# Red letter Bibles



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 11, 2007)

I see that some good folks here disapprove of “words of Christ in red” Bibles, even to designating them “dispensational” in nature.

I know of a surety that my Bible is a pure Calvinist Bible, and only holds forth the doctrines of grace. (The Arabic-speaking believers in my congregation appreciate a Jew who – here in the volatile Middle East – has a Reformed view of “the Israel of God” and refutes that Dispensational theology which actually leads to the shedding of blood of many peoples.)

It is well understood by me that all Scripture is inspired of God and _is_ the word of God, all as authoritative as any. The words in red are simply those spoken by the man Christ Jesus. I see no difference between this – in principle – and underlining or highlighting, it’s only done by the publisher with the red letters.

For 39 years (I was saved in ’68) I have used this Bible – had it re-bound once – and am intimately familiar with it; it seems the pages and passages are imprinted in my brain and my memory. I may not always remember chapter and verse numbers, but I often remember the _place_ of a passage, and the red letters are part of that “memorization”. It’s like I’m wed to this Bible, red letters and all.

It is the Bible the Lord has used to lead me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake, and through His words (in red) revealed the glory of His grace, the majesty of His Person, and His steadfast love for certain wretches.

I hope to die with my Bible by me, and if the Lord grants us to have our precious Bibles in the Kingdom of Glory, I would ask Him that mine be exactly like the one I have here (if there are any mistakes He would correct in my AV, so be it).

I don’t mind being in a minority on some issues – for instance, I’m a Mac user (14” iBook, G4, running Tiger), and I come out of the ‘60’s counter-culture; the two places I call home are NYC and Woodstock, NY.

I may be odd, but I’m loved by the King notwithstanding.

Steve


----------



## ajrock2000 (Feb 11, 2007)

Amen, brother!


----------



## Machaira (Feb 11, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I see that some good folks here disapprove of “words of Christ in red” Bibles, even to designating them “dispensational” in nature.



That's a new one on me. I'd love to hear what some of these folks have to say about this.


----------



## 3John2 (Feb 11, 2007)

I KNOW where you are coming from brother. I've had similar things told me. I wish I could find a bible with red letter in the OT as well. I heard of one. 
Another thing I can totally relate with you is finding a bible you are so confortable with that you know exactly where everything is. You might not remember the exact passage but you know the page & WHERE on the page it is etc. Having said that the bible that does that for me is a Dispensational, heretical, NON red letter Dake Annotated Reference bible! After I "converted" to the Reformed view I considered getting another bible but I was SO used to that one that I simply resigned myself to that non red letter bible with heretical notes etc. It DOES have many good aids in terms of cross reference, concordance & Greek/Hebrew aids but the bulk of the notes are dubious at best. Just curious what kind of bible is the one you have?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 11, 2007)

I guess the problem that many people would have with 'Red letter bibles' is two fold:

1) All words in the Bible are God's Words, none are more important than the rest, and therefore shouldn't be distinguished as such.

2) Some of the NT passages that are attributed to Jesus aren't always spot on. Some parts are not spoken by Jesus or can't be absolutely proven that it was Jesus who said what is in red.

Those are the problems that I see with the Red-letter editions. I wouldn't condemn anyone who had one, unless they viewed the red letters as somewhat more important than the rest.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2007)

Steve,

May God bless your work in Cyprus for the cause of Christ. Keep using your red letter bible until God calls you home, and then may it passed on to someone else who will use it for God's glory.


----------



## KMK (Feb 11, 2007)

3John2 said:


> I KNOW where you are coming from brother. I've had similar things told me. I wish I could find a bible with red letter in the OT as well. I heard of one.
> Another thing I can totally relate with you is finding a bible you are so confortable with that you know exactly where everything is. You might not remember the exact passage but you know the page & WHERE on the page it is etc. Having said that the bible that does that for me is a Dispensational, heretical, NON red letter Dake Annotated Reference bible! After I "converted" to the Reformed view I considered getting another bible but I was SO used to that one that I simply resigned myself to that non red letter bible with heretical notes etc. It DOES have many good aids in terms of cross reference, concordance & Greek/Hebrew aids but the bulk of the notes are dubious at best. Just curious what kind of bible is the one you have?



