Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Date: August 02, 2008 08:49AM
TO TESTY AND THE FORUM WHILE I AM STILL ON VACATION:
July 20, 2008 06:13AM
TESTY SAID:
Truthtesty Perhaps it might be helpful if you would show this forum how the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error.
Sister {{{ONE MORE TIME: I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. This is a figment of YOUR imagination and I am not required to reply to this kind of statement. Would you please QUOTE WHERE I SAID "KJB scholars are perfectly equal to the "living word" without a single error?" Where on earth did you GET THAT PHRASE? It was not from me and I am very tired of your accusing me of saying things that I did not say and then demanding that i explain it to your satisfaction as if I did say it.
Truthtesty: I NEVER SAID YOU DID. Understand this. It is not a figment of my imagination, it is your failure to see logic. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT "the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error THEN YOUR KJV SCHOLARS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS ANY OTHER SCHOLARS - SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR - HELLO?
[[[Hi Testy, I am not sure how well this will work out using a different computer and keyboard and mouse and all at my friend's house, but I will try briefly to deal with some of what you have said here in a rational way. I do want to be fair but I have become so exasperated with you that at times I perhaps have not expressed myself as clearly as I I otherwise might have done.
FIRST: I believe you did accuse me of believing that the KJB SCHOLARS ARE EQUAL TO THE LIVING WORD. I will try to locate the passage later. I printed them out before leaving home so I could study them in greater detail and think more clearly about what was said.
SECOND: To make things perfectly clear on that matter, I do not believe THE kJB SCHOLARS are EQUAL to the "living word." you have not said what you mean by "LIVING WORD." Whatever you mean by this you evidently attribute deity to it.
I attribute high scholarship which has been une qualled since their time to the scholars of the translation committees who translated the King James Bible. I don't attribute deity to them or to their work. SOME who defend the kjb as best in English DO attibute INSPIRATION to the TRANSLATION of the KING JAMES BIBLE, which is not TRUE, AND I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO THAT assertion and neither does Dr.Waite or Dr.Williams or any of the other sources I recommend except where specifically noted. If someone finds a source that I have used or recommended on the subject to have that false belief that the ENGLISH of the King James Bible is INSPIRED AND EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THE PRESERVED, PRECISE Words of God in Hebrew, and also finds that I have not warned of this false belief, I consider it a kindness if they would inform me of that fact with specific quotes to confirm. I am always willing to change my mind if convinced by facts and reason and Scripture.
REQUEST: Would you kindly define for me and the forum what YOU MEAN BY "THE LIVING WORD?"
TESTY SAID:
it is your failure to see logic. BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT "the KJV scholars are perfectly equal to the "Living Word" without a single error THEN YOUR KJV SCHOLARS ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS ANY OTHER SCHOLARS - SUBJECT TO HUMAN ERROR - HELLO?
[[[RESPONSE:
FIRST: Testy If YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT CHAFER AND YOUR AUTHORITIES UPON WHICH YOU RELY are without error and are equal to the "living word" whatever that means to you, then why are you arguing with me about my imperfect sources? YOU HAVE NOT EVEN DEFINED "LIVING WORD." Who or what is this living word you keep referring to and what is your reason for giving it such deification?
SECOND: I never attributed divine perfection to any of my sources. I simply asked and expected that they be treated with the SAME RESPECT AND ATTENTION AS you are giving to your favorite sources, which apparently are the same sources that reject the excellence of the KJB out of hand without a hearing of the evidence that calls into serious question the popular conclusions regarding the King James Bible its history and its scholars including the scholars who have found it to be the best translation in English down to this very day. That is not an unreasonable request and it is one you have not given any evidence of fulfilling.
REQUEST: PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you have not read the sources ANY OF THEM that I have sent or posted OR AT LEAST declare you have no intention of doing so so I won't waste my time on it any more with you. I am treating your posts with respect by replying to them with specific attention to the best of my ability point by point. The Peterson series is very user friendly and helpful and easy to read. It is evident to me that you rely upon Chafer to an extraordinary extent and have not consulted any defenders of the King James Bible. This is not a balanced way to defend your position. Nor is it an effective way to attack mine, for you don't even attempt to disprove any facts I have given or any rational defense of your position, as far as I can make it out.]]]
