Logic versus logic, interpretation versus interpretation.
Introduction
Another article has appeared from Bryan Ross. It is an article about logic, but it is really a conflict about Bible interpretation.
Bryan Ross is still at it, trying to reject the idea of having a precisely accurate edition today and deferring instead to alleged precise accuracy of the originals — of which no perfect copy is extant.
In a calamitous blunder, Bryan Ross has sided with the modernists against the King James Bible by insisting that the authority is with the “Hebrew and Greek”, and that its “doctrinal weight” outweighs the English.
In order to show the magnitude of Ross’ error, a reader simply has to apply what he is saying against the King James Bible itself. In so desperately trying to argue against there being a correct edition with correct wording, he has also had to sacrifice the KJB’s exact text and its exact translation, while he goes with the modernists to the temple of Hellas. Are we now to parley at Mars Hill instead of preaching to the world in the global language? Are we to jettison the greatest Christian revivals of the past 508 years for the superstitious deference of modernism? For, we all know that no one has an immaculately, jot and tittle, pure and perfect exact copy of the Bible in Greek or Hebrew. Half the time they can’t even get the order of the Bible Books right!
Is Bryan Ross so petty that he will say, No! It’s not half the time! Verschuur made an error in his statistics!?
Authority
Our authority in matters of doctrine and theology should not primarily be logic. Logic is not higher than truth. Our authority should be truth itself, and logic is but a servant of truth. Logic is just one of the things that is a part of the use of knowledge.
It is telling that Ross, as doubtless compelled by his friend Nate Kooienga, is more interested in trying to use logic as a polemical device than a proper hermeneutical approach.
I think they know what I am saying makes sense, but they must go to lengths to try to reject it.
My point
What happened was I mentioned a place where the Bible is accurate to the letter in English showing a principle about the difference between a letter changing a plural, which the Apostle Paul mentioned in Galatians 3:16.
I mentioned it rather casually in passing, but in fact there is a lot more that we can show from the Bible, for example: “Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right.” (Judges 12:6a). Notice the changing of a letter, the changing of the sound, is actually shown to us in the Bible that one is “right”, meaning the other is less right.
Again, “all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word” (Jer. 26:2b).
Remember, Bryan Ross does not believe Matthew 5:18 is speaking about the very makeup of the words of Scripture being entirely reliable, he is instead focused on the message of the Bible only. Thus, he can meander about on spellings and wordings, for he is not anchored in the precision of communication that comes from using precise grammar, spelling and punctuation. He is fine with fluid orthography because he doesn’t detect or seem to want to detect preciseness of meanings like fractals in every word in a letter perfect way.
Bryan Ross the hermeneutics police officer
Bryan Ross is trying to quibble about how apparently Galatians 3:16 cannot be used to demonstrate that God knows and cares about letters in the Bible.
His logic can be summarised as follows:
- Paul was writing in Greek about a Christological doctrine from Hebrew;
- Verschuur is writing in English about a Bibliological doctrine from an English translation; so
- Verschuur’s use of the principle of what Paul indicates, even thought it is in Scripture and deals with Scripture words, is a “non sequitur” because Ross’ hermeneutics don’t allow Verschuur to use Paul’s words in English in an applicative way to support having letter-accuracy in an edition of the English Bible.
What Ross is doing in a silly way here is trying to divorce the Hebrew, Greek and Paul from the King James Bible, its editions and me.
But we are all part of one continuum. There is a direct connect between inspiration and today. I trust I am not in bad company if I am with the Apostle Paul. And if I actually believe God wants us to have every word that proceeds out of His mouth!
Word differences are not spelling differences
Ross keeps saying, “Spelling differences such as alway versus always or stablish versus establish do not affect grammatical number or meaning and therefore carry no doctrinal weight.”
Except, “alway” and “always” are two different words, with different (though similar) meanings. “Stablish” and “establish” are different too. Now even if it was just in nuance, even if just in subtle shading, they are communicating something slightly different.
Doctrinal accuracy demands word accuracy. If we want to have the exact communication of God, and know exactly what He means, we cannot just have haphazard and random word and spelling selections.
Plummeting logic
My whole argument is about the precision of Scripture, and having an exact edition allows us intricate knowledge of that.
Ross makes a very bad argument against me when he tries to say that because all KJB editions have the same message at Galatians 3:16, in relation to the matter of the singular and plural “seed” and “seeds”, that somehow this cannot apply as an argument to the PCE.
This is the most atrocious “logic” I have seen for a long time. He’s literally saying that unless the PCE is different at this place, then whatever is being said doesn’t apply to the PCE.
Let’s use his logic against him. For example, here’s an absurd argument: Paul wasn’t writing English so why is Bryan Ross quoting Galatians to me in the KJB? He can’t use English because Paul was writing in Greek about Hebrew, so I (facetiously) INSIST that Bryan Ross give me the argument in Greek.
