Home » Posts tagged 'modern versions'

Tag Archives: modern versions

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Entire Index (Click for Whole Index)

Topical — Alphabetical

TOPICAL INDEX, A to E
TOPICAL INDEX, F to J
TOPICAL INDEX, K to O
TOPICAL INDEX, P to T
TOPICAL INDEX, U to Z

Topical  — Specific

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: BAPTISTS AND CHURCH

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: BEAUTY, MUSIC, WORLDLINESS, AND WORSHIP

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: CERTAINTY, CULTURE, EPISTEMOLOGY, MEANING, TRUTH, WORLDVIEW

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: CONTINUATIONISM AND CESSATIONISM, HOLY SPIRIT, AND SPIRITUALITY

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: DIVORCE, GENDER OR SEX, MARRIAGE, COMPLEMENTARIANISM

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: DRESS OR APPEARANCE

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: EVANGELICALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: EVANGELISM AND PREACHING

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: OBTAINING A LIFE’S PARTNER

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: PRAYER

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE AND VERSIONS

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: SALVATION

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: SANCTIFICATION

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: SCRIPTURE

INDEX BY SPECIFIC TOPIC: SEPARATION OR UNITY

Scriptural

GENESIS to REVELATION (In Order)

How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere? Mark Ward Strikes Again

August 5, 2024 / 6 Comments on How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere? Mark Ward Strikes Again

Mark Ward made a video about me, and then SharperIron linked to it with my name.  Is this a case of my living rent free in Mark’s head?  I don’t know.  I’m fine with his letting it go.  He can’t do it though.  Maybe I’m bringing him more audience.  His numbers go up when he uses me in his presentations.  They go way up.  The terminology is “clickbait.”

In this edition of the Mark Ward show, he says that I helped prove his point about his “false friends” in the King James Version.  He titles the episode:  “Let a Leading KJV-Onlyist Teach You a False Friend!”  Oh so clever, Mark Ward, the Snidley Whiplash of Multiple Version Onlyists.  Yet, “Curses, foiled again!”  Foiled again, because Dudley Do-Right of TR Onlyism is of course not in fact jumping on the Snidley false friend train track.  What happened?

1 Peter 2:2

For many years, I have used and still use 1 Peter 2:2 as a major Christian worldview reference and helping understand the word “sincere.”  Mark says “sincere” now is a bad translation in 1 Peter 2:2 and a “false friend.”  I ask, “How can there be any sin in sincere?”  Answer:  By stretching the truth.

Mark dug deep into this blog to find a post and an exchange in the comment section as the highlight of his program.  Here is 1 Peter 2:2:

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

I’ve referred to “the sincere milk” many times as the “pure mother’s milk” (here, here, here, here, and here among other places).  Ward says “sincere” is a false friend to a reader of the King James Version, because sincere means something different today than it did in 1611 (or 1769).  Instead, he says (and says that I say) it means “pure.”  He reports that I think it should mean pure too, but because I’m KJVO, I won’t admit that, even though I believe it.  He’s saying I’m not sincere about sincere.

Sincere Milk

Welcome to the Snidley Whiplash mindreading class, SW101.  I said that “sincere milk” is not common language for today.  It isn’t.  Almost nobody would know what that means without explanation.  Perhaps people knew better in 1611.  Still, I don’t think another translation today would be better than “sincere” in 1 Peter 2:2.  “Pure milk” doesn’t get it done.  It misses the point of that expression in the original language.  I talk about the meaning in the comment section of the post to which Ward referred:

The mother’s milk goes to her baby without any other intervention, no human intervention, straight from mom to baby, unlike other milk. God changes us through revelation, not through our discoveries. With God and His Word there is no variableness or shadow of turning. His Word and God are not relative as is everything else. It comes direct and so undiluted or affected unlike our eyewitness or findings. We can’t trust these lying eyes or that there hasn’t been some kind of intervention in nature. This is why faith is superior to human discovery, because it depends on God.