TESTY SAID:
AND THAT MEANS THAT THIER TRANSLATIONS ARE REVIEWABLE, QUESTIONABLE, AND SUBJECT TO CORRECTION.
REPLY:
[[[When did I or any of my sources say this was not so? ALL TRANSLATIONS should be judged by THE SAME STANDARDS!
ONE BIG CAUTION SHOULD BE OBSERVED IN THIS MATTER:
You cannot compare apples and oranges by the same standards! And in the case of translations, one must START WITH THE SAME EXACT TEXT as a base to arrive at a fair comparision of one translation with a different translation.
REQUEST:
Do you agree with this caution Testy? Why or why not?
TESTY SAID:
AND? IF THE KJV SCHOLARS MADE AN ERROR IN THIER "SCHOLAROLOTRY"
[[[REPLY: Say testy, what specific errors are concerning you in the KJB scholars' work? How did you arrive at the conclusion that these are in fact errors? If you had this as a legitimate concern you would have already read the extensive Q AND A link I previously gave you to read and see if your questions had been covered on so called errors in the Kjb. But you seem not to be interested in reading this material and it GIVES THE LIE TO YOUR SINCERITY about being so concerned with possible errors in the KJB! You won't read what I sent or posted links to so how is it you expect me to give more stuff for you to ignore?]]]
TESTY SAID:
YOU NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT IT.
[[[REPLY: testy YOU ALSO NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT YOUR ERRORS and not least to apologize for the insulting message you sent me then apologize for ignoring my response. REMEMBER I have not been home and have not read any email for almost two weeks, so if you have sent something on this subject email, then I have not seen it. My to your insult was was reasonable and calm compared to what you said to me and about me. I still await your response on that one. Till the cows come home apparently.
You show me an error I MADE and PROVE IT AS AN ERROR then I will upon being convinced of the error will promptly apologize. Your simply denying something I said is not proof. Assuming I am wrong is not proof. Asserting that Chafer said something different is not proof. It is a disagreement, not a proof. Simply stating your disagreement is not proof. Saying "all scholars agree" is not proof, for they do not all agree.
TESTY SAID:
I have told you before that if Dr. Chafer has made a mistake that I am willing to admit it, but are you willing to admit it, if the KJV Scholars made a mistake? I don't think you are.
[[[REPLY:
FIRST,
YOU SHOW ME ONE AND PROVE IT IS A MISTAKE AND I WILL ADMIT IT TESTY. You can make all the general indignant claims you want but until you get SPECIFIC this is a tempest in a tea pot. I am not an expert but I can read and write and I can try to find an answer for any "mistake" you think you can come up with from your apparent research on whatever sources you have. When you do come up with a "mistake" in the KJB, would you please CITE YOUR SOURCE so I can go check it too? Remember I don't have access to Chafer's Systematic Theology as you apparently do. Surely there are sources online which we can both look at to support your claims and opinions?
At least my authority is a final authority which does not change with the winds of popularity and fashion, whereas I would venture to say that most authorities involved in producing the modern versions and translations HAVE NO FINAL AUTHORITY TO APPEAL TO. They deny such exists. Perhaps you agree. Perhaps you don't agree. I can only guess in the absence of any clear declaration of your own. Most defenders of the modern versions seem to me to avoid FINAL AUTHORITY of any kind, placing extraordinary confidence in their own worshipful scholars such as Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Kittel {about whom you have had something to say yourself, Testy}. The missing piece in all this discussion is the fact that the modern versions all come from a couple of very depraved and corrupted manuscripts, Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus and the KJB uses ONLY the purest and the MAJORITY OF MSS handed down among the believing churches. This is the PRIMARY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KJB AND ALL THE MODERN VERSIONS. it is a difference which you have yet to acknowledge. They are not the same text in significant places! It matters greatly which TEXT your translation comes from. the KJB TRANSLATORS KNEW ABOUT AND REJECTED THE TWO PRIMARY SOURCES OF THE MODERN VERSIONS!! Dean John William Burgon personally examined these two MSS and explained why he described them as depraved in character and corrupted. You can consult his description if you like. I believe I included it in what I already sent you, WHICH YOU HAVE PROBABLY HAD TIME TO CONSULT IF NOT READ BY NOW.
