WRONG ASSUMPTIONS

Sometimes people have the wrong ideas, and little wrong ideas can lead to big wrong ideas.

The other day, I saw Bryan Ross (in his attempt to cast doubt on some of my views) try to say that basically the twelve passages that are used to identify the Pure Cambridge Edition were somehow something to do with Pentecostalism, as though the list had been compiled with largely or somewhat Pentecostal intentions.

The idea he has mistakenly thought is that as if I made a list that specifically or secretly is connected to passages about Pentecostalism, and so that allegedly I could say that if a Bible doesn’t match up with it, it isn’t pure. This is nonsense, and is so nonsense that I didn’t immediately realise that Bryan Ross was trying to make this point.

It’s a made up point, of course, because the twelves places to test whether an edition of the Pure Cambridge Edition were made not with reference to or because of Pentecostalism really at all.

It happens that there was a passing reference in the context of one of the places, 1 John 5:8, or rather, why a lower case s “spirit” would even be in the Bible, with a question to its relation to Pentecostalism among other things. But Ross takes that and builds a whole narrative out of it.

Much later, when I did analysis on what the implications would be between different editions on possible doctrinal understandings based on differences, I referenced the work of the Holy Ghost. For example, the fact of Jesus being led into the wilderness to be tempted is not specifically a Pentecostal doctrine, but I might consider a reason about it from a Pentecostal perspective. However, there are many other reasons and issues and facts to consider with that kind of example at Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 which have nothing to do with Pentecostalism.

But then, if I mention Pentecostal once somewhere, that’s a trigger, an alert. This leads to incorrectly framing a case.

MISUNDERSTANDING AND FRAMING

Another of Bryan Ross’ wrong assumptions about me and what I have said is about Historicism. He has hinted that there is a claim that I am apparently making that there was something special in Historicism about the early 1900s, in relation to the rise of Pentecostalism and the making of the PCE and something special about 100 years later, with the discovery of the PCE.

The only thing is that both of these things are not overtly part of any Historicist framework. I mean, they could be connected in the big picture in passing, but these events are not pointed to in a vivid way in Bible prophecy. This wrong assumption is probably in part because he does not understand Historicism, but also is actively framing rather than examining the information.

When someone looks at information, not to understand it, but with bias and prejudice to confirm some accusation, then it is likely to get these sorts of strange assumptions and erroneous judgment.

Such a view can of course go wild.

“Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth,” (James 3:5b).

SANDY FOUNDATIONS

A lot of the reasons why Bryan Ross does not like what I stand for in these particular matters is because he has an incorrect doctrinal and interpretive framework.

Not only does he reject Pentecostalism, which really isn’t the issue in these matters he makes it out to be. He is, it seems, ideologically committed to a libertarian style approach which is really anti-authoritarian, which is to say, trying not to have a rigid imposition of the New Testament yoke upon believers.

For example, take “he” and “she” from the two 1611 Editions of the KJB, and then tell us whether God’s truth is singular or multiple. Ross pushes a view called “verbal equivalence”, which means he tries to make various differences in the KJB editions as tolerable.

Except Ross knows that only one reading is correct, which is also the truth-based approach that I take. So, obviously his “freedom” to accept different variations as if they don’t matter now doesn’t count because he thinks that “he” was incorrect, which of course is also my view.

In fact, surprisingly, Ross does some correct method in how he finds “he” to be incorrect, he uses logic like, conference of scripture, context of the place, English grammar, editorial processes, historical Protestant Bible testimony and textual criticism/causes of corruption logic.

However, Ross goes further, and mentions other arguments which should be considered secondary, but the big one he puts as his probably most primary, is he goes to the Hebrew, listens to the commentators (in this case Norton), goes to the alleged draft of the 1611, looks at modern versions/translations and applies the general error of modernist-influenced reasoning methodology.

I described all of this because there are so many opportunities for Ross to get things wrong, really, because his foundation is not the Word and Spirit authoritative approach.

Because he doesn’t accept the Providentially supplied authority of the Pure Cambridge Edition and using it for an (obviously) English-first analysis, he will be subject to relatively greater error in his judgments when examining places of the Scripture in regards both to editions questions or to Bible interpretation.

What he is not doing, which I think is vital, is beginning Bible analysis, study and editions examination, all of that, from an KJB-first, English-first and PCE-first perspective. To accept that as a foundation would be to adhere to a good and proper authority.