Continued Response to Sam Gipp's Many Errors on KJV Onlyism

Here is Dr James White's second video responding to Sam Gipp's "arguments".




Continued Response to Sam Gipp's Many Errors on KJV Onlyism

Responding to the Same Old Falsehoods Packaged in New Garb

Dr James White has posted a video responding to Sam Gipp's "defense" of the King James Only doctrine. Hint: Gipp's arguments are still bad. Here is Gipp's video:






And Here is part 1 of Dr White's reply:



Responding to the Same Old Falsehoods Packaged in New Garb

Response to Ryan Anderson on John 2:15

I have been discussing a post on my blog recently regarding an article that Mariano Grinbank has written answering the stupid charge that the New Testament portrays Jesus as violent. Ryan Anderson of course is does not oppose Mariano directly so he comments on my blog. The post in which I linked to Mariano's article is as follows

What had happen' was.....: Was Jesus violent? | True Freethinker

Anderson made the following comment.

Of course Jesus was violent, see John 2:15. And Marino's rationalization of that verse is particularly weak. He focus on the harmless σχοινίων and completely ignores the lethal φραγέλλιον. He's essentially arguing that a robber was harmless, because he had a flash suppressor and you couldn't really ever hurt anyone with a flash suppressor. Never mind that the flash suppressor is attached to the end of a pistol.

Here's a project for you, take some very soft rope or cord, and try to "drive" everyone out of your local mall, and then hold the mall for several days*. Let me know how that works out.

*I imagine this would be easier to accomplish, especially the holding part, if you had twelve guys with swords to help you. :)

As I understood Anderson's argument, he thinks that the whip Jesus used was lethal and thereby proves that Jesus was violent. But he knows that the text does not support that, so instead he invents the idea suggesting that Jesus held the temple in some military operation with his disciples being armed. Unfortunately for him, nothing in the text remotely supports his conjecture. Let's look at the John 2:15 speak by looking at two translations.

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (NIV)

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (KJV)

Now look at Ryan's analogy with the gun and the flash suppressor. If you are shot in the heart, you are just as dead no matter if the gun has a flash suppressor or not. A whip made of small cords is not the same things as a φραγέλλιον. A better analogy would be a gun that fires bullets and a tazer. Ryan and I went back and forth several ways and meandered about until the following exchange. I'm going to make new comments in red.

Ryan Anderson said...

What does φραγέλλιον mean to you?

August 20, 2011 7:49 AM

Marcus McElhaney said...

John 2:15 refers to whip made out of small cords. φραγέλλιον (strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek) is not referring to the same lethal tool that the Romans scourged people with - like the one used on Jesus before his crucifixion. Look up 4979 if you want to know that the whip that Jesus used in John 2:15. Compare John 19:1 "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him." "scourged" here and "scourge" in John 2:15 are not even close to the same word and has way more painful and lethal connotations than your new favorite word "φραγέλλιον". James White was right, a little Greek is dangerous when you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know what kind of a whip the Romans used on Jesus and their prisoners? Not the same at all as the one Jesus used made of small cords in John 2:15. Are you sure you read Mariano's article. doesn't look like you did. August 20, 2011 8:10 AM

Marcus McElhaney said...

I should have asked if you "understood" because I think that's where the disconnect is.

August 20, 2011 8:10 AM

After a day of looking this over, I think this is where I lost Ryan. He most likely will not accept this but I really thought he understood what I wrote but I don't think he did.

Here is the verse in the King James version with the words hyperlinked to an online lexicon. Just click on the word to see it.

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Ryan Anderson said...

strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek You'd be wrong. I'm better at Latin, but I read Koine. Can't tell Ryan gets oh so many things wrong.    "scourged" here and "scourge" in John 2:15 are not even close to the same word You know the difference between a verb and a noun, right?

August 20, 2011 10:45 AM   Yes. A flogging is a noun. Flog is verb. See how that works in English? Here is a problem. The fact that John 2:15 is talking about a tool Jesus used to cleanse the temple and John 19:1 is referring to an action does nothing to refute my argument or support his. 