The sincerity, the purity, is that it comes as one, which is the meaning of the Latin “sin,” one. There is oneness to the nature of God and to His revelation. It is entirely cohesive, non-contradictory, not mixed with any kind of error.

Mark Ward doesn’t include this part in his presentation.  Why do I think “sincere” is still a good translation that needs no update in 1 Peter 2:2?

Pure or Sincere?

Play On Words

The Greek word translated “sincere” is adolos.  The “a” portion of the Greek word means “no.”  It’s called an alpha privative, expressing negation or absence.  The previous verse, 1 Peter 2:1, uses dolos, the King James translators translated it guile.  Guile could also mean deception.  I believe there is a purposeful play on words by Peter between dolos and adolos, emphasizing the contrast between the speakings of men and the speakings of God.  The speakings of men have dolos and the speakings of God have adolos.

Does adolos strictly mean “pure”?  No.  Sincerity conveys that someone speaks without deception, the error that enters into the speech or writing for a man-engendered reason.  “Pure” doesn’t communicate that.  In this sense, when the modern translators translate adolos as “pure,” that’s a false friend to those who read the word.

Meaning of Pure

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says in Matthew 5:8:

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Is “pure” here adolos?  Is it without guile or not deceptive?  No.  This is the Greek word katharoi.  An English word that comes from this is “katharsis.”  This is what people think when they hear “pure” today.   Yet, that’s not what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 2:2, that the Word of God is pure in that sense.

What I thought and wrote in the one post to which Mark Ward refers is that “sincere milk” is the “pure mother’s milk.”  That is different than saying it is “pure milk.”  He says that I wrote that “sincere” means “pure.”  I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, which is why I believe Mark Ward left off the latter context of what I wrote and really focused on my reference to the Oxford English Dictionary.  He isn’t sincere about my position ironically.  That adulterates his commentary on what I wrote.

Christian Worldview

From a Christian worldview standpoint, God’s Word is revelation so it goes from God directly to the hearer like a breast-fed baby gets his milk directly from his mother.  There is no intermediary.  Evidence on the other hand involves, one, someone’s lying or deceived eyes, and, two, a context that is not neutral.  I like to the say that the crime scene is contaminated.

When human beings look at evidence, they don’t see it clearly.  God’s Word or will, therefore, can’t come through human discovery, but through the direct undiluted revelation of God.  Revelation by nature is non-discoverable or else it wouldn’t be revelation.  Revelation is “sincere milk.”

“Sincere” is still the best translation, but we also still have to explain it.  If we translated adolos “pure,” that would more likely, I believe, lead someone astray on the meaning of the word, a false friend to the one reading it.  I really do think this and Snidley Whiplash, someone who rejects the perfect preservation of scripture, misrepresents me on this.  He’s a false friend to me.

Me a King James Onlyist?

I want to say one more thing about what Mark Ward does.  He also deceives his audience by calling me a leading King James Onlyist.  Calling someone King James Only, he knows is a pejorative.  Mark Ward knows that double inspirationists (Ruckmanites) and English preservationists don’t see me as a leading King James Onlyist.  Why?  Based on the most fair understanding of that label, I’m not.  Why not?

One,

I  believe that translations should come from the original language texts, the Hebrew and Greek, not from the English.  That means that I vouch for translations that are not the King James Version.  Hence, I’m not King James Only.  True King James Onlyists won’t do that and don’t believe that.

Two,

I do not reject an update of the King James Version.  The only ones who do not know that are those who read misrepresentations from people like Mark Ward.  I believe preservation is found in the original language text from which an update would come and did come in 1769 already.  We do not use the 1611 today.  An update already occurred.  How could I be against that?

Three,

I don’t think an update of the King James Version is wrong, so I also think some words in the King James Version are archaic or out-of-use.  I’ve said this again and again.  It doesn’t mean I support an update.  I have other reasons why I want to keep the King James Version.  The main one is its underlying textual differences between the King James and modern versions, something Mark Ward says he won’t debate.