REQUEST: Testy, do you understand that the TEXTS both Hebrew and Greek, but especially the Greek, behind the KJB and the Modern Versions are NOT THE SAME and therefore the results CANNOT BE EQUATED? ]]]
TESTY you seem to have adopted a skeptical mindset against ANYTHING IN DEFENSE OF THE KJB and a corresponding mindset in favor of all other translations, which is typical of a modernist type skepticism. Chafer was not a modernist as far as I can see and he did try to defend traditional theology. But in my opinion he did not see that his stand on Bible versions was inconsistent with that aim, and that is sadly not uncommon even now with conservative Bible believing Christians. It does not invalidate all his work. I never said it did. I simply observed the apparent inconsistency.
TESTY YOU SAID:
I don't think the possibility of the KJV Scholars making a mistake enters your mind, because of that big roadblock sign, flag waver, and construction project.
[[[REPLY:
It is true that I have been forthright in my CONFIDENCE in the EXCELLENCE of the work of the King James Bible and its tranlators, their high qualifications which surpasses the qualifications of anyone living today, and in the excellence of the THEOLOGY THEY UPHELD, the MANUSCRIPTS THEY USED, and the METHODS USED which very adequately guarded against individual prejudices and personal beliefs at odds with tradional biblical Christian belief. They were men of their times and Anglicans, but they GREATLY RESPECTED THE DIVINITY OF THE WORDS OF GOD at their disposal and they treated it as they found it from their sources. Again, they knew about and rejected with good cause the very manuscripts at the heart of the modern versions, Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus not least because they uphold heretical theology and show corruption and errors by the thousands! This is not a good basis for any Bible translation, and only someone who is ignoring the evidence will ignore the corruptions in these two manuscripts. These two MSS and the few others that agree with them in some degree form only ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS, even up to modern times, so why use this as a basis for a major revision?
As I said before, you prove to me that the KJB scholars made an error and give your source so I can check it myself, and upon agreeing with you about that specific error I will gladly and cheerfully admit it. YOu have not done so up to now, {given a specific error} and one would think that such passion as yours would immediately present me with specific errors to deal with along with the accusation, but you have not done so.
THE WHOLE POINT in my support for the King James Bible is to explain HOW I CAME TO REJECT THIEME'S ERRORS AND ESPECIALLY HIS OMISSIONS in his account of how we got our English Bible and the effect this omission of his had on my acceptance of his peculiar doctrines and his habit of "correcting" the translation, WHICH TRANSLATION, AND WHICH TEXT HE NEVER CLARIFIED. It is an issue that is dear to my heart because learning the missing truths cut Thieme's inappropriate authority over me completely. Otherwise I would not go into such detail on it here. I have seen nothing about the KjB here or elsewhere to make me change my mind in this basic assertion: learning how we got ALL OUR ENGLISH BIBLES and learning the relative merits of the MSS they are based upon FREED ME FROM THIEME. FINALLY AND FOREVER. Nothing you have said will move me off that point. I can't imagine anything you ever could say would change my mind on it either. That is a far cry from what you accuse me of.
You seem to think my mind is closed and no facts can interfere with that. JUST WHOSE MIND IS CLOSED, TESTY? YOu have not presented any facts that prove my opinions wrong or that show my facts and evidence or my references wrong. You have simply denied them to be true, often without any specific reference to any error. You have simply ASSUMED your opinion is a fact and your Chafer quotes settle all matters once and for all. Who is showing scholarolatry now, Testy, you or me? At least I have cited numerous sources WHICH YOU WON'T READ, so who is DISPLAYING PREJUDICE? YOu are prejudging me by the apparent beliefs of others you have heard of who support and defend the King James Bible without being able to prove I share those opinions! When I deny such beliefs, then you come back and deny you ever said I shared them. Nobody can succeed in a fair discussion under those conditions. ]]]
YOU SAID:
I think you will with predjudice cart-blanche attack anyone who disagrees with ONE WORD of KJV scholars' translation, cast sound biblical research to the wind, and "throw the baby out with the bathwater."
[[[LET'S EXAMINE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE:
you will with predjudice cart-blanche attack anyone who disagrees with ONE WORD of KJV scholars' translation,
MY ANSWER: Show me a specific error and your source for naming it an error and I will examine it and your source, and answer why I agree or disagree. That is fair. BUT YOU DON'T READ WHAT I REPLY OR SEND YOU SO WHY SHOULD I BOTHER?