Doesn’t that mean that Bryan Ross is making a “category error”? Whoops.
Ross accidentally admits something
Ross says, “But in reality, variations like stablish vs. establish or punctuation shifts do not alter doctrine in the same way.”
So, me using logic here, that means that “stablish” to “establish” or punctuation does effect doctrine in just a minor, microscopic way?
That’s exactly what I am saying. I’m not saying that there’s going to be big ticket doctrinal matters like the Christological argument at Galatians 3:16. I am saying there is perhaps only the tiny molecule of difference, of some minor doctrinal impact.
And that’s the point: the tiniest hairsbreadth of meaning difference is a meaning difference!
Amen Brother Ross, you do really know that those differences of words are really different words with different meanings: “throughly”, “ensample”, “alway”, “stablish” and the rest the words like “astonied” and so on must all retain their rightful place.
Because every jot and tittle actually does matter. Meaning matters. And meaning builds ideas, ideas which form parts of doctrines.
Answering Ross’ faulty reasoning and misguided deference to the originals
Ross writes, “Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16 demonstrates the theological significance of singular versus plural forms in the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts, not in English orthographic variations.”
Sorry, but Paul was not expressly writing with a view to talk about Hebrew and Greek, God was not limiting what Paul said to be something to do with that even. He was just talking about the plural and the singular. It was about Christ, and he made a point about precision in language to show us about Christ. God communicated to us about this, so we cannot and should not artificially say that Paul was somehow writing about Hebrew and Greek. He doesn’t even mention those words.
So the principle of plurals as communicated by letters is entirely valid for us to understand, and to use it as a point to show why we should have an accurate English edition is proper.
I mean, we are reading the word “seed” and “seeds” literally in English right, and in order to communicate that, we would want an accurately printed English Bible, right? That is right.
Ross then says, “While fidelity to the original languages is essential for doctrinal accuracy, spelling and punctuation differences among King James Bible editions do not alter meaning or theology.”
This is truly a dangerous statement. Ross is basically saying that the authority for theology is in the original languages, and not in the fact that we have English representing the originals.
Has he not read these verses?
“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).
“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).
Doesn’t he know that there was a Reformation so now we can know doctrine in our own tongue?
Now he is committing himself there to actual error because he categorically states, “spelling and punctuation differences among King James Bible editions do not alter meaning”.
So, he is saying that if you have an edition that has Peter’s speech “betraying” him instead of “bewraying” him, that that’s not a meaning change? Or that deliberately insisting on having “Spirit” not “spirit” at 1 John 5:8 today (as opposed to the haphazard nature of early printings) is not a meaning difference?
The editorial staff at Cambridge who ignorantly changed this verse in 1985 did so because they called it an embarrassment. They really thought it was a meaning difference, an error. If they didn’t think that way, why were they (wrongly) embarrassed?
Surely this is directly an issue of theology! And yet Ross blunderingly stumbles along claiming “spelling and punctuation differences among King James Bible editions do not alter meaning or theology.”
I guess Robert Barker went to jail for nothing for printing the Adulterer’s Bible. I guess the Parliamentary inquiry in the 1830s and those at other times was for nought. I guess the British Government was wrong, as well as the Guardian Presses of the United Kingdom, in wanting accuracy of King James Bible printing.
Surely they recognised that meaning and theology could be affected with press errors and poor editorial decisions!
Ross concludes, “doctrinal precision depends on the integrity of the preserved original-language text and faithful translation—not on the exclusivity of one English edition”.
Doesn’t he understand that a translation has to be printed? Are people free just to print badly and introduce accidental word changes, and that doesn’t matter? Are people free to get rid of proper distinct words with their distinct meanings, and there is no consequence?
We are dealing with the Word of God here, I strongly recommend great fear at such an undertaking as to be sure to be presenting the Scripture with absolute fidelity in our English settings, presswork and publishing.
Doesn’t Ross understand that what we have today is long passed beyond the original languages, that we have now a faithful representation in English? It seems that he harbours a secret deference to the original languages, and even does his teaching by not relying upon the King James Bible itself, but all this nonsense about sperma and toldot and other such non sequitur.
Ross makes a really big mistake
Ross writes, “By conflating inspired textual distinctions with editorial refinements, Verschuur commits a category error that undermines the logical foundation of his position.”
Notice how Ross divorces the inspired text from the printed King James Bible.
Notice how Ross indicates that inspiration is not communicated by the mechanism of editorial exactness in English.
Notice how Ross implies that placing the inspiration of Scripture in the hands of God but editing apparently is just a human undertaking, that God apparently has no direct care for the transmission of the inspired words through the method of editing and medium of printing/publishing.
Notice how Ross upholds the accuracy of the originals but expresses no care for what the end user actually has at hand today.