Four,

I say all the time that I think someone could make a different translation of certain words in the King James Version.  Someone could translate the Hebrew and Greek words in a different way and they’d be right.  The translation of the King James isn’t the only way or ways to translate the original language text.  I know I would make different choices than the King James translators, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re wrong either.

A False Friend

When I study the Bible, I study the original languages.  False friends don’t occur to me, because I’m studying the words in their original languages.  I also know because of studying the original languages that translated words very often are false friends.  Mark Ward exaggerates the importance of these words.  He treats himself like he’s come upon something highly significant.  He hasn’t.  I don’t think his point about false friends means nothing, but there are greater concerns by far than these.

Mark Ward is a false friend about the King James Version.  He poses like he really wants to help those who use it.  I don’t see it.  By far, he’s a greater danger because of the doubt he casts upon the BIble that people use.  He relishes those who start using a contemporary translation that varies from the underlying text of the King James Version vastly more than the total number of false friends he reports.

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 6)

May 29, 2024 / 2 Comments on New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 6)

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four     Part Five

1.  God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2.  After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3.  God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4.  God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5.  God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
6.  God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.

THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROMISES OF AND FROM SCRIPTURE (Part Two)

In five parts of this series, I first declared the scriptural presuppositions, principles, and promises that buttress the historical and biblical position.  Then I stated the positive conclusion of the provided model, paradigm, or template that followed the six truthful premises.  The underlying original language text of the King James Version is, as Hills asserted, its own “independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”  It is essentially Beza 1598, but not identical to that printed edition.  This conclusion fulfills the model, the biblical premises.

The Other Side Does Not Follow Scriptural Presuppositions

The other side, the critical text and multiple modern version position, does not follow scriptural presuppositions.  It proceeds from naturalistic and relativistic ones.  This is especially seen in the hundreds of lines of Greek text for its New Testament with no manuscript evidence.  Critics pieced together lines of text that never existed in any copy anywhere and anytime.  On the other hand, they commonly still make the claim that the underlying text behind the King James comes from just a “handful of manuscripts available at the time.”

A very common attack, which I anticipate again on this series, will skip all the presuppositions, principles, and promises and go directly to and then quote the concluding statement out of context.  It would sound something like this:  “Kent Brandenburg says, The perfect preserved text of scripture is ‘the underlying original language text of the King James Version.'”  I took that from the above first paragraph of this post.

The opposition then treats that statement like it stood alone with no explanation.  The enemies of the scriptural and historical position will provide strawman arguments.  They won’t be the actual ones in these posts, and if they provide any of them, they’ll misrepresent them.  You can count on this.  I take this bow shot or preemptive strike as a warning.

Scripture reveals presuppositions, principles, and promises about God’s preservation of scripture.  I could faithlessly ignore those.  Instead, I could focus on the existence of textual variants and the relatively few variations between the printed editions of the textus receptus.  Also, I could obsess over a couple individual words that critics say have little manuscript evidence.  Those challenge the presuppositions, principles, and promises.  I consider those minor challenges outweighed again by the presuppositions, principles, and promises.

Faith and the Model of Canonicity

Two verses that mean a lot to me related to the perfect preservation of the Greek New Testament is Romans 4:20-21:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

The same type of challenge occurs with the belief in twenty-seven books.  No verse says, “Twenty-seven books are in the New Testament,” just like no verse says that Noah’s ark is still on Mount Ararat.  Do I have faith that Noah’s ark is up there?  I believe it landed there and stayed.

Why the twenty-seven that we call the New Testament?  Some disagree.  Other opinions exist.  The presuppositions, principles, and promises are the same for twenty-seven New Testament books.  These were the ones the churches accepted, a testimony of the Holy Spirit through believers.

The Unacceptable Alternative

The alternative to this position I espouse here is unacceptable. It rejects these presuppositions, principles, and promises.  Also, it leaves the church without verbal, plenary perfection of scripture.  The position I take, as I see it and very strongly, is the best and really only position for a perfect scripture, what believers should expect.   Because of that, I take it.

