Glenn has responded to my posts over at his blog. There are a couple of issues that he raises that I will address but, for the most part, he’s thrown in the towel. He didn’t interact with 95% of what I wrote so I have to assume (1) he is unable to for some reason, or (2) he is still trying to. Either way, in this reply he gets further and further away from reality.

Glenn is guilty of “poisoning the well”. This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. Glenn is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias readers against me and hence that they will reject any claims I might make. He does this by first setting the stage:

I was once advised that, often times Christians, when presented with new views contradictory to their own, will all of a sudden become closed-minded individuals.  They’ll plant roots so deep and erect walls so high that even when presented with the plain and simple truth, it won’t hit them because it’s not how they view things.

You can see that they’ve dug themselves in when they start to argue about things that were once not relevant, and try to twist and bend Scripture to fit their views, and not the other way around. However, the surefire way to know that they’re at the end of the rope is when  start denouncing tried and true translations like the KJV and NKJV.

Take Daniel for example. In his “response” done with supposed proper exegetical and hermeneutical approaches he goes on to commit the same fallacies he’s accused me of.  Here are some reasons why I know he’s fenced himself in.

One can see that Glenn, before even getting to his “evidence” tries to paint me (indirectly and directly) as a “closed-minded individual” who has, once presented with “plain and simple truth,” turned a blind eye to this truth and am now “try[ing] to twist and bend Scripture to fit [my view].” Glenn assumes that what he has presented in previous posts is, in fact, the “plain and simple truth” even though I have presented evidence contradictory to that claim. As noted above, the lack of interaction with my posts suggests that Glenn is the one guilty of these accusations. A little piece of advice for Glenn: when your argument can be turned against you, it’s not a valid argument.

RE: Point 1

Glenn latches on to something and blows it WAY out of proportion. In typical fashion, he does so without knowing much about which he speaks:

He basically downgraded Bibles that are based the Majority Texts or Textus receptus, saying the KJV and NKJV are no good for interpreting certain passages? He better be have PhD in Biblical Languages or similar to make such a claim. Unfortunately, he’s just a seminary student. Why would he do that first of all? Because it contradicts the point he’s trying to make, so he’s getting rid of the ”faulty’ evidence, discrediting any “witness” against him.

Now, you may be asking yourself “What did you write, Daniel? Did you really write that the TR is ‘no good for interpreting certain passages’?” Well, the answer to that is “NO!” I never wrote that. Glenn jumped to a conclusion that I never presented. I wrote:

The NKJV uses the same manuscripts as the KJV for its translation. These manuscripts have been shown to be inaccurate and not as reliable as more recent discoveries.

Oh, the scandal! I stated nothing but very easily verifiable facts. I never even mentioned the MT or the TR. The N/KJV isn’t even based on the MT at all! But, alas, Glenn reads this as me saying that the TR is “no good for interpreting certain passages.”

Glenn continues:

Oh really? I’d like to see some citations and proofs of your claim Daniel.  Recent discoveries? Do you mean the Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both kept safe throughout the centuries by the Roman Catholic Church, the same church that tried to destroy the Reformation, the same Church that believes in Mary’s virgin birth.  Is it possible that these manuscripts could be tainted?

Sure. I’d love to provide proof. I’ll write up a post and link to it from here in the near future. Let the reader decide, shall we?

I do want to point out, though it may be pedantic, that the plural of “codex” is not “codexes” but “codices.” I make this observation to really highlight Glenn’s ignorance of the issue at hand. Now, it is not a crime to be ignorant of this, as I’ve said before. What is a crime is when someone who is ignorant waxes authoritatively about a subject they know little to none about. This elementary mistake proves my point.

Glenn then tries to poison the well by linking א and B to the RCC, as though that proves they are tainted. Glenn forgets, or doesn’t know, the history of א and B or the RCC. However, it is really interesting, and I believe funny, to note that the TR was edited by Erasmus, an RCC monk. Again, the same argument thrown at א and B applies to the TR. And again highlighting Glenn’s ignorance. Glenn also doesn’t know that ALL mss are “tainted.” No two are exactly alike. Hence the field of textual criticism that the TR people hate so much because it works against them so well.

I will do a post soon on the history of the Majority and Minority texts, and which ones I prefer.  (Here and here are quick summaries on why I use TR based Bibles.)  In the meantime, see here on the various contradictions between the two sets of manuscripts:

Which is more reliable: Majority or Minority Texts?

So when Daniel rejects my argument based on the idea that the N/KJV is faulty and “inaccurate”, then you know he’s pulling at straws.

Glenn then links to two off-site articles so amazingly riddled with misinformation, its amazing that he believes them. Of course, if one does not know the actual history, one would not recognize misinformation. Especially noteworthy is that Glenn thinks that there is such a thing as ONE text called the Majority Text and ONE text called the Minority Text when, in fact, both “texts” are made up of many different mss. I will, however, respond to Glenn’s post in the near future and will link to it from here.

RE: Point 2

Glenn finally begins to address the topic at hand:

Daniel goes on to ignore the context and continue to trump his claim that Paul was speaking to the Jews only, not Gentiles, ignoring the fact that verse 44 says the almost the whole city came to worship. He even stops short of mentioning it because he knows it’ll blow his case.