QUESTION TO YOU TESTY: WILL YOU READ WHAT I SEND OR POST? ]]]
YOU SAID:
How is this different than a thiemite getting upset when ONE WORD of Thieme's being called into question?
[[[MY ANSWER:
Your description of my belief is in error therefore it does not accurately predict my attitude about the King James Bible. Generalizations are not useful Testy and you ought to know it. I think you are simply offended because I won't give in to your general objection to my rejection of modern versions without understanding the reasons I reject them. You show no evidence of understanding what I have said, and you refuse to read or consult the supporting sources I give, you just disagree and assume that constitutes proof of your point. You think that quoting Chafer ends all discussion and it does not.
YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME HOW THIS COMPARES TO A THIEMEITE OBJECTING WHEN ONE WORD OF HIS IS CHALLENGED? It does not compare because you have not NAMED ONE WORD YOU CAN SAY FOR A FACT IS AN ERROR IN THE KJB OR IN THE TRANSLATORS' WORK! As you well know, Thiemeites object to ANY CHALLENGE WHATSOEVER to their hero's work whether it is in the Bible or not. I am challenging you to give me something specific rather than your GENERAL OBJECTION TO MY ENTHUSIASM FOR THE KJB.
I INVITE YOU TO PRESENT A SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE KJB, and no Thiemeite does that. They are always saying IN GENERAL THAT THE COLONEL DOES MAKE ERRORS, but they CANNOT EVER NAME ANY SPECIFIC ONES. At the risk of enraging you by even asking this question, isn't that what you are doing to me? You tell me what I must believe and how I feel and how you expect me to respond, and I don't dance to that tune. You say there must be errors in the King James Bible but don't present any or give any sources that I can examine and therefore your objections are nearly worthless because they are not specific! Thiemeites run and hide when we ask them to give specific errors their hero has made. When firmly challenged with specific evidence they also disappear to do their "research" and never come back. I would never accuse you of disappearing, Testy.
IFYOU WANT A SPECIFIC ANSWER YOU HAVE TO ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION! and support your charges with sources I can check. Please.
And if you want to be taken seriously and respectfully you have to give respect in return. I expect you to answer my requests Testy. I will be waiting to see if you give in return the respect you demand for yourself.]]]
YOU SAID:
So I ask you are you now a cult follower of the KJV scholars?
[[[REPLY: No and an article I referenced thoroughly explained this matter in detail. But you did not read that. You apparently are allergic to reading what challenges your beliefs in this matter. I don't ask you to change your mind about anything, Testy, but when you object to something I have said or YOU THINK I SAID OR BELIEVE, and I have given information responding to that, YOU DON'T READ IT OR RESPOND TO IT. SO WHY DO I KEEP ON?]]]
TESTY SAID:
Thiemites are quite susceptible to falling into other cults after being in the cult of Thieme. This is true of people in other cults too, due to the failure of realizing the cult dynamic and it's influence on thier personality
[[[REPLY: This is true! And I won't deny that I have to guard against this, but what about yourself, Testy? What are YOU into that you have not been forthright about on this forum that might be seen as just another leader or opinion that is not biblical but that you have received as your own? If it is true about me to have to be careful, and it is, are you not subject to the same cautions and temptations? As it is, my enthusiasm for the King James Bible seems unusual to you perhaps because you have never investigated TO THIS VERY DAY the rational and reasonable reasons that support it's many virtues. This is not the attitude of a cultist! A cultist as we know accepts the opinion of one leader mainly and his little isolated group as an authority. I invite specific challenges and declare before all that I will investigate them as I am able and will change my mind publicly if I find the evidence and the reason adequate. I SEE WHERE YOU ACCEPT "ALL SCHOLARS AGREE" or reptuable scholars whom you don't specify beyond Chafer, when in fact all scholars DO NOT AGREE, and yet you refuse to read those who disagree with you. I have already been down the road you affirm of the modern versions, and I too was once prejudiced against the King James Bible without evidence. You are at that point. I don't see you examining any of my evidences or sources or discussing them point by point, and I don't think you ever will. I would love for you to prove me wrong on that one, Testy. Why not try?]]]