Through the years, I have considered the arguments for the other side.  What I’ve seen is a regularly changing, morphing attack.  It’s as though they just throw anything and everything, the proverbial kitchen sink.  Their conclusion is the same:  uncertainty, doubt, the denial of scriptural and historical teaching, loss of authority, an ever changing and mutating scriptural text, and the ultimate apostasy that goes along with what they consider reality.

Certainty Versus “Confidence”

You can hear professing evangelicals attempt to fortify against the problem they create.  They can’t say “certainty,” and even mock “certainty.”  I hope you have a hard time even imagining this.  It does happen and is happening, but they ratchet down expectations with words like “confidence.”  It’s not even scriptural confidence, just confidence falsely so-called.  They create uncertainty and can’t be certain, so they adjust people’s mindset to a form of probability at a higher level of probability that they falsely label “confidence.”  It should be sued for false advertising.

From where does this confidence come for professing evangelicals who embrace confidence rather than certainty?  It comes from naturalism.  Yes, naturalism. They think they can give a high level of proof from naturalism and rationalism.  It’s like trying to convince people that the vaccination is safe.  Yes, they rushed it out, but look, they’re even vaccinating the president.  Evangelicals mock certainty in a nasty manner and then they focus on confidence.

Compare again confidence to a vaccination drive.  Can you get confidence from something at 95 percent?  We know God wants jot and tittle obedience.  Jesus said that in Matthew 5:17-20.  These evangelicals don’t offer jot and tittle certainty as the grounds for jot and tittle obedience.  This is also why they accompany their confidence with scaled down obedience.  Since their adherents can’t be sure of scripture, they emphasize non-essentials.  No one should separate over eschatology, ecclesiology, and a mounting stack of teachings.  Why?  No one can or should ensure certainty.  That’s not who we should roll with God’s Word.

What God Desires

The alternative to the truth also evinces the truth itself.  The truth stands.  Scripture teaches perfect preservation, availability, a settled text, and all the other of the six principles I listed in this series.  These form the basis for a sure, certain text of scripture that results in the kind of obedience God proposes and desires.

Is what God desires extremism and dangerous?  The side of uncertainty and doubt uses this kind of tactic, name-calling, labeling faith in scriptural teaching as extremist and dangerous.  Don’t worry.  That’s what they said about Jesus and the Apostles too.

I call on everyone reading to reject a critical, naturalistic text of scripture and the substandard probability, called “confidence,” that it engenders.  Those pushing that view are part of the downward trajectory, the steady decline, seen everywhere today.  They are part of what’s not getting better.

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text

May 13, 2024 / 1 Comment on New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Sixty-Six Books

Many evangelicals claim maximum certainty on sixty-six books of the Bible.  “Are you certain there are sixty-six books of the BIble?”  “Yes.”  “What verse in the Bible says to expect sixty-six books?”  “None.”  “So what is your basis for sixty-six books of the Bible?”  Many of their reasons would match what I would give for certainty on the text of the Bible, certainty on what the exact words are.

The reasons for certainty on both the books and the words relate to biblical principles for canonicity.  Nothing in the Bible states how many books one should expect though.  And yet these evangelicals still declare maximum certainty about “sixty-six.”  Sixty-six came from God.  No verse saying that, but they still rely on scripture for their certainty.  They don’t have mere confidence for sixty-six books.  They have certainty.

Very often the same evangelicals’ direct inquiries to me about where the Bible says God would preserve the textus receptus, those particular Latin words.  In addition they ask for a verse with the exact words, “King James Version” in a scriptural promise somewhere. They consider these to be “arguments.”

The question arises, “How do we know, for instance, the epistle of James is in the Bible or Galatians or any other single book?”  What gives the certainty for inclusion of particular books?  How do we know when we’re reading Hebrews that it is in fact the Word of God, more than a mere ancient, naturalistic book?

