Steve,

A tough criticism is one thing; circulating an attack - and how else can you characterize the tabloid title "Dallas Seminary Professor Denies Inspiration" - to people, NOT asking that Christian brother for any clarification, and then continuing it eight years after you've been proven wrong is not apologetics; it is nothing less than slander.

It isn't even that it was Wallace that bothers me; he has done it on other occasions as I said.

Yes, it IS well known that Martin is not a Hortian and that he is not KJV Only as well. If interested in an ACTUAL representation of Martin's views, why did Cloud not make this clear? The 'everyone knows this' excuse doesn't cut it when everyone simply doesn't know it. You sir, are CLEARLY WELL READ on the issue - I disagree with you but I do not hate you and I do not deny that it is clear you have read up on it (your concession to change on the Cassidy point increased my respect for you as well, brother). So YOU know it; but the average guy does not know it. And I suspect that Cloud has NEVER REALLY READ Martin's thesis anyway. It was in "Which Bible," one of the books (and authors) Cloud lists as his influences toward KJV Onlyism.



You add Burgon; funny to me how Cloud minimizes the differences Burgon had with the TR - never addressing, of course, the obvious fact that if Burgon thought the TR needed change (which he did - although by 'different principles' than WH) - then Burgon didn't hold the TR to be the 'pure, unadulterated Word of God' that had no corruption.


I would appreciate you not making an unfounded accusation - that I am not a dispassionate investigator or don't like the man. And I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to play to the crowd - you're talking about what I said about Cloud here and those reading, of course, have no way of knowing exactlywhat I said.

For example, why did you not reference this part that I wrote?


You asked me about David Cloud on the board. I do not want to post a long list of what would be dismissed as an attack. It opens me up to accusation of ad hominem, and I do not want to be standing there. But before I critique some problems I have with Cloud, let me point out that he has done some very good work and has some rather interesting articles about Roman Catholicism as well as Pentecostalism. While I do not agree with every word he writes even about these systems, he often demonstrates an ability to clarify some doctrinal issues. He has also been one of the few KJV Only advocates to outspokenly denounce Peter Ruckman ("œthe KJV is advanced revelation"�) and Gail Riplinger (found at this link: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic...o/dcongar.html

And also THIS link: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

In other words, there ARE instances where Cloud seems willing to buck the trend including his recent expose on Bob Gray, a KJV Only pastor who was arrested on pedophilia charges going back to 1949 (numerous allegations). So this is not to paint with a broad brush.

END LETTER

It is hardly fair, Steve, for you to say I don't like the guy when I made perfectly clear what it was I didn't like - deception and double standards. Yet anyone not privy to what I would rather have not discussed here would say, "He hates Cloud because Cloud is KJVO" - which is not at all true. I don't hate David Cloud at all - but will we have a discussion or try to 'score points' as if this is a debate? I'm hoping the former.


Okay, let me clarify. I concede the flaw was mine in how I presented it. It was I (NOT LETIS) who asked how Hills had such a fast turnabout regarding his alleged views on TC. 'Reprehensible?' Hardly.

Sir, why was it okay for David Cloud to slander Daniel Wallace, but it is somehow 'reprehensible' for me to say what I did regarding Hills? Letis discusses this some at length (I will be mailing the thesis sometime the week after next). Hills refers to this as his 'great lapse.' Letis further argues (p. 150) that Hills realized at Chicago that unless one accepted the dogma of a late date for the Byzantine text type, he could never gain credibility with the textual critical guild.

Letis further writes, "...role theory might well explain how Hills could conform to the expected posture while at Harvard, since to succeed in text critical studies there he had to assume the role of one unconcerned with the Calvinistic, scholastic view of the text and begin at the assumption of viewing the Ecclesiastical text as late and nearly worthless, something most text critics believed from 1881 on. Whatever his compromises, by 1952, Hills was ready to return full circle to his historic Reformed roots and affirm with the Westminster Confession, the priority of the Textus Receptus." (This is quite an interesting comment - since I don't ever recall the WCF saying 'the TR is it.' - Bill).

Hills certainly possessed a doctorate. But a bad argument is a bad argument whether it's a third grader or a Ph.D. making it - and when Hills claims 'God must,' he is on quicksand in terms of telling us how 'God must' preserve His Word.

Another word though we'll interact more with it: I would have LESS PROBLEM with Hills if he had ACTUALLY FOLLOWED his mantras for textual criticism - if he had simply stuck with 'majority rules.' But as James Price - who worked on the NKJV that is based on the TR noted - Hills ran into a problem with his principles and it was this: "..in relation to textual criticism, that system must explain the realities of the manuscript evidence. It was precisely at this point that Hills´ system broke down. His system simply did not explain the facts as they existed in the manuscripts." (James Price essay located at: http://www.kjvonly.org/other/japrice_hills_pr.htm)

But hardly similar. I'll let you read the thesis before I comment further.