I know what you mean! I love my Companion Bible! Talk about Dispensational.  But it has actually helped me to clarify the errors of Dispensationalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2007)

Consider the charge what it is brother: uncharitable name-calling.

Great post. I really love reading about your fellowship with the Arab speaking Christians.

I love seeing the Grace of God break through the strong cultural and prejudicial barriers that cause strife and murder in the world. I taught on the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on Saturday. I had never reflected fully on how hard it was for the early Jewish believers to accept a man who had imprisoned and murdered men and women in the Church. Three days after his conversion, God speaks to Ananias during prayer and tells him to go restore Saul's sight. Ananias, knowing he's speaking to the Lord, _argues_ about going to Saul to pray for him. "Go!" Christ says, "He is my chosen vessel...."

Ananias walked immediately to the home and addresses the man he hated: "_Brother_ Saul, ..."

It really hit me hard the first time I considered that address. Beautiful. I saw the members of my congregation in a whole new light this Lord's Day and it stirred up for me a love for God's own that are unlike me and foreign to me in so many ways.

And yet they are my Brothers and Sisters - closer to me than my own extended family that rejects Christ.


----------



## Michael (Feb 11, 2007)

I posted a question in the Geneva Bible thread asking if anyone knew if a red letter version was to be released. I must say that I was really taken back by some of the responses. To assume that someone is a dispensationalist or that they somehow feel certain scriptures are more inspired than others--all simply for referencing Christ's earthly ministry in red ink--is quite baffling to me.

I began to reply, but deleted the response.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 11, 2007)

Funny thing, I have an old Schofield Bible, cloth-bound and sturdy, full of dispensational notes, and it is all black-letter. (Another funny thing is that Schofield Bible is where I first learned about predestination, election, and grace. It was by reading those notes that I first noticed that modern evangelicals were saying something quite different).

I have preference for all black letter, but not to the point of rejecting a good work. My first Bible was red letter, Thompson chain references, keyed to commentaries, and other bells and whistles. I read that one over and over again until the covers fell off. Then I taped it up and still use it by my bedstand. I first read it through when I was a rank pagan. Oddly, it was in the middle east too, and I read it to my Muslim friends. They were quite interested in the red print.

Another strange thing is my favorite reading Bible right now, of many versions I have, is a $9 pew bible, no notes, no helps, just plain AV. It's amazing how smooth it reads when you are not tempted to rush to the margins looking up cross-references.

Thanks, Steve, for your work.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 11, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Funny thing, I have an old Schofield Bible, cloth-bound and sturdy, full of dispensational notes, and it is all black-letter. (Another funny thing is that Schofield Bible is where I first learned about predestination, election, and grace. It was by reading those notes that I first noticed that modern evangelicals were saying something quite different).
> 
> I have preference for all black letter, but not to the point of rejecting a good work. My first Bible was red letter, Thompson chain references, keyed to commentaries, and other bells and whistles. I read that one over and over again until the covers fell off. Then I taped it up and still use it by my bedstand. I first read it through when I was a rank pagan. Oddly, it was in the middle east too, and I read it to my Muslim friends. They were quite interested in the red print.
> 
> ...



As for red-letter Bibles, the first one was published about 1901, I think. And it was a matter of marketing, not dispensationalism (although it was used by Dispensationalists mostly, at first).

And, R. Victor: I think you may be on to something, there! Sometimes, I think the best Bible to have would be a plain, ordinary pew Bible. No notes, no cross-references - just text. And, because they're pew Bibles, they tend to be a little sturdier in their construction. And, as you said, they're cheap!


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2007)

Ezekiel16 said:


> I posted a question in the Geneva Bible thread asking if anyone knew if a red letter version was to be released. I must say that I was really taken back by some of the responses. To assume that someone is a dispensationalist or that they somehow feel certain scriptures are more inspired than others--all simply for referencing Christ's earthly ministry in red ink--is quite baffling to me.
> 
> I began to reply, but deleted the response.



I don't think anyone was calling a person who merely likes to use their red-letter bible a dispensationalist...

the point is that, as has already been noted, Christ's words are no more inspired than any of the other words of Scripture - Paul's discourses are just as instructive and just as blessed by the Holy Spirit - to put Christ's words in red is to highlight them as somehow "more inspired" or "more important", which they are absolutely not. The quotation marks indicate sufficiently which are thought to be his words and which are not. Isn't that enough?