The Preservation of Words

On the other hand, does God promise to preserve His Words perfectly in a single printed edition of the New Testament?  This gets to the crux of the “which TR” question.  Scripture teaches perfect preservation of scripture, but how do we know what the words are?  How do we know what the books are?  The answer is the same to those last two questions.  In fact, scripture talks about words and not about books.  It’s easier to prove the preservation of words from scripture than it is books.

The Bible doesn’t provide naturalistic rules for deciding on the words of the Bible, ones like shorter or more difficult reading and older manuscript.  Men made up those rules and with them, they added, “You can’t be certain.”  God’s Word though says you can and should be certain.  You expect certainty based upon scripture.  The Bible also provides criteria not in the nature of rules, but in presuppositions, promises, and principles.  Scripture provides a template, paradigm, or model for what to expect from God and His preservation of scripture.

I want to review the right presuppositions again.  Again.  I’ve done this a lot, but here we go again, because based on information from my critics, no one answers this. [Not liking the answer does not qualify as not answering.]

I’m going to give a list, because obviously lists are greater click bait.  And if I don’t have a list, I shouldn’t say “list” in my click bait title.

1.  God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.

Not Just the Gist

Someone named Eugene Peterson did a paraphrase of the Bible, called The Message.  That’s very often how people want to deal with scripture.  It’s a message and so the very words don’t matter so much, as long as you get “The Message.”  What’s God saying to you?  Here’s the gist of it, that’s all that matters.  And part of the gist, of course, comes from Eugene Peterson’s brain.

I say, get the gist of scripture.  It’s important.  But that’s not all that matters.  God gave words.  Every one of them matter.  You don’t get the gist without words and God said this in many different passages.  I’m not going to review those with you on this point, but it is true.

Some people miss the gist, and that’s too bad.  They need to and should get that too, but God first gave words.  Christians have believed that every word matters.  God gave specific, exact ones.  He delivered them to His institution.  They received them (think Textus Receptus here).

All of Them

I added, “and all of them,” because God’s Word, the Bible, or scripture is not 50 percent of the exact words or even 95 percent.  It is all of them.  I’m happy to have 10 percent of them, but He gave 100 percent.  I should expect 100 percent.  God even uses the word, “all.”  He gave each Word and then all of them.

God inspired only one Bible.  There are not two.  People don’t have options as to what the Bible is.  It isn’t a multiple choice.  The question, “Which Bible do you use?” does not reflect what the Bible says about itself.  This kind of idea, which is prevalent now in evangelicalism, is destructive and it comes from unbiblical presuppositions about the Bible.

2.  After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.

Expectations

One can and should expect this second point in the list because God said He would do it.  He promised it.  Evangelicals or modern version proponents very often say God didn’t say “how” he would do it.  But He also did say how he would preserve His Words.  Believers should have those scriptural expectations.  This is part of living by faith.

Preservation of scripture means God keeping each of the words and all of them that He gave.  Keeping them then means their being available to every generation of believers.

The preservation of scripture means what the Bible says that preservation of scripture means.  It does not mean keeping every word in one particular physical handwritten copy that makes its way unblemished down through the following decades, centuries, and millennia or the annals of history.  Every word and all of them would remain available for God’s people.  There isn’t a peep about variants and manuscript evidence.

Not Naturalistic

Before someone goes anywhere else in answering questions about manuscripts, printed editions, and translations, he must settle on the first two points of this list.  He should start with what the Bible says.  He should not begin with an observation of history, “external evidences,” and naturalistic occurrences to which to conform his belief.  The Bible explains its own inspiration and preservation in a very clear way.  It’s not hard to understand.  Everyone will get the text and version issue wrong if he does not get these first two points of this list right.

What I’ve witnessed for decades now exclusively with modern version and critical text adherents is the absence of a biblical presupposition about the preservation of scripture.  They don’t want to touch that.  If that is their basis for how they approach their outcome, they know it will contradict what they’re saying.  What I’ve seen instead is that they start with a criticism or refutation of what has already been published and propagated on the doctrine of preservation through church history.

