No Phil Perkins update

Apparently woodchucks have dug up the one good Internet trunk line in Montana or something. Phil has gone eerily silent.

Maybe he's getting ready to expose the Shepherd' Conference as secretly in California and therefore in league with all manner of evil or something.

It's a slow week. Sorry.

Because Phil Perkins is claiming I "don't want to debate", and there's no sense posting to his meta as he will pick and choose what he will allow to show up there, here's all the e-mails he and I have traded on this subject since he emerged from silence. The point, for those who need a point here and can't receive this in the humorous light it comes wrapped in, is to avoid any misunderstandings regarding what Phil & I have discussed so far -- becuase I think Phil has misunderstood it pretty significantly, and it would behoove his wifre, his elders, or his parole officer to talk to him about his interpretation of the facts.

---

---

Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM
FROM: Phil Perkins
To: Frank Turk
Cc: Jim Largent


Frank, How are you? Sorry for the delay. Very busy. We ought to get that debate going. I accept your terms last stated. My thesis is three-part. 1. Frank Turk was wrong to defend so-called gender neutral translations. 2. Frank Turk knew better when he did so. 3. Frank Turk's deception about the issue was probably because he and others don't wish to practice the doctrine of biblical separation as given in the New Testament. I might tweak that a bit, but that's pretty much the sense. We ought to get started next week or the week following. I think it ought to be open ended, ending only when one fails to respond. Once that happens the last to write gets one more response. I'll post soon. Sincerely, Phil Perkins.

---

Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:02 PM
FROM: Frank Turk
To: Phil Perkins
Cc: Frank Turk , Jim Largent


Pick one thesis. Three is too many.


Sent from my iPod

---

Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
FROM: Frank Turk
To: Phil Perkins
Cc: Jim Largent


Also, open-ended is not a debate: it's a feud. I have no intention of spending the rest of my life responding to you in order to prevent you from having the last word so that you can't declare yourself the victor.


My offer to you was to have an exchange in D-blog format up to 10 questions -- even if you sent up your own blog and got your own moderator to referee. You can even have the opening statement and the last word.


One thesis, 10 questions each, 10 answers each. Word limits to answers and questions. That's a debate rather than mere bickering.


-- Grace and Peace to you,


~Frank

---

Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM
FROM: Phil Perkins
To: Frank Turk


Frank, Okay, here's my thesis: Frank Turk wrongly defended the practice of so-called gender-neutral translation while knowing better, probably becaue he doens't want to practice biblical holiness. The offer you mentioned wasn't your last one. I can produce quotes. Again if you want out, just be honest and say that. I'll announce that if it's the case. It's been a long time. Phil Perkins.

---

Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM
FROM: Frank Turk
To: Phil Perkins


Jim:


No open-ended exchanges. Q&A format, word limits -- you can choose the # of questions and the word limits. That's how I always engage with people, and for you to ask for an open-ended exchange demonstrates only two things: [1] you think having the last word makes you right, and [2] you think wanting structure in the exchange is cowardice. My opinion is that you can have the first and last word, and the reader can decide from a structured exchange that follows a clear method of give and take who has the better grasp of the facts and the stronger conclusion.


As for any "announcements" you want to make, publish this e-mail chain as the substance of what we're talking about. Of all the people on the internet today, Phil, who are even semi-reputable, you have picked the one person who is well known for taking all comers in structured debate.


I welcome debating your factually-challenged thesis with your choice of moderator and your choice of debate forum; I will publish every word of the exchange at my Debate Blog so someone other than your wife and your parole officer will read it. You deserve every minute of your grab for attention, and I plan on giving it to you when we have resolved these preliminaries.


Not if: when. It's not any kind of debate if there's no structure for the readers to follow.

Phil Perkins update

Sent earlier today:

---

FROM: Frank Turk
TO: Phil Perkins
Wed Feb 11, 2009 @ 10:56 AM
SUBJECT: re: e-bate


Jim, [sic -- my typo]


No open-ended exchanges. Q&A format, word limits -- you can choose the # of questions and the word limits. That's how I always engage with people, and for you to ask for an open-ended exchange demonstrates only two things: [1] you think having the last word makes you right, and [2] you think wanting structure in the exchange is cowardice. My opinion is that you can have the first and last word, and the reader can decide from a structured exchange that follows a clear method of give and take who has the better grasp of the facts and the stronger conclusion.


As for any "announcements" you want to make, publish this e-mail chain as the substance of what we're talking about. Of all the people on the internet today, Phil, who are even semi-reputable, you have picked the one person who is well known for taking all comers in structured debate. I welcome debating your factually-challenged thesis with your choice of moderator and your choice of debate forum; I will publish every word of the exchange at my Debate Blog so someone other than your wife and your parole officer will read it. You deserve every minute of your grab for attention, and I plan on giving it to you when we have resolved these preliminaries.


Not if: when. It's not any kind of debate if there's no structure for the readers to follow.

Frank Turk: liar

Phil Perkins is opening up a debate blog which he will moderate, and I'll be posting the exchange in parallel at the actual DebateBlog, on a thesis statement yet to be determined. I anticipate that Phil will also be posting all of the e-mails associated with setting this up just because he can.

So I am a liar: that wasn't the last Phil Perkins post. The truth is out: do with it what you will.

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.

More on Phil Perkins

He's accused me of not "coming clean" about my ability to read Greek and Hebrew.

Tell me, class: have I ever said I could read Greek and/or Hebrew? I am pretty sure that I have never said or implied such a thing, but let's make a game out of it. Anyone who can find a link to me saying I can read either Greek or Hebrew (first one to post that link in the meta) gets a free item of their choice from the pawn shop.

Now, here's the other half of the challenge: Anyone who can find three or more links to me confessing openly that I cannot read Greek or Hebrew will also get a free item of their choice from the pawn shop.

So anyone who can prove I'm a liar (plan "A") can have a free pawn shop item; anyone who can prove I have been rather consistently honest about my lack of ancient langauges (plan"B") can have free stuff.

Post your entries in the comments, and go back and visit our buddy Phil and post your entries there so he doesn't miss them.

I gotta say it

Blogger supports porn blogs and profanity.

Phil Perkins blogs on Blogger.

Therefore, Phil Perkins is in league with porn blogs and the profane.

... wait for it ...