Secondly, it was also pointed out that the words that are "red letter", while they may be broadly held to be Christ's actual spoken word, may or may not be in every case. There are some passages in particular where it is not necessarily easy to tell which are Christ's words and which are, for instance, the Apostle John's words commenting Christ's words. Of course, again, whether the words in red are Christ's words or whether the translators/bible-formatters made a mistake and they are in fact John's words mistakenly printed in red is irrelevant. They are God's inspired word in either case.


----------



## MW (Feb 11, 2007)

Out of curiosity, would the view that there are degrees of inspiration give some extra significance to the words of Christ?


----------



## Michael (Feb 11, 2007)

Todd,

I can respect your second point. But in regards to the first, what would compel someone to think that others might find words 'more inspired' just because they are in red print? I have never heard of such a thing. 

Perhaps that case could be made for these little New Testament/Psalms/Proverbs handouts, but simply for referencing Christ's earthly ministry in another color? That seems a mighty stretch.


----------



## 3John2 (Feb 11, 2007)

Wow! The COmpanion bible by Bullinger IS very Dispensational it was the main reference point & foundation for the Dake. I don't buy this whole red letter deal. Much ado about nothing. I like it but for ANYONE to think there is more weight on the red letters than the others is ridiculous. Reminds me of some of the garbage I had to put up with the Charismatics/WOF people. Heck, if it were up to me any quotes from the OT in the NT would be in BLUE.
I know what some of you mean about reading a plain pew bible. 2 of may mostly used bibles are a NT NKJV that I received many a moons ago from Norman Vincent Peales ministry & I use that A LOT it has NO cross references or NOTHING , it's NOT red letter either. I love it! It's paperback & has REALLY thick paper which I love. I wish I could find more bibles with thick paper. The other is an Oral Roberts "Seed Faith" bible someone gave me, it's KJV & it also has no helps other than some notes or something in the beginning. But I use it a lot when I travel. My DARB is way too big to take confortably. 
Anyways I guess a red letter, OT & NT along with blue letters in the NT for OT passages would be sufficient to really bring on the ire of some...


----------



## Chris (Feb 11, 2007)

> it seems the pages and passages are imprinted in my brain and my memory. I may not always remember chapter and verse numbers, but I often remember the place of a passage, and the red letters are part of that “memorization”. It’s like I’m wed to this Bible, red letters and all.



I'm familiar with this concept. I won't switch to a new Bible because the old one is so full of notes. I often can't remember a verse or address, but I can flip to it and find it because I can almost picture where it's at on the page, what note is written near it, etc....


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2007)

It's simple for me. Red Letter bibles are harder to read, especially standing in a pulpit, if the angle is difficult, or the light shines the wrong way. There is a reason virtually all book text is black - it can be seen easily.

Having said that, there is a great deal of value in having a Bible that is familiar and where you don't have to search around for a passage. (Just knowing, for example, that Romans 5 is in the second column, upper portion of a page!)


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 11, 2007)

*Dispensationalist Bibles*

Hay:

I have never said that those who use red-letter Bibles are Dispensationalists. I own red-letter Bibles, and the red-letter Bibles are the majority type of Bibles sold in Christian and secular bookstores. It is very difficult to get a non red-letter Bible these days. Just to add another argument to the ones listed above.

When you read the Greek texts the words of Christ are not set off differently than the rest of the Bible. Though one may argue that ink color was not as accessible as it is today there are other means of setting off Christ's words as special - all caps, special paragraphing, etc. The writers of the NT did not deem to consider the actual words of Jesus as special.

By setting the actual words of Jesus as "special" one is making the implied assumption that these are more inspired than the rest of the Scriptures. This is a leaning toward Dispensationalism


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2007)

> By setting the actual words of Jesus as "special" one is making the implied assumption that these are more inspired than the rest of the Scriptures. This is a leaning toward Dispensationalism.



Robert, with all due respect, you are presupposing that you know the motives behind the person who reads a red letter bible. You don't know thier heart. They may be implying nothing. It may be as simple as a deep reverence for the words of our Lord, not elevating them above any other scripture. The color of the typeset does not indicate dispensational leanings. Theology does.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> It's simple for me. Red Letter bibles are harder to read, especially standing in a pulpit, if the angle is difficult, or the light shines the wrong way. There is a reason virtually all book text is black - it can be seen easily.
> 
> Having said that, there is a great deal of value in having a Bible that is familiar and where you don't have to search around for a passage. (Just knowing, for example, that Romans 5 is in the second column, upper portion of a page!)