Ryan Anderson said...

Plus, you are confused, φραγέλλιον if 5416, not 4979. σχοινίων is 4979 (since you apparently don't know how to use a concordance). John 2:15 uses both words. 5416 is the word for the Roman Scourge, 4979 just describes what the Scourge is made out of. See me flash suppressor example.

August 20, 2011 10:59 AM   And here is where I confused Ryan. I made a mistake and he caught it. I meant to say that σχοινίων was 4979 so we actually agree on this point. I was copying and pasting the Greek text and made a mistake. I still think that he has made a very poor analogy to the gun and flash suppressor because Jesus was not holding a Roman Scourge in his hand in John 2:15 and should not be confused with one.

Ryan Anderson said...

A little entomology for you, μαστιγόω (mastigo) is to flog or scourge (verb). We use the word masticate today (chew up) and it's totally unrelated to the noun "scourge" or φραγέλλιον. φραγέλλιον is the Roman flail or scourge. And is a greek word of Roman origin. Scorpio in Latin because the bits on the end hurt like a scorpion sting. You're welcome.

August 20, 2011 11:06 AM

 

I agree. and thank Ryan for the entomology lesson but it's unnecessary. because the text tells us what kind of whip it was. It did not have the "bits on the end". Those bits would rip the flesh right off the bones of the victim and would rip open the very bowls of a human being. That is the kind of whipping Jesus received in John 19 but not what he gave in John 2:15.

 

Ryan Anderson said...

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH, I just typed φραγέλλιον into google and one of the first headings that comes up makes it appear that φραγέλλιον is entry 4979 in Strongs (no doubt because both φραγέλλιον and σχοινίων are in John 2:15 which is linked to 4979). If you don't click further, I can see how one would think φραγέλλιον was entry 4979. You've really got to be more thorough than that Marcus, it helps to have a hard copy of Strong's handy. F- for you.

August 20, 2011 11:22 AM    Nope a simple everyday mistake in typing. I didn't use Google. I used MySword on my Android Tablet for the initial comment and didn't look carefully enough at the Geek text I used in the comment. Definitely my mistake and confused Ryan. But my mistake doesn't make Ryan's argument work.

Marcus McElhaney said...

You prove my point: the whip used in John 2:15 is not of the same kind in John 19:1. You are trying to conflate them in order to make it appear that here was not a difference and there is. Your problem is that the context of John 2:15 tells us what the whip is made of and it is not the same thing as the Roman's tool for plublic flogging used on Jesus in John 19:1. The attempt at accusing me of not being able to use a concordance is a red herring at best. Bravo. Sam Harris would be proud. I doubt you know what you are talking about because a concordance without a lexicon is like a brain without a mind. Explains you very well, however. I don't have the time to answer all of what I want say now but a specific response showing how you cannot exegete your way out of a paper bag is coming soon Don't try to thank me all at once. You are more than welcomed.

August 21, 2011 6:53 AM

 

 

Ryan Anderson said... 

 

the whip used in John 2:15 is not of the same kind in John 19:1. Actually, if you were honest (or understood grammar) you'd admit that the type of whip in John 19:1 is not described per se, but since it was a Roman solider doing the μαστιγόω, it's likely it was a φραγέλλιον, but that would be "adding to the text" now wouldn't it? But in John 2:15 we at least know that the author is saying that Jesus used a "scourge" and used the word to describe the Roman Punishment version.   We know from history what kind of whip was used by the Romans when they flogged someone. It's not going beyond to the text to assume that it was that kind of whip in John 19. I mean do we really want to argue that Pilate tried to placate the Jewish leaders by basically trying to beat Jesus with a "wet noodle" when they wanted Pilate to execute him? Really? That's not the same thing as making up that the disciples had swords in John 2:15 and Jesus held the temple for a time as in a military occupation. And  Ryan accuses me of dishonesty.  The attempt at accusing me of not being able to use a concordance is a red herring at best. And what was your attempt at accusing me of not being able to read Koine?   I proved that that Ryan has an exegetical problem with your analysis. Ryan seems to think you can just ignore what the text says. He didn't fill in a blank spot, he erased what was there and rewrote it and worse came up with really misfit analogy to try to
"shoe-horn" his point. Sam Harris would be proud.  I have no idea what that means, and don't care really.   For something that Ryan doesn't care about, he made sure to mention it.  In Sam Harris' debate with William Lane Craig (And I know Ryan says he saw it because he vehemently disagreed with my post on it) he made use of red herrings, just like Ryan did on the comment thread I'm commenting on now and Ryan doesn't even seem to be able to see it. I doubt you know what you are talking about because a concordance without a lexicon is like a brain without a mind. I use an old copy of Thayer.But using google as a replacement for both is like what? Whatever it is, it should be extremely embarrassing. Too funny!!!!