Presuppositions

Instead of starting with a scriptural position themselves, modern textual criticism proponents begin with naturalistic presuppositions like modernists of the 19th century did.  Based on those, they saw we can’t believe perfect preservation, because it didn’t happen.  They know it didn’t happen because variants exist between manuscripts.  It’s far worse than that even.  Their position starts with tests normally applied to secular literature, which have no promise of preservation because they’re solely of human origin.

Some critical text and modern version proponents straight out deny preservation.  Others don’t have a theology of no preservation of scripture.  They’d be too embarrassed to say that.  Instead they leave their audience with ambiguity, leaving their listeners confused on the subject, playing a shell game.  God’s Word doesn’t teach that.  Anything they call their biblical position arises to criticize someone who starts with a biblical doctrine with the purpose of either denying it, confusing it, or muddling it.

The elimination of a biblical doctrine of preservation affects the authority of scripture.  Critical text and modern version proponents are eradicating the doctrine or preservation ironically to preserve their preference.  In so doing, they cause people to take the Bible less seriously.  When people are not sure whether those are the actual words of God, they are less likely to believe and then keep what they say.

More to Come

Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

May 6, 2024 / 13 Comments on Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross:  “I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that Is Super Intelligent”

Thomas Ross debated James White last year with White arguing in the affirmative the proposition that a new translation, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), was superior to the King James Version (KJV).  Ross took the opposition.   Since White was in the affirmative, Ross refuted White’s arguments for that proposition.  The above quote from Ward comes from an introduction to the first of three videos he is producing to answer ones Thomas Ross made after the White debate.

Answering Thomas Ross gets far more traffic for Ward at his site.  I don’t want to make it easier for him, so I’m not linking to his series.  You can find it on your own, if you want to see it.  He also mentions me in the video.

An Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind?

So why does Ward say Thomas is “an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind”?  He gives no reasons.  None.  The definition of ad hominem is this:  “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”  Like James White himself, Ward attacks Thomas Ross as a person and not his position.  He does not explain.  I’m saying this is appalling slander of Ross by Ward.

What does Ward mean, “extremist”?  The definition of “extremist” itself is derogatory.  Collins Dictionary defines extremist:

1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical. adjective. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.

And then Ward says Ross is “of a particularly dangerous kind.”  So Thomas Ross is not just “dangerous,” but “particularly dangerous.”  Those words themselves are extreme.  Their very mention of another person, a truly saved person as Thomas Ross, requires explanation.  Ward gives none.  He just makes the claim.

What Ross Does

Thomas Ross is careful first to come from scripture.  He exposes or exegetes scripture very carefully for his positions.  Second, he backs his positions with historical doctrine.  He shows how that others in the past take the position, so his doctrine is not new or innovative.

In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point.  White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives.  He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible.  Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence.  Instead of answering, which he couldn’t, White insulted Thomas Ross as a person, just like Ward is doing.  This shouldn’t help White or Ward.  It should warn off their listeners.

Ward Poisons the Well

Ward is free to go ahead and make statements like he did about Thomas Ross.  He can do that, but anyone reading should take note of what he is doing.  His statement should discredit him.  It is a classic, informal logical fallacy called, “poisoning the well,” which means the following:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

Ward and his audience very often attack the persons of their opposition.  Ross offered a face-to-face discussion or debate with Ward and Ward refused.  He says it is because Ross is an extremist and dangerous, and then he proceeds to treat Ross as though his arguments were legitimate, needing addressing.  Do you see the obvious contradiction there?  Ward contradicts his own fallacious reasoning.

Any Reasons for Ad Hominem Attack by Ward?  None

The only possible reason one could ascertain for why Ward poisons the well and uses the ad hominem against Ross is because Thomas Ross is “super intelligent.”  Why would intelligence and even super intelligence be a negative for someone on a subject matter?  Ross doesn’t claim super intelligence for himself.  Ward made that claim for Ross and gave it as the only reason for Ross’s extremism and danger.