Now Fred, Romans 5 is on page 1457 of my NASB Thompson Chain Reference Bible. It also begins on the lower left hand of the first column. Please get it right!


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 11, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Robert, with all due respect, you are presupposing that you know the motives behind the person who reads a red letter bible. You don't know thier heart. They may be implying nothing. It may be as simple as a deep reverence for the words of our Lord, not elevating them above any other scripture. The color of the typeset does not indicate dispensational leanings. Theology does.


From what I see, I think he is more interested in the theology behind the _makers_ of red letter Bibles (or "blushers" as I like to call them). I question any motive that causes someone to highlight the "words of God" in a book we claim to be the "Word of God". Seems self-defeating to me.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2007)

FYI. There was a even a song written about the red letters. I make no claim for or against its theological content.

*"Red Letters" by D.C.Talk*

Pages filled with a holy message
Sealed with a kiss from heaven
On a scroll long ago
Phrases, words that were bound together
Now have the power to sever
Like a sword evermore

Heed the words divinely spoken
May your restless heart be broken
Let the supernatural take hold

(chorus)
There is love in the red letters
There is truth in the red letters
There is hope for the hopeless
Peace and forgiveness
There is life in the red letters
In the red letters

One man came to reveal a mystery
Changing the course of history
Made the claim he was God
Ageless, born of a virgin Mary
Spoke with a voice that carried through the years
It's persevered

Heed the words divinely spoken
May your restless heart be broken
Let the supernatural take hold

(repeat chorus)

(bridge)
What You say moves me, revelation, come and take me
The more I look [the more I look] the more I see [the more I see]
The Word of God [the Word Of God] is what I need

Oh yeah, oh yeah
Yeah, it's the book of love
Yeah, yeah, yeah
It's the book of love

(repeat chorus)

Speak to me, breathe in me new life [x2]
Let Him in your heart [x4] 
Related:


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> From what I see, I think he is more interested in the theology behind the _makers_ of red letter Bibles (or "blushers" as I like to call them). I question any motive that causes someone to highlight the "words of God" in a book we claim to be the "Word of God". Seems self-defeating to me.



Vaughan,

I have a NASB from 1983. It is a Ryrie Study Bible from my dispensational days. It has orange, yellow and blue highlights from Genesis to Revelation. In the margins, in between paragraphs and on the bottom are all my notes. I had the habit to date my notes so that I could trace my understanding and theological development through the years. It is also a red letter edition. I can think of nothing greater than to continue using the NASB text I have had for 23 years, especially since I am now a Calvinist and no longer dispensational. I have little use for Ryrie's notes, but it encourages my heart to see what God delivered me from. If this moves you to question my motives for highlighting, then question away! If you haven't experienced the deep theological and emotional struggles of converting from Arminianism to Calvinism, then you may not understand why I hold my old Ryrie bible in such high regard.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Feb 11, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Vaughan,
> 
> I have a NASB from 1983. It is a Ryrie Study Bible from my dispensational days. It has orange, yellow and blue highlights from Genesis to Revelation. In the margins, in between paragraphs and on the bottom are all my notes. I had the habit to date my notes so that I could trace my understanding and theological development through the years. It is also a red letter edition. I can think of nothing greater than to continue using the NASB text I have had for 23 years, especially since I am now a Calvinist and no longer dispensational. I have little use for Ryrie's notes, but it encourages my heart to see what God delivered me from. If this moves you to question my motives for highlighting, then question away! If you haven't experienced the deep theological and emotional struggles of converting from Arminianism to Calvinism, then you may not understand why I hold my old Ryrie bible in such high regard.


My apologies if I was unclear. My motives were simply questioning the original red-lettering done by the original producers of the Bible. I have no problem with highlighting done by the reader, my Bible is full of underlines and various notes. However, I am unconvinced that a Bible should be produced with Jesus' words highlighted, as I believe the whole Bible consists of Jesus' words. It, in my opinion, smacks of neo-orthodoxy. 