August 21, 2011 8:27 AM

 

Again, I didn't use Google by doing a search on σχοινίων or  φραγέλλιον. Just made a mistake and I should have taken my time. If Ryan isn't embarrassed by his argument, I sure have no reason to be embarrassed by a typo.

 

Ryan Anderson said...

Also, if you truly doubt what I'm talking about, you should scan and post the pages from your copy of Strong's and show that I'm wrong about φραγέλλιον being entry 5416 and σχοινίων being 4979. Or you could just admit you were playing fast and loose and turned out to be wrong.

August 21, 2011 8:31 AM

I did post an interlinear Greek text for John 2:15 above and as I already stated I made a mistake plain and simple. But look at what my mistake was: I was trying to make a point about σχοινίων and pasted the wrong word in my text. I ask forgiveness to anyone who was confused. But that doesn't mean my argument or Mariano's argument about σχοινίων is refuted because of a typo. 

Let me recap: Ryan Anderson wants to argue that Jesus was violent because he used lethal force to drive out the merchants from the Temple. As I understand his argument, Ryan is saying that it doesn't matter if the whip was made of small cords, a phragellion is a phragellion and it's cruel to use it. However he ignores these facts.

1. phragellions that the Romans used (as in John 19:1) did indeed has bits of metal hooks, glass, and what not at the ends with the intention of ripping flesh  from bone to cause maximum pain and suffering as possible.  They were not made of small cords.

2. There is nothing in John 2:15 even remotely telling us that Jesus used lethal force. 

3. Jesus broke no law in cleaning the temple. He actually forced them to follow it. He wasn't arrested because he did nothing wrong and they all knew he did the right thing. 

4. Instead of Ryan explaining how Jesus is proven to be violent by John 2:15, he instead focuses on my typo that doesn't prove his argument. 

Again I freely admit that I made a mistake. The thing is my mistake doesn't help Ryan make his point at all and it doesn't negate my points. Also I missed it at first but now I see that I did indeed make a copy-paste typo and again I apologize. I hope Ryan Anderson will also apologize for his poor exegesis.

The Dunamis Word: The "Good Book" The Bible Of Humanism

I appreciate Elder Harvey Burnett posting this article on this publication I hadn't heard about: The "Good Book".

Anthony Graylings book called "The Good Book" is currently being promoted to support the efforts and the agenda of materialism and materialists everywhere. In a book styled after the Bible, which is known as the best selling book in history, the "Good Book" as it is called comes replete with chapter, verse and language similar to the King James Version of the Bible. Simply put, it is a Bible without God and one that is centered on man.

Genesis 1:1 ~ "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The Good Book ~ “All things take their origin from earlier kinds: Ancestors of most creatures rose from the sea, some inhabitants of the sea evolved from land-dwelling forefathers.”

The question I have is this: If the Bible is such an obvious failure and not worthy of attention, why would a humanist want to parody it. After reading Elder Burnett's remarks, it seems strange to me - like it is an attempt to fill the vacancy rejecting God leaves in the lives of those who deny God's will. More proof the we really need to pray.