[/quote]
Bill, you have stated a few times that you do not have a particular stake in a particular point of view at this time. May I ask, what is it that "“ in this interim period "“ you do hold to as regards the state of the Biblical text? You are full of many doubtful questions as regards the KJO and the 1894 TR position, which I do respect; but on the positive side, do you believe we have an inerrant Bible which is trustworthy? Or with many of the MT folks, do you believe we sort of have a Biblical text, though it is not now "“ and may never in our lifetimes be "“ settled?

[/quote]

A good question, my brother, and one I am more than happy to answer. I believe the Bible given originally without error and is ACCURATELY preserved in the abundance of copies in the Alexandrian, Caesarean, Byzantine, and Western families. I do not think the judgments are as 'black and white' as most people seem to want to make them on ANY side of the issue. AUTHORITY is derived FROM THE SOURCE - God Almighty. What must be remembered is that NOT EVERY MANUSCRIPT IS EQUALLY INERRANT IN TERMS OF ITS ACTUAL READINGS. Each is INFALLIBLE because it derives its authority from the original. The REAL question is not whether or not we have a preserved Word; it is whether that Word MUST be all in one place on one piece of paper (or exemplar of a new version for example) to be said to be 'preserved.'

When I say each manuscript is not equally inerrant, that is not a cause for concern that I somehow deny inerrancy. I hold the Rene' Pache view of a Scripture 'essentially preserved in all (copies) but perfectly preserved in none.'

[/quote]
You pose many sharp questions regarding my (KJV/TR) views of providential preservation (I include those in whose camp I am, such as Cloud and Hills, generally speaking), but have you any of your own that serve you and sustain your faith as you seek full knowledge of the truth?

It is a rather safe place "“ in terms of friendly disputations such as we are having "“ only being the interrogator, and positing nothing as regards your own faith. How are you able to stand in what you presently believe?
[/quote]

God makes me stand. I don't consider it a 'disputation' either. But it's a little more difficult for me to state 'like so and so' said; this is easy for most KJVOs to do - because when you knock one down, there's another to put there. Knock those whom Letis called dilletantes on the KJVO side down (Riplinger, Ruckman, etc) - and Hills can be thrown into the mix. Knock his arugments down and Burgon (who - and nobody seems to want to mention this - DIED before much of the textual evidence available now was here) is brought forth.

Go READ these folks - and bad arguments become crystal clear.

Now by the same token, I do not hold to the conflation theory of W/H, either - there is so little to commend it. I also have hesitation of a Lucianic recension; but the difference is that my position considers God's providence of using ALL the manuscripts - and not dismissing as 'corrupt' those that don't jive with my own view of how 'God must' have done something.

I also cringe every time I read 'the inferior Byzantine text,' because I do not believe it to be so clear cut.

[/quote]

As I see it, this contest is properly between the KJV/1894 TR holders and the MT holders. The CT position is a dying wolf; you don´t need to kick or beat a dying wolf if it is no longer able to maul you. Those of us in the fray are really in the same family, with not much between us save the issue of faith preceding our view, or our view preceding our faith. I think you have put it in similar terms.
[/quote]

Funny. The MAJORITY is supposedly right. Of course, the MAJORITY of Christians now use something BESIDES the KJV. The MAJORITY of Christians, in fact, use Bibles based on the W/H text.

And the MAJORITY of ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE is on the side of the CT.

A STORY AND I MUST GO FOR NOW

Steve,

My wife is after me to clean the house, so I'm going to have to go in just a moment. But I have enjoyed this portion and hope to engage the rest of it soon. But a quick story that exemplifies what you're talking about regarding 'family' and why it is such an issue with me.

In 1998, I joined a BMA church in Mississippi. After we'd been there about four months, the Missions Committee brought up a recommendation for Bibles to send to China. The discussion was proceeding well. The pastor then asked, "Are there any more questions before we vote?" At this point, the guy sitting behind me who had just joined said, 'Is it KJV?'

It took everything I had to not stand up and say, "Does that make a freaking difference?" This might be a fun subject to discuss. And you're correct, we are part of the same family - going to have to spend an eternity together reading the NIV (you know I'm joking, Steve . But this man was so committed to his tradition that he would rather vote AGAINST sending a 'non-KJV' Bible to China - rather than something that might actually produce fruit and salvation. It turned out not to matter; it was a Chinese version and passed unanimously.

Remarks like 'not a real Bible' about other versions really got me sick about the whole thing. We had a Sunday School class where the teacher liked to make a big deal about how the NIV 'misrepresented' a particular passage. Well, one Sunday morning the teacher was ready to make a big deal about it. I was sitting next to the pastor, who had his TR out. The teacher asked the pastor about something and the pastor looked - and told the teacher the truth: the NIV got it right in this particular pasage (w/the TR no less) and the KJV GOT IT WRONG!!

Needless to say, there wasn't a big deal made about that like there would have been if the opposite had been the case. And THAT is my issue: the double standard.

As I said earlier, I use the NKJV devotionally and the NASB for school. I use the NKJV because it has ALL THREE textual readings in it.

I'll try to interact the next few days. God bless you, and if I said anything that went after you personally, do know it came from the pen and not the heart - and I'm sorry if I did.

Maestroh Bill