I own and use a non-red letter version, however my wife uses one and I own another one. I have no problem using them, apart from the readability, and have no problem with other Christians using them, in as much as it doesn't lead to a mixed or clashing theology of the written word.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2007)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Todd,
> 
> I can respect your second point. But in regards to the first, what would compel someone to think that others might find words 'more inspired' just because they are in red print? I have never heard of such a thing.



When I say "more inspired" I'm saying something that I believe is worked out, among some, in practice, given their opinion that they've expressed about those red words (contra the others). I have heard it said, from a number of folks I know in the church (broadly speaking, not speaking particularly of any in our current church, though there are some in it who hold to this), that one should pay particular attention to the red words, with the clear implication being that we'd better listen to Christ's teaching (out of his own mouth) with some degree of priority over and above the rest. 

I simply believe there is a degree of ignorance there that is being expressed...that somehow we need to pay more attention to those red words because Christ spoke them.


----------



## Herald (Feb 11, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> My apologies if I was unclear. My motives were simply questioning the original red-lettering done by the original producers of the Bible. I have no problem with highlighting done by the reader, my Bible is full of underlines and various notes. However, I am unconvinced that a Bible should be produced with Jesus' words highlighted, as I believe the whole Bible consists of Jesus' words. It, in my opinion, smacks of neo-orthodoxy.
> 
> I own and use a non-red letter version, however my wife uses one and I own another one. I have no problem using them, apart from the readability, and have no problem with other Christians using them, in as much as it doesn't lead to a mixed or clashing theology of the written word.



 

All is well brother.

Blessings.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> I have never said that those who use red-letter Bibles are Dispensationalists. I own red-letter Bibles, and the red-letter Bibles are the majority type of Bibles sold in Christian and secular bookstores. It is very difficult to get a non red-letter Bible these days. Just to add another argument to the ones listed above.
> 
> ...



I suppose it fits with dispensationalism, but it fits even better for liberals who pit Christ against Paul, against the OT, etc. The types who say the Sermon on the Mount is all that you need to know, etc.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> It's simple for me. Red Letter bibles are harder to read, especially standing in a pulpit, if the angle is difficult, or the light shines the wrong way. There is a reason virtually all book text is black - it can be seen easily.



 red letter editions are hard to read, especially those published in the past few years by Nelson, which tend to be dull and faint, even in their Signature Series If I recall correctly.

It appears that some publishers are getting wise to the fact that not all Bible readers want red letter editions, and we're seeing a few more black letter editions available now.


----------



## Bandguy (Feb 11, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> When I say "more inspired" I'm saying something that I believe is worked out, among some, in practice, given their opinion that they've expressed about those red words (contra the others). I have heard it said, from a number of folks I know in the church (broadly speaking, not speaking particularly of any in our current church, though there are some in it who hold to this), that one should pay particular attention to the red words, with the clear implication being that we'd better listen to Christ's teaching (out of his own mouth) with some degree of priority over and above the rest.
> 
> I simply believe there is a degree of ignorance there that is being expressed...that somehow we need to pay more attention to those red words because Christ spoke them.



They call themselves red lettered Christians. They typically despise much of the message of Paul and would argue that when there seems to be a conflict between the Epistles and the Red Letter Words of Jesus, that Jesus Words should be given more weight. What they are really implying is that All Scripture is not as inspired and infallible as the words of Christ. One of the advocates of this position is Tony Campolo.

Link

Link

Link

Link


----------



## Herald (Feb 12, 2007)

Bandguy said:


> They call themselves red lettered Christians. They typically despise much of the message of Paul and would argue that when there seems to be a conflict between the Epistles and the Red Letter Words of Jesus, that Jesus Words should be given more weight. What they are really implying is that All Scripture is not as inspired and infallible as the words of Christ. One of the advocates of this position is Tony Campolo.
> 
> Link
> 
> ...



The ironic thing is that the words of Christ were written by two apostles, a physician and a protege of Paul. If Paul's writings are not equal to Christ's, what do we make of these four authors?


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 12, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> The ironic thing is that the words of Christ were written by two apostles, a physician and a protege of Paul. If Paul's writings are not equal to Christ's, what do we make of these four authors?



Excellent point. The authority of the NT, from a human standpoint anyway, is inextricably linked to the authority of the Apostles and we know nothing of Christ without their testimony. But if you're tripping on your inner Jesus or something, I guess it doesn't make any difference. 