The Dunamis Word: The "Good Book" The Bible Of Humanism

Dealing with Bible Contradictions MP3 - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted audio and PDF of a series by Lenny Esposito on alleged. Bible Contradictions. Follow the link to Brian Auten's blog to get the resources.The lectures deal with the following video:





Dealing With Contradictions





Dealing with Bible Contradictions MP3 - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Bible Translation: Does getting it right matter? (christianbookshopsblog.org.uk)
• How to read the Bible (xercised.wordpress.com)

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: James White vs. Jack Moorman on King James Onlyism

Image by Ben Sutherland via Flickr
Here is a debate that covers an important topic: Is the King James translation of the Bible the only Bible we should read? In a word: No!!! Watch James White explain why.




THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: James White vs. Jack Moorman on King James Onlyism

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible Dissected

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeDr. Mariottini recently posted a great summary of facts about the King James Version of the Bible.

Old Testament
1. Books in the Old Testament: 39
2. Chapters in the Old Testament: 929
3. Verses in the Old Testament: 23,214
4. Words in the Old Testament: 592,439
5. Letters in the Old Testament: 2,728,800
New Testament
1. Books in the New Testament: 27
2. Chapters in the New Testament: 260
3. Verses in the New Testament: 7,959
4. Words in the New Testament: 181,253
5. Letters in the New Testament: 838,380
The Whole Bible
1. Books in the Bible: 66
2. Chapters in the Bible: 1,189
3. Verses in the Bible: 31,173
4. Words in the Bible: 773,692
5. Letters in the Bible: 3,567,180
Other Information about the Bible
1. The middle chapter of the Bible is Psalm 117
2. The smallest chapter of the Bible is Psalm 117
3. The middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118, verse 8
4. The word “and” occurs 46,227 times in the Bible
5. The word “Yahweh” occurs 6855 times in the Bible
6. The 21st verse of the 7th chapter of Ezra has all the letters in the alphabet except the letter j
7. The 19th chapter of 2 Kings and the 37th chapter of Isaiah are alike
Other Information about the Old Testament
1. The middle book of the Old Testament is Proverbs
2. The middle chapter of the Old Testament is Job chapter 29
3. There is no middle verse in the Old Testament, since the number of verses is even. If there was a middle verse, it would be 2 Chronicles 20, between verses 17 and 18
4. The shortest verse of the Old Testament is 1 Chronicles Chapter 1, verse 25
5. The word “and” occurs 35,543 times in the Old Testament
Other Information about the New Testament
1. The middle book of the New Testament is 2 Thessalonians
2. There is no middle chapter in the New Testament since the number of chapters is even. If there was a middle chapter, it would be between Romans Chapters 13 and 14
3. The middle verse of the New Testament is Acts Chapter 17, verse 17
4. The shortest verse of the New Testament is John Chapter 11, verse 35
5. The word “and” occurs 10,684 times in the New Testament

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible Dissected

Are We Responsible or Accountable?

A couple of  days ago I was put on the thought of one of the most poignant sayings I think I have ever read in western fiction.

With Great Power Comes Great  Responsibility. - Spider-man, Amazing Fantasy #15

For a time I thought that this was equivalent to what Jesus said in the following scriptures. 

Luke 12:47-48

⁴⁷"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (NIV)

⁴⁷And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
⁴⁸But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (KJV)

However I see that the two statements are quite different. I see now that equating "responsibility" with "accountability" as a problem. The comment about power and responsibility is true but it speaks to duty by virtue of having the power not what happens if you fail to shoulder that responsibility. This is what Jesus is referring to. I missed it for many years because I would just quote part of the passage as "To much is given, much is required." This means that we are not just supposed use our gifts to help other and fulfill the purpose God has for us, it means that God will hold us accountable for what we do with those gifts. And Jesus was not just referring to final reward and final damnation. Jesus also mentions that those responsibilities grow as we get more power and authority - and so does the accountability to God and those around us whom we have charge over. Throughout Jesus' ministry He touched on these points. Here are a few more scriptures that highlight the point.


