the foundation for all that we believe and all that we do. Given the extraordinary importance God attaches to the purity of His Word, such that even well-intentioned changes bring curses on those who make them (as I showed in Part 1 via passages like Revelation 22:18-19), it seems clear that we should make this our priority. After all, if God commands us to contend earnestly for the faith then it cannot be wrong to contend for the words through which that faith is given to us. Should we really turn a blind eye to corrupt texts? What is more fundamental than ensuring the brethren use trustworthy versions of God’s Word?

Finally, I would suggest that the truly divisive thing is when believers are presented with copious amounts of verifiable evidence that their position is wrong and they refuse to listen. They are dividing from the truth and therefore from God. In God’s economy, what value has unity without truth?

(4) GOD: Followers of Camp B insist that the textual differences cannot be serious because God simply wouldn’t allow such a state of affairs. God would supposedly prevent any of His children from using an appreciably corrupted Bible. On this basis, any analysis of the gulf in attitude is said to be a waste of time and a mere distraction.
There are all sorts of problems with this argument:
:idea: It implies that any new translation, no matter how extreme a paraphrase it is or how biased it is, must be acceptable to God if it is popular. This is not a biblical stance. For example, David’s son Absalom was very popular but he was seriously in the wrong.
:idea: It implies that God pre-empts any serious deception before it can affect His People. This is not biblical either. For instance, God did not stop Satan from deceiving Eve. Nor did He stop Satan from deceiving a third of the angels!
:idea: If we are to find the truth we need to seek it as diligently as we would seek “hid treasure” (Prov. 2:3-5). It is up to us to seek the truth. God has already given us plenty of warnings about this. Here are some cases in point: He has already warned us in His Word about people who corrupt the scriptures (e.g. see Jer. 22:36). He has already warned us that our enemy is wily (e.g. in Eph. 6:11), crafty (e.g. in Dan. 8:25), and subtle (e.g. in 2 Cor. 11:3). And He has already warned us that we need to be vigilant - e.g. in 1 Pet. 5:8.

Please Note: Certain folks in camp B accept that it is possible for some believers to fall for counterfeit Bibles, but they are adamant that it is impossible for a majority of God’s People to do so. As Zach has put it, “I just can't believe that God would allow so many of his people [to] become deceived and only a select few to know the truth…”.
There are problems with this stance too:
:idea: It presupposes that the analysis of the gulf in attitude inevitably leads to one or other of the KJV-Only positions (which, in turn, requires the analysis to have been performed!)
:idea: It also presupposes the degree of hazardousness of camp B translations in the hands of truth-loving believers.
:idea: It also runs the risk of comprising circular reasoning (i.e. a corrupt translation in the hands of a false teacher can be used to help give a false impression of what God is really like).
:idea: Siding with the majority, even the majority among God’s People, is a very dangerous game to play. After all, the majority in Christ’s day rejected Him, and the majority of the spies who went to spy out the Promised Land were wrong too. I can just imagine Noah prophesying that only eight people out of the entire population of the earth would survive God’s wrath at that time - and someone replying “I just can't believe that God would allow so many of his people to become deceived and only a select few to know the truth”. Likewise I can imagine Moses prophesying that, out of the estimated two million people who left Egypt, only two souls would enter the Promised Land – and one of the crowd shouting ““I just can't believe that God would allow so many of his people to become deceived and only a select few to know the truth”
:idea: There is a lot more I could say on this whole matter but, at the end of the day, even if the textual differences between camps were relatively unimportant it still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the analysis!

(5) SCHOLARSHIP: In desperation, some members of camp B claim that an analysis for the “layman” is pointless because the principles of textual criticism are beyond the layman and an analysis of them is therefore a waste of time and could even be dangerous.
As usual, there are serious problems with this argument:
:idea: Who says it is too hard for the “layman” to understand the issues? Only those in camp B ever seem to make the claim, yet if it is indeed too hard for the common man then one would have thought that sincere scholars on BOTH sides would say so.
:idea: Why would God make it too hard for the common man? Would the God of the Bible REALLY leave the accuracy of His Word solely in the hands of some elite class? The Bible never says so. Indeed it strongly indicates that the opposite is the case (e.g. in 1 Cor. 1:25-30). God calls every believer to test “ALL things” (1 Thess. 5:21) but camp B claims that this is impossible when it comes to textual criticism. Even among the requirements God has laid down for church elders there is no mention of the need for high scholarship or of great learning or knowledge about the minutiae of modern textual criticism.
:idea: The fact is that none of the concepts involved in textual criticism is difficult. The complexity comes with the amount of information required to disprove the wily, evidence-light (and often tortuous) arguments thrown up by camp B to obscure the truth!
:idea: A key point is this: The Bible is a spiritual book and must be approached spiritually. It is interesting to observe that camp B scholars who argue that only those people who meet certain man-made qualifications can understand the issues aright never seem to add any comment to the effect that, since the Bible is a spiritual book, only saved scholars can interpret the evidence aright. (Along with various other aspects of this posting, I go into this matter more in Part 3b.)

Actually, it turns out (as I intend to show in Part 3 of my articles) that you can determine which camp is in the right without approaching the question from the point of view of textual criticism, so the argument is rather flawed regardless.

I'm afraid ’ve run out of time to post the final section, but I’ll drop that in as soon as I can.
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi All. If anyone's been holding back because they were waiting for my final installment, thank you very much indeed for your patience. I don't expect my final section to be posted until Saturday at the earliest, so please don't hesitate to add to this thread in the meantime. Apologies for any inconvenience I've caused with this delay. All the best.
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi there folks. Here, at long last, is the final section of my response.