The Red Letter Christians of course aren't consistent. They usually only emphasize those sayings of Jesus that comport with their views.


----------



## KMK (Feb 12, 2007)

bookslover said:


> And, R. Victor: I think you may be on to something, there! Sometimes, I think the best Bible to have would be a plain, ordinary pew Bible. No notes, no cross-references - just text. And, because they're pew Bibles, they tend to be a little sturdier in their construction. And, as you said, they're cheap!



 

I just recently switched to a basic KJV for preaching because it is much less distracting to read longer passages out loud. (It is large print I am embarassed to say)


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 13, 2007)

*Baptists?*



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Robert, with all due respect, you are presupposing that you know the motives behind the person who reads a red letter bible. You don't know thier heart. They may be implying nothing. It may be as simple as a deep reverence for the words of our Lord, not elevating them above any other scripture. The color of the typeset does not indicate dispensational leanings. Theology does.



Hi:

I thought I said that I owned red-letter Bibles? Did I not also say that I have not accused anyone of Dispensationalism?

The problem is with the publishers of red-letter editions - not the readers.

Please, read more carefully.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 13, 2007)

Frank,

The only Bible I know of with red letter in the OT (“the words of God in red”) is Jay Green’s _Modern King James Version_ (ISBN 1-878-442-70-8). I see it is out of print at Sovereign Grace Publishers, but Parable Bookstores still has it:  http://www.parable.com/parable/item_9781878442703.htm&rid=2266. Maybe there are others, but I don’t know of them.

The Bible I have is an old Holman (before it merged with Broadman) King James Version “Simplified Pronouncing Edition” “Verse Reference JEWEL 16mo Clearface” probably published in the ‘50’s. I am trying to find another like it as its pages are becoming brittle, and will soon be breaking. Broadman & Holman still makes an exact duplicate of it but in a smaller size & typeface; that is called the KJV Compact Quick Reference Large Print Bible, 1996, ISBN 1-55819-633-1 (Product Code 4638-69), but the print size is too small for me (although I did get one, and have transferred all my annotations, added cross-references, etc from the old one into it, just in case). I would very much like to know if anyone knows of the old Holman edition and has a clean copy of one they’d be willing to sell, or knows where one might be. I may make a separate thread for this inquiry.

Andrew and Todd,

I’d be interested to know which words of Jesus you think are difficult to discern, as to whether they are His or not.

----------

I do know the people who think red letter words of Christ lean toward Dispensationalism are nonetheless charitable, and intend no harm. As my mother used to say, “Difference of opinion makes horse racing.” (She was an equestrian – jumper – in Europe.)

Thanks for your remarks, Rich. The Arabic folks I serve are a delight – the genuine believers – as are the Sudanese I was with in ’05 – and where I will be off to again in March. Some remarkable men. Here in Cyprus, there are so many asylum-seekers, so many tongues and cultures.


Todd,

Your point is well taken that all Scripture is God’s inspired word, and none more important or inspired than the rest, and yet….why not highlight the words that fell from the King’s own lips? Yes, He also gave those words that the apostles – and those authorized by the apostles (as Mark and Luke) – spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and yet they are not the words Jesus Himself spoke during His earthly ministry. Paul in Hebrews 1:2 says that the Son has spoken to us (the apostles and all others); John says they both saw and heard Him (1 John 1:1-5); the Lord Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance whatever He said to them (John 14:26). The apostles themselves seem to give preeminence to the word of the King they serve – the words He spoke while in the flesh and among them, as well as that further revelation vouchsafed them by His Spirit.

We have the words of the High King of Heaven, and we have the words of His specially appointed sent ones – the apostles – and upon these, including also the prophets (Ephesians 2:20), the house of God is built. But the Son is given the highest honor, as He alone is _the_ foundation, _the_ chief corner stone (Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 3:11). They are servants in the house, but the Son is Lord of His own house (Hebrews 3:4-6). When I arrive in the Kingdom of Glory, I will not worship the messengers of His word – though they be worthy of high honor – I will worship only the King, the great God and our Savior. Why is it not fitting to highlight the word His Majesty spoke while amongst us? I do not think it unfitting.