Mattew 12:35-37 says:

³⁵The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. ³⁶But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. ³⁷For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." (NIV)

Luke 12:35-37 (NIV) says:

³⁵The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. ³⁶But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. ³⁷For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Luke  17:9-10 (NIV) says

⁹Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? ¹⁰So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' "

Did Paul's Companions Share His Experience on the Road to Damascus?

In his latest attempt to show contradictions in the Bible, Shane appeals to an old one:

Here is another biblical issue.

Acts 9:7- "They stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one".

Acts 22:9 (regarding the same story) "they saw the light but did not hear the voice".


Both descriptions contradict each other. According to one the men with Saul saw no one but heard the voice. According to the other they did hear the voice.

Shane further tries to shore up his contention by providing the further argument:

Here's a piece of information.

The NIV version and the NAS version try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase as "did not understand the voice". But the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the NT as "hear", "hears", or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understood".

I nfact, the word "understood" is occurs 52 times in the NT, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo".

I appreciate Shane carefully checking out the text. I think he has put his finger on the point of the contention: In the context of Acts 22:9 does "akouo" mean "understand" or "hear" in the same way as "hear" in Acts 9:7. "Akouo" is in both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Does this mean that "hear" means the audible experience of sound waves bouncing off the ear drum and sending information to be interpreted by the brain? Or does it mean to harken or responding to what is heard? Again context matters.

If you follow both accounts they are parallel and follow the same flow. We are told what Jesus tells Paul before we are told what his companions reaction was.In addition in the context of the Greek text the difficulty is that in greek Akouo at times mean to hear and in other instances to understand. So which is it? Which one makes more sense. We have a single author in Acts. Why would he give an account in Chapter 9 conflicting with what he says Paul says in the 22nd chapter. Luke is not a moron or an idiot...he is careful in everything he writes and much of it can be corroborated with other evidence and none can rebut it. Therefore, I certainly think that understand is a correct translation of Act 9:22. We use "hear" even in English to mean "understand". How often do I feel like telling Shane, "You are not hearing me!" Would anyone think that I'm saying that he does not know I'm communicating with him in my writing? No they would understand I am saying that he does not understand.

One might wonder if I'm just blowing smoke by suggesting that the King James Version has missed the thought being expressed in these verses? Um....no.

In fact, the man known affectionately among theologians as the “dean of Greek scholars,” A.T. Robertson, wrote in regard to the difference in cases:

In 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (to men phos etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one”) a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.].

Consider also the words of Greek expert Ray Summers:

Some verbs take their object in a case other than the accusative. There is a variety of usage at this point. Akouo may take its object in the genitive or the accusative. Usually akouo with the genitive means “to hear without understanding.” This probably explains the difficulty involved in Acts 9:7 and 22:9. The incident is the experience of Paul in seeing the light and hearing the voice on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 states that Paul’s companions heard the voice (akouo with the genitive); Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice (akouo with the accusative). Thus both constructions say the same thing; the companions of Paul did not understand what the voice said to Paul; to them it was unintelligible sound (1950, p. 51).

Numerous other Greek scholars have expressed the same viewpoint (see, for example: Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 31-33; Blackwelder, 1958, p. 139; Kittel, 1993, p. 216; Thayer; 1979, pp. 22-23; Vincent, 1975, p. 571; and Vine, 1985, p. 296). The word “hear” in Acts 22:9 can be used to indicate that it was a sound—not a voice—that the men heard on the road to Damascus. Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/533

What I'm saying is that there is no contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Again you have to wrestle the text out of context and then read the problem into the text.

Some more links that will help to Akouo the text.

All passages that contain "akouo" in Acts.
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon - Akouo

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Defending the Bible: The King James Version

This is an awesome post. I like everything about it. It defends modern translations without denying the importance of the King James Translation. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in this should read The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White.

In this post Dr. Mariottini is writing a response to an article by Paul Greenberg who give two passages to support an argument that the KJV is a better translation than more modern translations. Mariottini does a great job of explaining why the modern translations render the passages the way they do.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Defending the Bible: The King James Version