Post "Plot" Questions?
- Thread starter truthteller86
- Start date
- Status
dale said:
Let me rephrase that...Turbo said:
I mean to say that they were not saved before Christ came.
A few thoughts on Chapter 1....
It was a good layout/foundation for the book. His little 4 line poem was a little cheesy though
His thing with the "setence within" is something I have some questions on though. To me it's pretty arbitrary. Who decides what is the "setence within"? He could probably tell me and another person to find the "sentence within" for a certain verse and we'd come up with diffferent things. I suppose they'd probably both convey the same basic meaning. It just seems kinda arbitrary to me. And how does he know he's not losing some meaning by taking words out?
One part I thought was good was the paragraphs concerning Kepler and Aristotle. Specifically this....
anyway, a general :up: to Chapter 1, except for some grammatical errors....
It was a good layout/foundation for the book. His little 4 line poem was a little cheesy though
His thing with the "setence within" is something I have some questions on though. To me it's pretty arbitrary. Who decides what is the "setence within"? He could probably tell me and another person to find the "sentence within" for a certain verse and we'd come up with diffferent things. I suppose they'd probably both convey the same basic meaning. It just seems kinda arbitrary to me. And how does he know he's not losing some meaning by taking words out?
One part I thought was good was the paragraphs concerning Kepler and Aristotle. Specifically this....
I agree that many Christiains do that. I see some of that in myself also. Many times contradictions are either ignored or they have to rationalize their theology to fit in these trouble-spots.BobEnyart said:
anyway, a general :up: to Chapter 1, except for some grammatical errors....
As Bob pointed out in the book, when using the sentence within a sentence technique, one must be an honest student of the Word of God. If your intent is to make the text say something that it doesn't then you will succeed but if your intent is clarity that will be accomplished as well.kmoney said:
Further, it is not arbitrary. For a third party, it would be really simple to tell whether someone using this technique was being honest because all that is needed is a basic understanding of the rules of grammar and what the subject and predicate of a sentence is and how to identify them. Basically if you can diagram a sentence then you can use, and check the usage of, the sentence within a sentence technique. Anyone fooled by its misuse is either lazy, dumb as a brick or would have to have wanted to be fooled by it. It's just too simple a tool to use to be "dangerous", as I've heard it called.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Army of One
New member
I agree. When I first read "The Plot", I initially had the same concern. But it is quickly evident that his use of the technique is merely a way to provide clarity to his argument, and not in any way an attempt to twist the text. And as far as I remember, he never quotes a "sentence within a sentence" without first quoting the entire verse, so it is easy to compare the two and determine if he is being honest with his summary.Clete said:
This technique could become an exegetical fallacy if not used carefully. Grammatical diagramming must be understood. One also should not build doctrines on an English translation if Greek word studies and grammar would be more precise and differ from certain English translation techniques. It sounds like a fancy name for recognizing clauses that must be understood in light of the sentence and context.
I use the sentence-within-a-sentence technique in most of my posts. :thumb: It's a very useful way to summarize and draw attention to the most pertinent points of a passage while leaving the entire verse in tact for the reader.
The alternative would be to eliminate the non-emboldened words completely and replace them with ellipses (...), but then the reader would have to look up the verse on his own to verify that the sentence-within-the-sentence accurately represents the passage as a whole. And what a hassle that would be.
The alternative would be to eliminate the non-emboldened words completely and replace them with ellipses (...), but then the reader would have to look up the verse on his own to verify that the sentence-within-the-sentence accurately represents the passage as a whole. And what a hassle that would be.
Turbo said:
I noticed in the footnotes that NKJV proof texts sometimes did not stand up to other translations, original Greek, or context. I made notes so far and felt uncomfortable with some (not all) verses in the footnotes. My copy is not accessible at the moment. One merely needs to look up all the texts in the footnotes with other translations or interlinears to see some variation.
e.g. Gal. 2:9 is considered a pivotal verse. The translation is disputed by Mid-Acts. Most see it as one Gospel taken by two people to two target audiences. "The Plot" sees it as two gospels (circ./uncirc.) to two different groups/dispensations.
Bob admits to not being a Greek scholar nor being always current in the recent debate (my impression of his comments in response to Sam).
(Are you of the belief that there has only ever been just one gospel? If yes, what is that gospel?)godrulz said:
You have never given any specific (i.e. grammatical, contextual) evidence as to why the NKJV's translation of Galatians 2:7-9 is erroneous (along with KJV's, ASV's, and YLT's, to name a few).
But if one considers the two interpretations of Galatians 2:7-9 within the context of the rest of the New Testament with honesty, one will find that the NKJV's translation matches perfectly with the story of Acts and the content of the epistles. That is, Paul took a different gospel ("my gospel") to the Gentiles than what had been taught by the twelve, and he did not teach his converts to follow the Law or do good works for salvation, but to have faith alone in the Risen Lord and Savior whose grace is sufficient. Meanwhile, James wrote to the circumcised (Israel) that faith alone without works could not save a them. Paul received his gospel of grace from the Lord directly, and because it was different especially with regard to works/the Law it caused some difficulty and confusion even among the twelve (as Peter mentions in his second epistle, verse 3:16), but they did endorse Paul's ministry in writing (Acts 15) and they loved Paul and counted his epistles among the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16.