Even Scripture differentiates between the commandments of the King and that of His apostles: as in 2 Peter 3:2: “…be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour…” I think it remarkable anyone would object that the sayings of the King were made to stand out.

I would not call myself a “Red letter Christian,” such as I have (newly) learned of in these posts, but only a plain Christian. I come from churches (Redeemer PCA in Manhattan, and Astoria Community Church (PCA) in Queens, NYC) that are involved in works of mercy and serving the larger communities they are in without the apparent political agendas I have read about in the posts above. I will seek to emulate that kind of spirit here in Cyprus. The outward-facing heart (toward the oppressed, marginalized, the lost and hurting) seems to me consistent with the Spirit of Christ.

The “red letter” view I express simply pertains to highlighting the words that fell from the lips of the King, without regard to any theological agendas, or views on inspiration.

I suppose one could say I am only justifying a preference engendered in me from long habit, and that if I had gotten an “all black-lettered Bible” 39 years ago I would be singing a different tune, and they might be right! But as it is, I think it proper to defend my preference, as I do find ground for it.

To each their own in this! Thanks for the stimulating responses.

Steve


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 13, 2007)

I read only half this thread...honestly did not feel the need to read more than that. I had NEVER heard of a dispute over "red-letter bibles" before. Quite personally, it's a matter of preference, not doctrine. It doesn't change what's been said. Really! Because of my vision, I really think all books should be printed on cream coloured pages, not blaring-bring-the-plane-in white. I also like thick rough pages....they seem more historic or "authentic" that way.

Sorry, folks...I think there are bigger fish to fry than the type of ink used. You wanna beat a fish up down this line? Look up the Rainbow Bible and chuck away your highlighters.

(I grew up with red print...all I knew. I like the pure black print because of my eyes)


----------



## Calvibaptist (Feb 13, 2007)

I think we should take all the quotation marks out of the Bible, too. We don't want anyone thinking those quotations from God are more important than the other statements.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 13, 2007)

*Quotation marks?*



Calvibaptist said:


> I think we should take all the quotation marks out of the Bible, too. We don't want anyone thinking those quotations from God are more important than the other statements.



Hay:

The KJV does not have quotation marks in it. Which Bible are you reading? The ESV?

*And God said, let there be light*

I checked the LXX and the Masoretic Text and have not found quotation marks.

Are you really a Pastor, and you argue like this?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Herald (Feb 13, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> The KJV does not have quotation marks in it. Which Bible are you reading? The ESV?
> 
> ...



Robert -first, some English translations do use quotation marks. The NASB does. Check it out for yourself. 

Second - Calvibaptist was using the genre of sarcasm, or didn't you know that?

Are you really knowledgable about English translations, and you argue like this?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 14, 2007)

*Sarcasm only one way?*



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Robert -first, some English translations do use quotation marks. The NASB does. Check it out for yourself.
> 
> Second - Calvibaptist was using the genre of sarcasm, or didn't you know that?
> 
> Are you really knowledgable about English translations, and you argue like this?



Hay:

As I understand it - the objection to red letter Bibles is the setting forth of certain words above the other words in Scripture without a Biblical warrent. The NASB uses quotation marks whenever anyone speaks:

*So Abram said to Lot, "Please let there be no strife between you and me..."* NASB

This is not like setting forth the words of Christ in red.

The ESV is an English translation and uses quotation marks - Did I not reference it?

Can sarcasm go only one way?

This is the second time you have not carefully read my post.

There are some that reference 2 Peter 3:2 to indicate that the actual words of the King are set forth above the words of the Holy Prophets and Apostles:

*To call to remembrance the words, which were told before of the holy Prophets, and also the commandment of us the Apostles of the Lord and Savior,* 1599 Geneva Bible.

The language seems to indicate just the opposite: That the words of the holy Prophets and the Apostles are the commandment of the Lord and Savior.

This is a matter that is of a very low priority in my opinion. Red letter editions are simply symptomatic of the way in which Dispensationalism has dominated Evangelical Christianity.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 14, 2007)

Gents, let's please have some grace and kindness...


----------



## Herald (Feb 14, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Gents, let's please have some grace and kindness...