ANALYSIS WRONG
If an analysis of the gulf in attitude between camps A and B actually gets completed and becomes public, some members of camp B seem prepared to do whatever it takes, no matter how unChristian, to stop people accepting the analysis.

The ungodly ways in which folks are persuaded to reject such analyses include:

* :arrow: Exploiting even the tiniest of shortcomings, regardless of how insignificant they are to the argumentation on offer, to discredit the whole analysis (e.g. making an issue out of mere typographical errors or the omission of the publisher's address from source references).
* :arrow: Focusing on (and placing undue emphasis on) a handful of debatable comments within the analysis while ignoring the vast bulk of the data/arguments given alongside those comments.
* :arrow: Creating smokescreens (especially by setting up straw men, or raising irrelevant points, or offering illogical lines of reasoning) and employing unnecessary technical terms to dazzle the "layman" and confuse the issue.

A particularly wicked way of undermining analyses of the gulf is the invention of various myths and half truths that can then be wheeled out to (falsely) “disprove” points made in the analysis and so bring the entire analysis into disrepute. (From the contributions in this thread, it seems Zach has fallen for a number of such myths, e.g. regarding Hort's influence today and the true nature of the TR.)

Another dishonest method used to encourage rejection of an analysis is to discredit the author in any way possible - irrespective of the soundness of the analysis itself. For example, the author will usually be tarred with the same brush as the most illogical wing of the camp they are in. And if the author is deemed to be anywhere on the spectrum of positions within the area of camp A labelled "KJV-Only", some in camp B will even go so far as to say that any analysis performed by such a person can be completely and instantly rejected out of hand. (Apparently, some folks imagine that anyone who prefers the KJV today cannot possibly write anything of use on the subject of textual criticism, which seems a rather bigoted point of view as far as I can see.)

Finally, and in order to do everything possible to dissuade people from reading the analysis, members of camp B frequently resort to the claim that the author lacks some (man-made!) qualification or other, ignoring the fact that the issue at hand is the truthfulness or otherwise of the analysis itself.

Another breathtaking fact is that, alongside the lack of logic and lack of honesty and lack of a spiritual perspective, these critics of camp A analyses often have the gall to show a lack of love too. (Yet they are quick to denounce any lack of love on the part of camp A despite that camp having much reason to be angered by all the ungodly techniques used against them let alone the fact that a dangerously corrupt Greek of God's Word is being promoted in the process.)

In extremis, members of camp B will publish their own analyses for use by the "layman" (seemingly forgetting their earlier argument that the subject is too complex for such souls). Needless to say, these analyses are stocked with the very same sort of myths, half-truths and/or confusion used to discredit camp A analyses. (They also seem to be written by people who lack some or all of the qualifications camp B itself often demands!)

I would humbly suggest that the observations in this posting make it crucial we read the pertinent analyses of the gulf whenever we notice any of the unChristian methods described above being used to rubbish those analyses, for it is very probable that the people utilizing these unChristian methods are trying to hide something important from us.
jimbaum
Site Admin
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by jimbaum »

Dusty,

I'm very grateful for your time and for your research assistant. These are very precise and well organized presentations and are helpful to me to understand your position and these issues in general.

May the Lord give each of us wisdom.

Jim
Last edited by jimbaum on Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi there Jim. Many thanks for your kind and encouraging words. I should make plain that anything of lasting value in any of my posts is due to the Lord alone, but it is always nice to have someone suggest I have heard Him and/or been used by Him to bless His Kingdom.

I wish Zach all the best in his walk, as I know you do.
Dusty
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Dusty »

Hi All.

In among his final postings on this thread, Zach did (at last!) make one comment relevant to my published articles - and so I feel I ought to reply to it. He said:
This topic is not a two sided debate, it's an attack by one group on the other. A group who's beliefs of textual criticism [are] founded and driven by "speculation" and "theories" of what Christian would have done 1300-1800 years previous rather than the facts
The fact is that the "beliefs of textual criticism" on both sides of the debate are "founded and driven" by speculation and theories of what Christians would have done. Indeed, that's virtually the definition of the phrase "textual criticism".

BTW For Zach to suggest that camp B scholars do not rely on theories and speculation is yet more evidence that he really has not investigated this subject in any meaningful way. And for him to imply that Part 2a (let alone Part 2b) in my series does not supply copious facts supporting camp A is simply a travesty as far as I can see.

Incidentally, in view of scriptures like (Luke 9:26 and Rev. 22:18-19) any true Christian would surely work very hard indeed (and even lay down his life) rather than knowingly allow a single word of Holy Writ to be corrupted. That Hort (and everyone else in camp B subsequently) lost sight of this fact is the reason why we have these two camps today.

Despite appearances, I am very grateful for Zach's input, for his extraordinary comments have inspired me to write a full-length article for Media Spotlight. Praise God, the article is complete and has been included in the latest issue which is due back from the printers in just a few days. The relevant website is: http://www.mediaspotlight.org/ Finally I'd just like to acknowledge that this article would not have been remotely possible without Jim B's godly support and encouragement.
jimbaum
Site Admin
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Contact:

Gratitude to the Lord

Post by jimbaum »

Brother Dusty,

I am very grateful that you've been so willing to take part in this humble discussion board!

Our Lord Jesus continues to break us and remake us, and I am convinced our Lord will turn all of this for good in your life, my life, and my friend Zach's life.

Your series in Media Spotlight has been very helpful to me and I look forward to future installments.

Of course, Dusty, you are always welcome here.

Jim
Locked