Last Phil Perkins Post – EVER!

We’ve had quite the laugh thanks to Phil, but there comes a point where jokes get old, so this is the last Phil Perkins post at this blog ever – without regard to anything Phil might say or post.

The quoted stuff is from a comment Phil posted at his blog, and before we go any further into that field, I find it a little disturbing that Phil blocks comments which have answered his questions point blank and then calls that action a failure to respond on my part. If Phil wants to find dishonestly, there is a mirror in the rest room which he should check.

Please, read this entire comment. There is a common logical mistake that you made and even if you disagree with me, there's a logical lesson for you to learn that will help you think better in the future.

I'll just give you a couple of evidences you can read right here in the last four or five posts and comment threads.

1. He pretended to be able to judge translations, but doesn't even know the languages. And when asked, he refused to answer.

One of the underlying problems with appealing to “logic” is “truth”. You know: I can come up with a valid logical syllogism like:

All bloggers are porn stars.
Phil Perkins is a blogger.
Therefore, Phil Perkins is a porn star.

Logically: perfect. Factually: a ludicrous slander. Because all bloggers are in fact not all porn stars, the conclusion is false, not true.

In the same way, Phil says, “I refuse to answer” whether I know the languages or not. Sadly, my alert readers here at this blog already demonstrated to Phil that I never claimed to know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In fact, I admit and publicize that I cannot read these languages, as our little context last week demonstrated.

But far worse for Phil, I posted repeated comments to his blog denying that I can read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and Phil has refused to post them.

So the problem is not that not all bloggers are porn stars: it is that Phil refuses to listen to anyone who denies that all bloggers are porn stars – calling their denials in fact “silence”.

2. He actually contended that the biblical command not to tamper with God's word only applies to prophets. Follow the provided links starting with Part II of THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs.

As interesting as Phil’s accusation sounds, he’s referring to Deu 18 – in which his exegesis is, at best, of a single note and that not quite in the right key.

See: Phil doesn’t want to say what he means by “change the words” – and my example comparing the KJV, NIV and NASB has (as far as I have seen – he’s welcome to post a link correcting me) gone unremarked upon. In my view, for example, the TNIV is guilty of aberrant translation in Eph 2:15 – not because they changed the words but because they changed the meaning of the passage. And in changing what the passage communicates to the reader, they find themselves in violation of the clear command of Rev 22 – which, oddly, Phil’s blog takes its name from.

So when Phil tosses out a transparently-incorrect statement about me, ignoring evidence which overturns his complaint, and suppresses my own responses, maybe Phil should go get a soda and a sandwich or something – cool out and find a hobby which isn’t so factually-intensive.

Now unless he actually doesn't know better than that he's lying.

If he DOESN'T know better, then he ought not pretend to know much about the Bible.

See: in Phil’s world, all logic results in binary choices: either I’m a liar or a fraud. Either I’m a deceiver or a failure. It can’t be – as I believe is true in his case – that I am merely incorrect, or misguided, or ill-informed. I have to be a villain.

I wonder why it is important that I be a villain and not merely a person who has made )(in Phil’s opinion) mistakes?

3. He pretended right here (again just read) that the TNIV differs in its gender references only because of a different opinion about translation. But the fact is that Zondervan has openly admitted the differences have to do with marketing.

Yeah, as for comments I posted to Phil’s blog which he failed to post, I’ll offer that I have in fact mentioned that conundrum that we may not in fact need a “new” New international version – that the NIV was refreshed by the Zondervan for the sake of marketing a new product.

But factually, the TNIV does differ in translation philosophy from the NIVB. The innovation of gender-neutral translation is a new development since the 1970’s when the NIV was first produced. And those changes are supported by the UBS – whether I agree with them, or not.

What Phil ignores is the larger debate which has gone on over and against the publication of the TNIV where people like John Frame have campaigned against the translation philosophy behind TNIV and people like Craig Blomberg have rebutted those arguments and supported the TNIV. This wasn’t hardly a strident move by Zondervan to do something no one really believes in – in spite of their clear marketing motives.

But of course, in Phil’s world, there are only different kinds of devils, and Zondervan can only be a profiteer or an apostate.

4. He claimed that he didn't monitor the net to try to protect his image, yet he proved right here that's not true.

You see: coming back to discuss the issues Phil brings up – and hoping he’ll at least engage, if not change his mind – is “protecting my image”. I wonder what Phil would say if he was completely ignored?

We’ll find out in the future.

5. He claims to actually be a Christian, but still supports Tim Challies, who is in open sin.

Says Phil. I say: Phil – contact Challies’ pastor and ask him to start discipline. Turn it up a notch, wiseguy. If a local pastor and elders discipline Tim for sin and he doesn’t repent, I’ll disavow him right here.

But here’s the thing: if they find him guiltless, you have to repent. For the first time in your life, maybe. Repent, Phil.

There are five lies right there. But it's even worse than that.

But his sin is deeper even than that. Go back and read what he started his comments. At least half of what he said, starting with his very first sentence, was simply taunting like one expects on a playground. This is not the sort of behavior of a Christian man.

Indeed – we should all be dour and sour when someone slanders us – because by a long shot, that will cause the slanderer to repent.

Take Phil for example ...

AND, if you think these men show any sort of grace and honesty with brother who confront them over their sin, I'm not the only one who has experienced their scorn.
You can read that in Edward's comments, too.

Edward who? Should I google it to see what he’s talking about, or should I ... oh nevermind ...

Here is the logical lesson I mentioned:

Since you don't know what I may or may not know about Turk, aren't you uninformed about whether or not I'm informed in my judgment?

You admitted you don't know, so be consistent and logical.

If you e-mail me, Phil, I’ll give you my cell phone number, and you can tell me all the things you know or don’t know about me. Until then, thanks for the laughs – but this sort of humor is funny for a very short time, and then it gets old.

I am sure you can find me when you’re ready. Until then, grace and peace.