This objection of yours has nothing to do with the sentence-within technique, it's just the same old "NKJV Proof-Texts" argument that you spout every time someone brings up The Plot.
I asked for an example of where Bob misused the sentence-within technique, and you gave me something entirely different and completely irrelevant. I think that is because you know of no case where Bob misuses the technique, but you insinuated that he does in an attempt to discredit Bob and his book because you are threatened by the book's conclusions (which is also why you can't bear to read it).
Nice argumentum ad hominems.
There is an old and new covenant. Faith has always been the criteria of salvation. After the death and resurrection of Christ, there was a transition period in the early church. This does not mean there were two gospels after His resurrection.
I did not imply Bob misuses his principle. I expressed concerns about footnotes to support his ideas that were debatable.
I am not afraid to read "The Plot". I have many unfinished books on the go. It is a matter of interest and time at any given moment.
His anti-Pentecostalism, negating much of the NT for church age believers, anti-baptism, etc. are flags that the book claims more than it should. It does not resolve all doctrinal controversies. It merely gives a template to support Mid-Acts dispensationalism.
There is an old and new covenant. Faith has always been the criteria of salvation. After the death and resurrection of Christ, there was a transition period in the early church. This does not mean there were two gospels after His resurrection.
I did not imply Bob misuses his principle. I expressed concerns about footnotes to support his ideas that were debatable.
I am not afraid to read "The Plot". I have many unfinished books on the go. It is a matter of interest and time at any given moment.
His anti-Pentecostalism, negating much of the NT for church age believers, anti-baptism, etc. are flags that the book claims more than it should. It does not resolve all doctrinal controversies. It merely gives a template to support Mid-Acts dispensationalism.
Ad hominem arguments have the following structure...godrulz said:
- The person making the argument has something wrong with him or with his motives
- Therefore his argument must be wrong.
Turbo has presented no such argument. On the contrary, his structure has been the exact opposite. He shows the consistent shallowness of your arguments and concludes that you are being intellectually dishonest. A conclusion which is all but proven by the final three sentences or your post, which I will take one at a time...
Bob is not "anti-Pentecostal", The Plot does not negate any of the New Testament for anyone, nor is he "anti-baptism". Such statements are proof that you definitely have not read the book at all or at least not enough of it to understand its premise or why is comes to the conclusions that it does.
Further, even if your mischaracterizations of Bob's conclusions (which I believe were posted here in an attempt to poison the pot for those who haven't read the book yet) were true, they are not "flags" of anything except for maybe to tell those who are in love with their theology more than they are the Bible to steer clear of this teaching, which you have obediently done.
Further still, claiming that the conclusions of an argument are evidence of the arguments logical unsoundness is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad consequentiam. In short, just because you don't like the consequences of a particular belief doesn't make the belief untrue. Perhaps if you would actually read the book or at least the first four chapters, you could argue it with more substance and address more than his conclusion and address the actual arguments that lead to those conclusions.
Again, strong evidence, if not outright proof that you have not read more than maybe a paragraph of The Plot. Bob never makes any such claim! He does claim to resolve MANY seemingly unrelated doctrinal disputes and succeeds in do so but he never ever claims to resolve all doctrinal disputes.
This is flat out not true, Godrulz! What's that matter with you? It is not like you to simply fabricate crap like this out of thin air. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Bob does not come with a conclusion and then provide arguments to support that conclusion. That is what 99% of what Christian books do today, but that definitely is not what The Plot does. In fact, it does the exact opposite and is built on a principle that teaches the exact opposite. The basis for The Plot is to take the overview of the plot of the Bible (thus the title of the book) and work from there to get a handle on the details. Most Christian books do just the opposite, they build a case for one particular detail at a time a Christian must attempt to build a "big picture" puzzle without the benefit of seeing the box top and as a result they almost always get it wrong. They attempt to force pieces to fit where they do not belong and it just doesn't work.
Bob does NOT do this! He does not begin with any conclusion and work up a supporting argument. He simply establishes what the clear plot line of the Bible including plot twists that most seem to overlook but which are very obviously there as plain as day and then based on this clear understanding of what the story line of the Bible is, he almost doesn't even have to make any arguments for the individual doctrines which he addresses in the later chapters of the book. The correct answers on those doctrinal debates become so simple that one wonders why anyone would bother to debate them. To use the puzzle piece analogy again, if you have a puzzle piece that looks like the headlight on the '57 Chevy and have no access to the box top, you might go with that conclusion and attempt to build you puzzle based on that one puzzle piece. But, on the other hand, if you have access to the box top and you find that it is supposed to be a picture of fruit salad, it suddenly becomes clear that your puzzle piece isn't a head light at all but rather a reflection off one of the apples. You don't even have to know which apple in order to avoid the error that you would have made without the benefit of the box top.
This is the same thing that The Plot accomplishes Biblically. Each individual doctrine or passage of Scripture is a piece of the puzzle and when you know what the plot of the Bible is and where the characters of the story fit with one another, interpreting what those pieces are and where they fit becomes so easy that most third graders could do it on most issues.
Now, would you please just read the book already?! You say it a matter of disinterest that you haven't read it yet but you never miss an opportunity to debate against it without the benefit of having read it. That doesn't sound like disinterest to me, except maybe disinsterest in being influenced away from pet doctrines by sound biblical arguments.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited by a moderator:
:first: POTD!Clete said:
- Status