Glenn doesn’t read very carefully. This is evident. Here is my quote from the post he is referring to:

Glenn asks the question “If Paul were speaking ONLY to the Jews on the Sabbath, then why does verse 45 take about the “multitudes?” Well, I said that Paul was preaching to the Jews in the synagogue on the Sabbath in vv. 16-41. However, if he looks at context, v. 44 reads “The next Sabbath…” Glenn makes the assumption that because Paul was speaking to Jews in vv. 16-41 that he would also only speak to them later on in Acts 13. This doesn’t follow as the text clearly shows.

One can see that when Glenn says that I am “ignoring the fact that verse 44 says the almost the whole city came to worship” he is mistaken. Not only do I address it, I explain it. Glenn, though, keeps right on neglecting that the text records two separate speeches by Paul.

Again Glenn mis-characterizes my writing in hopes that the reader won’t check for themself. He writes:

Daniel goes on to claim that Paul was first speaking to the Jews, then the Gentiles hijacked the meeting. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

I’ll just quote the text:

The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered… But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy…and Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you (“you” being the Jews)…we are turning to the Gentiles.

It is interesting to note that Glenn didn’t answer my very direct question: What does this prove if it were Gentiles? Absolutely nothing because Gentiles are not Christians.

RE: Point 3

The most disrespectful thing that one who claims the title “Christian” can do to me is argue against me all the while being ignorant of my position. Glenn fits that bill. He writes:

You know someone’s back is on the wall when they start claiming the OT is no longer valid for NT Christians.  So why bother with using a Bible with the OT in it Daniel?

Never have I ever made the statement or even implied that “the OT is no longer valid for NT Christians.” I challenge, no, demand Glenn to show me where I have. Guess what folks…he can’t.

Glenn then quotes 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and writes:

Okay Daniel, what is the “Holy Scriptures” Paul is talking about.  He’s talking about what we now call the OLD TESTAMENT.  The New Testament didn’t exist until years later.  Paul is basically saying that the Scriptures (Old Testament) is all we need for salvation and to live as a good follower of Christ. (emphasis original)

Paul is not saying that the “[OT] is all we need for salvation” as that would clearly contradict Romans 10:17 and the myriad of passages where we are told that our salvation is in CHRIST alone and NOT the OT or even the NT for that matter. Scripture can lead to the “knowledge of the truth” (2:25; 1 Tim. 2:4). It has the power to bring its readers to faith (cf. James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). But Scripture, ipso facto, does not save. But when Glenn asks what “sacred writings” (v. 14) that Paul was referring to, he really highlights the fact that he is unaware of NT history as well as OT history. The “all Scripture” (v. 16) would refer first to the OT but by implication also to at least some NT writings, which by this time were already being considered as Scripture (see 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Pet. 3:15–16).

Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18, gives the command not to “muzzle an ox” and is a quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4, which requires an owner to allow an ox to eat of the grain he is grinding. One who works for something should be able to benefit from it. “The laborer deserves his wages” is a direct quotation from Luke 10:7 (cf. Matt. 10:10). Thus, it seems that Paul is already referring to the written records of the statements of Jesus (the Gospels) as Scripture.

Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, is referring to Paul’s writings with the phrase “in all his letters” (v. 16) which shows awareness of some kind of collection of Paul’s letters, with the number unspecified here. “The ignorant and unstable twist” Paul’s teachings “as they do the other Scriptures” (v. 16), implying that Paul’s writings were also considered Scripture in NT times, on the same level of divine authority as the OT Scripture. Greek γραφή, here translated “Scriptures,” occurs 51 times in the NT, and every time it refers to the canonical OT Scripture, and not to any other writings, except that twice (here and 1 Tim. 5:18) some NT writings are also included. This indicates that NT books written or authorized by Christ’s apostles were recognized, at a very early date, to be God’s Word.

Glenn really shows that he doesn’t pay much attention to what I write when he quotes Genesis 26:5 and then asks “Which laws and statutes did Abraham keep?” I’ve repeated many times that the 10 Commandments and the OT laws were given to the Jews and the Jews alone (Ex. 31:16–17; Deut. 5:15; see also Rom. 6:14, 10:4; Gal. 3:23-25, 4:1-26; Col. 2:16–17; Eph. 2:15).

Glenn concludes his post with:

To me, Daniel has put up walls around him, but I’m praying that I’m wrong on this matter. He’s got his back up on the wall so bad that he’s starting to accuse me of lack of knowledge and understanding of Scriptures. Pot calling the kettle black again? It just seems to me that way to me, so I will heed Jesus’ advice in Matthew 7:6 and end this discussion, because frankly from what I’ve seen by his arguments, its the same old misinterpreted reasoning I get all the time. All I hoped for was some reasonable discussion, yet it’s devolved into misrepresentation of facts and Scripture. Further discussion wouldn’t be fruitful.

Let me get one thing straight: I don’t have any problem with Glenn believing what he does. I only spring into “apologist mode” when someone promulgates false beliefs under the guise of Christianity. I’m obligated to defend. It is my duty, and honor, as a follower of Christ. Here, though, is just another argument that can be thrown right back at Glenn. I don’t write what I do for his benefit, for the most part, but for the benefit of others that are reading this. Maybe someone in the SDA “church” or thinking about going to one. Or maybe just someone wanting to learn more about the topics at hand. Those are the people I write for. If Glenn wishes to cease this discussion, that is fine with me. If he ever wants to spark up another conversation, I’m ready (Calvinism?). Though, Glenn, if you’re reading this, I will be reading your blog and I will be making periodic comments either here or there. Through all of this, I pray that we can both remain within the parameters set forth in 1 Peter 3:15-16.

God bless.