TESTY SAID:
Truthtesty: I think it is time for you to be honest. Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be"
REPLY:
[[[You have simply stated your opinion about this as a fact and you have not given any proof or evidence. I don't have access to Chafer's documents and you do, and I am not about to get into a "shouting match" with you about something he said when you control the source. I said why I thought what I did about this, and if you disagree, you should be honest enough to just say that. Don't present your opinion as a fact that all scholars agree on because ALL DO NOT AGREE.]]]
Sister: {{{If you want to talk about honesty, Testy, you tell the forum about the nasty things you insulted me with and have yet to respond to my reply to you. I have had enough of these games for now. I will talk to you after my vacation. You got time in the next two weeks to show me where I said what you claimed I said but did not. That is VERY SHORT AND SIMPLE. I want to know where you got that it was NOT FROM ME.}}}
Truthtesty: If you want to talk about honesty, Sister, then realize this, honesty and nasty are 2 different things. Nasty is in the eye of the beholder - the truth hurts. AND? You evade admitting that Dr. Chafer did not miss the theological point. How convenient.
[[[REPLY:
What truth? You say Chafer did not miss the point. You missed my point and just because you can quote what you find in an index and I can't does not mean you are right. You are the one who thinks Chafer can do or say no wrong. In this case, I believe he has missed the point in calling the body of fallen human beings not subject to sin or contamination by sin, for they do not pass into heaven unchanaged!!!
QUESTION: if the human body of fallen human beings cannot INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, why not? The KJB translators chose VILE for a reason, and knowing their caution and probity and their extreme reverence for the Words of God, I will choose to believe their choice was good until proven otherwise. I don't see that Chafer explains his view about VILE BODIES except to disagree with it. He says NOTHING GOD MADE IS EVIL. What about SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS? God made them. they are certainly not going to heaven, They are corrupted. Man's body was ORIGINALLY MADE PURE but has been affected by the FALL. That is the MAIN POINT. Even the earth and animals and eventually the entire universe will be REMADE IN WHICH WILL DWELL ONLY RIGHTEOUSNESS.
QUESTION: If RIGHTEOUSNESS WILL DWELL EVENTUALLY in all God has made in the past in a NEWLY REMADE UNIVERSE and all it contains, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO CLAIM THAT THE PRESENT UNIVERSE IS PURE AND UNTOUCHED WITH SIN AND CORRUPTION, even when God says His spirit indwells us at present?
The reason the Spirit can indwell believers bodies' now is that the sacrifice of Christ for our sins has been PERFECTLY MADE AND ACCEPTED, but the creation will not have the benefit of being remade RIGHTEOUSLY AND WITHIN WHICH ONLY RIGHTEOUSNESS WILL DWELL FOREVER and this includes our present imperfect physical bodies. I don't see where Chafer has seen that. I disagree with him on this point. ]]]
You have a problem admitting to error. It is not really personal, but it does get in the way of honest research. Can you not admit that Dr. Chafer does not miss the theological point of the passages? "It is a declaration that this body is not a body of glory as it yet will be." Plain and simple.
[[[REPLY: No I don't. You have a problem accepting that your statement of your opinion is not a fact and is not proof of what you claim. You have not shown an error in what I said yet, same as with the King James Bible and the translators of it. I have said I will admit an error if it proven to my satisfaction and you have not done that yet. Yet you continue to avoid reading my sources which disagree with your beliefs, and you call me prejudiced and dishonest? I still think Chafer missed the point I saw, and so you disagree with that still? So what? We disagree! Amazing. You just won't admit that because i DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS that this makes you mad. You have made a career of opposing Thieme and don't like it when someone opposes you who also opposes Thieme. Give it your BEST shot, Testy. Don't send me a nasty email and an insulting one or I will post it and show the world what you have said. Post it here. In front of everyone. Since you don't even read what I send I am writing this more for other readers' benefit than for yours. I don't expect a respectful factual response from you Testy. I expect more quotes from Chafer and personal opinions and assertions being expected to be accepted as proof when they are not. THE ISSUE TO ME IS THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS BEST, NOT DIVINE. LEARNING FACTS AND EVIDENCE I HAD MISSED FREED ME FROM THIEME.
Now what facts and evidence that you had missed freed you?]]]
SISTERSOAP
[[[I HOPE to finish replying to this particular post of Testy's later. Got to go now. It really hurts my hand to use someone else's equipment.]]]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2008 08:52AM by sistersoap.