Colleen - you're right. Thanks for the reminder. Grace and kindess du jour is now being served! I'm sorry for being a crank.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 15, 2007)

"Are you really a Pastor, and you argue like this?"​
Besides being the holy Nation of the living God, the church is a military unit of sorts, with duly-appointed governing officials, Christ Jesus being the commander-in-chief. The above quote I consider insubordinate, a mark of disrespect to one given authority. We are not to be anarchists and lawless as the world too often is, but submissive and respectful from the heart, as our Captain taught and modeled for us.

Although our elders and pastors sometimes err, we are to approach them in such matters as we would our fathers, with love and honor.

One who tries to practice what he preaches (and sometimes fails),

Steve


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 17, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I see that some good folks here disapprove of “words of Christ in red” Bibles, even to designating them “dispensational” in nature.
> 
> I know of a surety that my Bible is a pure Calvinist Bible, and only holds forth the doctrines of grace. (The Arabic-speaking believers in my congregation appreciate a Jew who – here in the volatile Middle East – has a Reformed view of “the Israel of God” and refutes that Dispensational theology which actually leads to the shedding of blood of many peoples.)
> 
> ...




Amen brother. Amen! Keep on living in the way of the Lord, fearing him for righteousness sake.

Oh and by the way, all bibles are Calvinistic brother.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 17, 2007)

joshua said:


> I've just found that, for quick reference, the red letters helped me to find a quote from Christ quicker when I couldn't remember the particular chapter and verse at that very moment.



Brother, i couldn't think of any other way to say what i had to say, so i'm going to say Amen. There is no difference between black and red letter bibles except the color. The Word of God is the Word of God. Now, i would argue translations, but the color of the text is not worthy of argument. People that argue for the color just want to argue for the sake of argument.


----------



## KMK (Feb 18, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "Are you really a Pastor, and you argue like this?"​
> Besides being the holy Nation of the living God, the church is a military unit of sorts, with duly-appointed governing officials, Christ Jesus being the commander-in-chief. The above quote I consider insubordinate, a mark of disrespect to one given authority. We are not to be anarchists and lawless as the world too often is, but submissive and respectful from the heart, as our Captain taught and modeled for us.
> 
> Although our elders and pastors sometimes err, we are to approach them in such matters as we would our fathers, with love and honor.
> ...



 Thanks for those encouraging words, brother.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 18, 2007)

*Tempest in a Teapot*

Hay:

This is all rather disconcerting, because I do not particularly believe that "red-letter Bibles" violate any law of God. So, I have to wonder why Jerusalem Blade gets all caught up in a knot about this?

Pastor's should be given respect in the Church, but there are also laws that govern their behavior:

*And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,* 2 Tim. 2:24.

It appears to me that Calvibaptist and Baptist in Crisis are not as familiar with this passage as they ought to be? Does "sarcasm" denote a patient and gentle man?

Baptist in Crisis especially since it appears that he misinterprets my posts (deliberately?).

In a forum where one does not speak to a brother face to face it seems that being patient and gentle are enjoined upon the Christian, and moreso on one who claims to be a pastor.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2007)

Red letter Bibles with or without intent do give the impression that some words in The Word of God are more important than others,Irony they are the words of Christ yet Christ taught the importance of ALL scripture. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Michael (Feb 18, 2007)

I for one would like to petition a moderator to close this thread. It seems obvious that little if any good is going to come of this discussion. 

I feel somewhat responsible for bringing it up in the first place (in the Geneva Bible thread). If I had only known that brothers would quibble over it....


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 19, 2007)

There is a danger in discussion boards such as this, and that is we traffic primarily in knowledge, and “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.” There is always the possibility we will think more highly of ourselves than we ought because of what we know. But knowledge is not the mark of a man or woman of God, humility and charity are. We may have great knowledge, and yet be devoid of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. When disagreements occur, in such a void a root of bitterness may emerge, and may, as we are instructed, defile many.

I have learned I need to watch my own heart before I watch the hearts of others. It is precisely that we are, in Luther’s words, _Simul Iustus, et Peccator_ (simultaneously righteous and sinful), that we need to keep Pope Self (Luther again) from arising within and wreaking his normal havoc.

How amazing it is the Lord of glory loves such as we! And me particularly, with my own Pope Self always trying to get the upper hand. Yet He paid with blood that these sins not be imputed to us, and even now is patient, kind, and steadfast in love. What a Savior! 

I would not object if the thread were closed.

Steve


----------