Mark Ward explained that when Ross offered him an in person debate, his counsellors told him that it was not worthy of Ward’s own personal gifts and the purposes of his work.  And yet Ward has plenty of time to produce three videos dealing with “super intelligent” Ross, where Ross cannot answer him in person.  What evaluation could someone make of such a dodge of Ross by Ward?

Think of Wards accusations if it were a court of law, where the accused “extremist” and “particularly dangerous” individual cannot answer his accuser.  Only the prosecution speaks.  Ward sits alone and makes slanderous declarations against Ross with no cross examination.  This is unjust treatment of unbiblical and sinful manner.

Injustice toward Ross

Psalm 89:14 says:

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Proverbs 21:3 says:

To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

It is not just to make a false, slanderous accusation against a godly Christian man like Thomas Ross, no explanation or reasons, and not give him a face to face opportunity to answer his accusation.  This is not due process.  It is not justice.  Mark Ward treats Thomas Ross in a manner of contempt like Jesus warned against in Matthew 5:21-26, akin to murdering someone in his heart.  A man claiming to be a Christian like Ward should not treat another man, whether Christian or not, with contempt.  Ward treats a believer like Ross with contempt.

Doubling Down on Appalling Slander of Ross

Someone in the comment section dealt with Ward’s appalling slander of Ross, when he wrote:

It seems interesting that you would make the claim that Ross is a “extremist of a particularly dangerous kind” because he is “super intelligent”. When the same could, and probably should, be said about you. Btw. This comment meets your comment requirements because it is no more of an ad hominem attack than you yourself made.

To that, Ward answered:  “I stand by what I said. Every word.”  He had a great opportunity to retract, and he didn’t.  Instead, he doubled down on his appalling slander of a Christian gentleman and scholar.

Ross wasn’t even dealing with Ward in the videos to which Ward refers.  He was elaborating on the arguments of the White debate.

Ross Not Extreme or Dangerous

What makes anyone an extremist and dangerous and then on this issue of the intelligibility of the KJV?  Ross takes the position that God preserved all of the words of God in their original language for every generation of believer.  Is that really an extreme and dangerous position now?  It is the biblical and historical position of the church.

Ross answers arguments against the intelligibility of the KJV made by White in the debate.  Truly saved people all over the United States still use the KJV in their churches.  It is still the most commonly used version of the Bible in conservative Bible believing churches in the United States.  It’s not extreme to do so.  And it is not extreme to defend the intelligibility of the KJV.  There are good arguments for its continuation, which is why so many people still do use the King James.

Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray Recently on the KJV

I was listening to Jordan Peterson in an interview with British conservative journalist Douglas Murray.  Peterson asked Murray:

I have a friend who is extremely erudite and literate and charismatic and maybe Canada’s most remarkable journalist. . . . He has the knowledge a vast corpus of poetry and its evident in the manner in which he speaks, because he has that lilt and cadence and rhythm that’s part and parcel.  And you’re very very well spoken.

And Peterson asks Murray to what he attributes that quality of his.  Murray answers:

In my case it is the great good fortune of having been brought up with the King James Bible, . . . . which if you have [that] in your head and you recite [it] every Sunday, gives you a pretty good idea of how to cadence the English language.

Murray characterized this as ‘furnishing his mental furniture and having to furnish it well.’  Murray didn’t see the King James Bible as extreme and dangerous to his public usage of language and understanding how to speak to a modern culture.  No, it was a great help, the greatest help to his speaking ability, communicating to a contemporary people.

It is not good at all to slander your Christian opponents as a strategy to discredit them with ad hominem attacks.  This is what Ward and White do and very often from which I’ve seen and read.  I call on Ward to cease, desist, and retract such appalling slander about Thomas Ross and others.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives