# Chapter by Chapter Review of "Why I Preach from the Received Text"



## greenbaggins (Sep 21, 2022)

Some things first. I am interacting primarily with the problems in this book. This should not be interpreted as an indication that I have no areas of agreement with the authors. There are vast areas of agreement. In fact, being a Sturzian actually means, practically speaking, that I will wind up agreeing with the TR over against the CT in more than a few places. I haven't done this particular research yet. But I agree with the TR on the longer ending of Mark, the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, and am open on the subject of John 7-8. Most of these contributors are either extreme or strong TR advocates. And there are many problems in this book. The Myers quotation has already been picked over by many people. I wish to draw attention to some other problems, including at least two statements so misleading as to transgress the boundary into lies, in my opinion. 

*The Editorial Introduction*

On page 15, there is a caricature of “the modern critics.” It is not the case that modern critics assume corruption, and then “arrogate” to themselves the role of corrector of Holy Writ. That might be true of liberal textual critics, but not conservatives. Conservatives also believe that God's text has been preserved. What seems to be assumed here is that there only one plausible definition of “preserved,” and it has to be the TR.

It is ambiguous for the introduction to claim that the confessional forefathers affirmed the TR (also p. 15). They affirmed readings that were in the TR. That is not the same as affirming the TR itself, let alone confessionally.

It is overstated that 19th century critics set out to undermine the authority of the traditional text and replace it. They were tweaking the text based on new evidence. This will be the first of dozens of passages where the differences between the TR and the CT are exaggerated.

The purpose of the book is mis-stated on page 17, when the “original Hebrew” is included in the purpose of the book, whereas the obvious and wide defense of the KJV is not even mentioned as part of the purpose statement of the book, and in fact is discounted as one of the purposes of the book. I counted 160 references in the book to the TR, and 149 references to the KJV. I don't remember seeing a single reference to the Leningrad Codex, Aleppo Codex, Great Isaiah Scroll, BHS, BHQ, (the LXX is mentioned once on p. 72) or any other important text-critical issue concerning the Old Testament.

*Archibald Allison's Chapter*

It is absolutely false, his claim that “When an error was made in a manuscript, it was discarded” (p. 29). We have no evidence that this was true of New Testament manuscripts. If it were true, we would only possess one complete manuscript of the entire New Testament, and no variants at all, since if a variant is counted as an error, discovery of one such error would necessitate the destruction of that manuscript. Instead, what we find is that there is evidence of correction in dozens of manuscripts. They didn't discard them, they corrected them. This is a very elemental error, quite surprising for someone as well-read as Allison.

*Jonathan Arnold's Chapter*

The rhetoric about “modernistic” and “replacing the classic Protestant doctrine of Scripture” is unfounded. This has not happened in classic Protestant denominations. Again, having a different understanding of textual preservation does not mean a completely different doctrine of Scripture. This is so overstated on his part as to be ludicrous. He also makes the claim (p. 32) that the early Protestant confessions actually affirm (in such language, apparently) the TR, which no early confession actually does. As mentioned above, affirming certain readings in the TR is not the same as affirming the TR as THE authentic text.

He mis-states the problem of uniformity of manuscripts, on p. 39 by claiming that “the various extant ancient manuscripts of the Bible are not always identical.” This implies that some are. There are no two manuscripts of the NT that are identical. None whatsoever. This is a highly misleading statement.

Another problem that is seen in several of the chapters is the definition of the word “corrupted” (p. 40, 63). This word should, in my opinion, really be dropped from text-critical discussion altogether. The way it is usually used in common parlance implies deliberate falsification. That is not how CT text-critical scholars use the term. Any kind of difference, no matter how slight, constitutes a “corruption” in CT circles. I did not see a single author in this book who used the term use it in the way that CT scholars use the term. So, there is a considerable amount of talking past one another on that point.

I was very puzzled by his term “adequate” on page 42 to describe our access to what God has preserved. What is “adequate” and why isn't the CT “adequate”? He actually claims that the TR is the confessional text. No denomination I am aware of would agree, except maybe the FCoSC.

*Doug Barger's Chapter *

This chapter illustrates another fundamental error that almost all TR advocates make: assuming that which is to be proved. On page 52, he says that modern scholars “convince many that the Bible contains words, phrases, and entire passages that are not inspired.” This assumes that the TR is correct on all text-critical issues, and then makes inspiration the issue. It is not the issue. The issue is whether a given reading is original or not. If it was not original, then it was not inspired. It doesn't go the other way (“this isn't inspired, so therefore it must not be genuine”). In assuming that the TR is correct, it assumes that CT authors have this sort of attitude that they are above the text, and can snip things out at their pleasure. This is a caricature. I don't know a single text critic except maybe Bart Ehrman would agree that this is even a remotely fair description of what they do and how they think. It is highly ironic that he wants to speak in a “spirit of gentleness and meekness” while trying to direct them away from the “presumptions of the modern critics,” implying that all of them have absolutely no overlap with “the testimony of God Himself.” This is not a spirit of gentleness and meekness, to put it mildly.

*Gavin Beers's Chapter*

His doctrine of God's providence (as I have found in nearly all TR advocates' work) is very narrow. Not one of them seems to want to answer the question of why older-but-hidden manuscripts are manuscripts God actually preserved (see p. 58). Let's ask a hypothetical question: if any of the manuscripts used to form the TR had ever been lost for single day, would that mean they couldn't be used? If not for a single day, then what about a year? If not for a year, then what about a decade? Century? How long is too long for a manuscript to be out of bounds and useless for text-critical work? And how exactly would any position on this question have even a hope to be justified from Scripture? Sinaiticus was both preserved and used in the church. One does not correct useless or unused manuscripts, and there are many correctors of Sinaiticus. So, by his own criteria (“We are looking for a text that has been preserved and used in the Church”), we should use Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. He seems to caricature CT scholars again by saying “not just a text that is old,” as if that was the only thing that mattered to CT scholars. The last page and a half really has nothing to do with the TR, as it is a defense of the KJV.

*Poul de Gier's Chapter*

The obvious reductionism and lack of nuance in this chapter is palpable. “The modern view” (p. 63)? There are the TR views, the CT views, the Majority Text view, the Byzantine priority view, the Sturzian view. This is absurd: lump all non-TR positions into one slave-to-Westcott-and-Hort basket and knock down the strawiest of strawmen. As for his attempt to discount Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, many manuscripts were corrected against other manuscripts. This is not unique to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as he seems to imply. And why would anyone correct a worthless manuscript? No TR advocate ever answers that question. So few papyri? I wouldn't call 141 papyri few. Some of them are fragments, of course, but that is just as true of minuscules and other uncials.

He makes the entirely unsupported claim that “early heretics tampered with the scriptures and entire regions, such as Egypt, were affected” (p. 67). First of all, heresy affected every region of the church, including Byzantium during the time when those manuscripts were being produced. That does not mean heretics tampered with the manuscripts, let alone that such only ever happened in Egypt. This is a poisoned well fallacy, one to which TR advocates quite often succumb.

He makes the claim, also quite common among the TR advocates that other streams of manuscripts were “rejected,” (p. 68) even though there is absolutely zero evidence for this. The only answer I've ever been able to finagle out of a TR advocate for this point is “the current state of the manuscripts.” Presumably this means the simple fact of majority being on the side of the Byzantine texts. Minority does not equal rejection. Barring any positive statement from people of that time period to the effect of this: “we reject the Egyptian manuscripts,” saying that the Egyptian manuscripts were “rejected” is pure speculation. That there are fewer of them now (which, of course, might have been quite different in the fourth century, say) has nothing to do with whether they were rejected or not. Far less speculative as an explanation for why there are fewer Egyptian manuscripts is the fact that Islam conquered Egypt in the 7th century. Islam does not allow Christian evangelism or propagation of Christian texts. So the Christians probably hid those manuscripts rather than allow Muslims to burn them all. Nothing to do with rejection. This “rejection” argument needs to be jettisoned by all TR advocates.

*Tanner Dikin's Chapter*

Dikin doesn't bother to answer the question of the LXX on page 72. If it was “flawed,” then why did the NT authors use it, oftentimes word for word, in their quotations of the Old Testament, even when it deviated from the Hebrew text somewhat? Quotation of Psalm 12:6-7 (p. 73) to support this particular doctrine of preservation (as if other text-critical positions are somehow opposed to it) is not cogent, and has been well-answered by Mr. Ward and others.

*William O. Einwechter's Chapter*

His rhetoric about a “shameful capitulation” to modern textual criticism (p. 79) gives the lie to the idea that Christopher Myer's piece is the only chapter problematic on such issues. The problem with this chapter is that it completely fails to show how and why Warfield, for instance, would even disagree with a syllable of the words quoted from Owen. None of the quotations form Owen actually mention the TR. I don't disagree with a syllable of any of the Owen quotations, and yet I am not TR. This chapter has a firmly anachronistic feel to it, as if Owen were reacting to modern CT argumentation, which he is not.

*Brent Evans's Chapter*

This chapter seems like a rather large building to build on a single issue, whether “amen” is present or not in several places in the NT. He says that the TR is an important starting point for preaching Christ as the amen, as Revelation 3:14 says. This is highly ironic, as the CT has “the amen” plainly referring to Christ in that very verse. He, again like so many TR advocates, uses the prejudging language of “omit” when it comes to what the CT doesn't have that the TR does have. This prejudges whether the language was there and was either accidentally or purposely left out, or whether, from the other side, it was accidentally or intentionally added. This is why it is much better to use the now-fairly-standard practice of saying “plus” or “minus” instead of “omit” or “insert.” The problem with this essay is that all the ways he speaks of preaching Christ are just as easy to do from the CT as from the TR. And if the CT were to be closer to the original, then this argument borders on post-hoc argumentation (“this TR text lets me preach better, therefore it is better”).

*Philip Gardiner's Chapter*

The only comment I will make on this chapter is his assumption that non-TR folk don't believe in preservation, which is a common caricature. He asks the rhetorical question, “If God has not providentially preserved his Word, how can we be sure _what_ he inspired?” (p. 106). As if other positions do not believe in preservation! He offers a bait and switch. Just earlier, he says “they may have certain questions about preservation.” Then he says “If God has not providentially preserved...” Having certain questions is quite different from denying preservation all together. He seems to equate the two in a very caricaturing kind of way.

*Dane Johannsson's Chapter*

Dane's chapter also has the problem of lumping all non-TR positions into the vague expression “modern textual criticism” (p. 111).

He makes a rather astonishing claim on p. 113: “In short, for over four centuries, the Received Text, via translation in the Authorized Version, has been the touchstone and standard of all Reformed Bible preaching and commentary.” This is certainly overstated. He doesn't even limit this to English-speaking Reformed preaching, as he should, since the KJV wasn't precisely the version used in non-English-speaking Reformed and Presbyterian churches. The Geneva Bible had a huge following even after the KJV was produced, and in the last forty years in particular, the KJV can certainly not be said to be “the touchstone and standard” anymore. The NIV and now ESV has far more churches using it than the KJV does. He says the KJV is “the Reformed Christian's text” (107-8). He used the present tense for this statement. This is plainly not true in today's Reformed world. The Reformed world uses the NASB, NKJV, KJV, ESV, and NIV.

*Howie Owen Jones's Chapter*

This common canard that non-TR positions don't hold to providential preservation is perpetuated in this chapter (p. 119). Far more accurate would be to say that the CT holds to a broader view of preservation and providence than the TR position does. Certainty is, I believe, a common idol among TR advocates. If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word. One of his criticisms of the CT is that “there are many uncertainties in the Critical Text” (p. 121). There is no documentation whatsoever that CT thinking is “Enlightenment thinking” (ibid.). He uses the prejudging language of “Verses are questioned and even removed in the Critical Text” (ibid.). There is no nuance in his opinion about the differences between the Majority Text position and the TR position. The TR is NOT based on the majority of Byzantine manuscripts (contra p. 124). That would be the Robinson/Pierpont Majority text position and published Greek text. This kind of lack of nuance plagues most of the essays. The TR position cannot argue majority manuscript arguments and get away with retaining the _Comma Johanneum_.

Appealing to now non-existent Byzantine manuscripts is a pipedream and a contradiction of the TR position in other points. Access to any manuscripts was fairly limited in the time of the production of the TR. This would have been true also of the theologians of the time period. The TR position argues that only manuscripts in use in the church are appropriate for use in textual criticism, even though that position is hardly held consistently. Because when Egyptian manuscripts can be shown (by the existence of correctors) to be used in the church, they are still rejected by most TR advocates as being of the slightest use in textual criticism. Theoretical Byzantine manuscripts can just as easily be counteracted by equally theoretical Egyptian manuscripts, which might very well have outnumbered Byzantine manuscripts for hundreds of years, especially before Muslim invasion of Egypt. Castles in the air are hardly good foundations for textual criticism.

*Trevor Kirkland's Chapter*

Kirkland argues that the NIV used “sleight of hand” to fool people into thinking that the manuscripts needed to be preserved as opposed to the words (p. 126). It is highly unlikely that the produces of the NIV were ignorant of the distinction between manuscripts and readings. It is more likely that Kirkland is guilty of being uncharitable in his reading of notes that have to be, by necessity, quite brief. He brings up the translation issue of 2 Kings 23:29 as compared with 2 Chronicles 35:20. While it can certainly be agreed that the KJV offers a better translation than the NKJV on this point, he neglects to mention the fact that the following modern translations also essentially agree with the KJV: ASV, NETS, ESV, NAB, NASB, NRSV, Tanakh, CEB, and HCSB. The other arguments Kirkland uses in favor of the KJV are mostly not relevant to the TR debate.

*Brett Mahlen's Chapter*

I would only mention here that Mahlen appears to misunderstand Warfield. Warfield clearly states in his introduction to textual criticism that the original is in the apographs, whereas Mahlen suggests that Letis “shows in chapter one how Warfield had moved the Reformed focus from infallible _apographs_ to inerrant _autographs_” (140). On the other hand, it can legitimately be asked if there is any single apograph without a single copying mistake in it. When Warfield thus says that the autograph is the one without a single mistake of a copying nature, he is not necessarily denying to the apographs infallibility in other senses. Great confusion can happen when infallibility of the original as coming through the apographs is equated with copying infallibility. The autograph is in the apographs, as Warfield himself says (see below). The question is which apographs are to be considered for the discovery of the autograph?

A couple of quotations from Warfield might be helpful here, as he gets maligned in this discussion quite often. He mentions “the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures” (12); “The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation” (14); “The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism in so immensely the greater part of the volume, that we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the Church of God, His Book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men” (15); “We seek the original text of the New Testament in the extant MSS” (p. 136).

*Robert McCurley's Chapter*

Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying “Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions” (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the “world's depraved assumptions” in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity. He also seems to think that any deviation from the TR constitutes “purposeful alteration of the text of Scripture” (p. 147). He uses the poisoned well fallacy of “a region rife with Arian heresy.” It doesn't seem to occur to him that Alexandria is actually the place where Athanasius opposed the Arian heresy. He was bishop of Alexandria! It was _everywhere else_ where the Arian heresy was making inroads, including the entire Byzantine empire! So he gets this history 100% wrong. The presence or absence of the Arian heresy is neither here nor there with regard to the copying of manuscripts. This was one of the very worst essays in the book, full of lies and twisting of Scripture.

*Christian McShaffrey's Chapter*

I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves. I seriously question whether “kept pure in all ages” requires 100% purity at every point. The argument about word order (154-5) seems to ignore the difference word order makes in English _as opposed to _Hebrew and Greek_. _Preserve the word order in Genesis 1:1, and you get the following: “In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth.” This is highly ambiguous, as it could be taken to imply that God is a created being (if the word “created” is not understood as a transitive verb but a verbal adjective modifying “God”). McShaffrey appears to think that word order means just as much in Hebrew in Greek as it does in English. This is manifestly not the case.

McShaffrey argues about the italicized words. I, for one, do not believe that italicizing words makes anything clearer. It does not clarify whether the word was implied by the original or simply added on a whim. It also implies a highly strict word-for-word correspondence theory that is simply not plausible. Words only have meaning in context. If I use the word “lie,” do I mean “tell a lie,” or “lie down”? Only in context can it be determined which meaning of the word is intended. There is meaning on every level of the text. A word for word correspondence theory that is too strict will make for terrible English. The word “and” in English implies tying together two thoughts. The Hebrew vav and the Greek de and kai are not as strict as that, and often simply imply a continuation of the narrative. Many Hebrew vavs are quite adequately translated by putting the text in paragraphs. McShaffrey leaves out “optimal equivalence” theory, laid out in the Christian Standard Bible introduction, which easily wins out in sheer merit over all other translation theories.

Many TR advocates use the second person distinction between “thee” and “thou” as almost an exclusive argument in favor of the KJV. McShaffrey has other arguments, but I often get the impression that this is the lynch-pin argument. While it is regrettable that modern correct English does not have an easy workaround for this problem, it is certainly not completely insoluble. “You all” can work for plural (Southern “y'all”, while informal, is quite popular in the United States). Hendricksen, in his commentaries, used to space out the “you” to indicate plural. Many translations have notes that show when the you is plural where it would make a significant gain to understanding.

It should be noted that almost all of these arguments in this essay are defending the KJV, not the TR.

*D. Scott Meadows's Chapter*

His statement that the TR is the Word of God is phrased in such a way that alternatives are excluded from being the Word of God. The simple answer to his query “Why don't you preach from the Received Text?” is that some of us don't think it is the most accurate text. The assumption is operative in this essay that modern Reformed textual critics couldn't agree with Turretin. This is highly doubtful. It is also anachronistic, as pointed out before, since the Reformers and post-Reformation scholars were reacting against Roman Catholic teaching, not Westcott and Hort or the many other positions now on offer.

*Pooyan Mehrshahi's Chapter*

One problem with this chapter is that he seems to assume that the proof-texts have to be held in their usually printed form if one is to adhere to the Westminster Standards. This is a very bizarre position, not one held by any Reformed or Presbyterian denomination of which I am aware. The proof-texts were added later as evidence of a long exegetical tradition in the commentaries about why and how this doctrine got its formulation in the way it did. The answer to his question on page 174 is “quite easily, as most Presbyterian and Reformed denominations actually do.” He commits an outright lie on page 175 when he says, “The critical text is generally based on the minority of available texts.” In the vast majority of the NT, the critical text matches the TR word for word and the Majority text word for word. So, it is GENERALLY based on the _same_ readings as the TR. This kind of lie undermines the TR position at every point: a gross exaggeration of the differences between the TR and the CT, and no acknowledgment whatsoever of the vastness of the agreement. Only a very few acknowledge the vastness of agreement. The majority of TR advocates only see differences. This is why it is difficult for me to respect the TR position as it is often argued.

*Mark L.R. Mullins's Chapter*

I don't really have much to say about this overly brief chapter.

*Christopher Myers's Chapter*

I don't have much to say about this chapter that hasn't been said by other critics. I will say that he maligns Warfield and the Hodges by saying that they became sympathetic to evolutionary methodology (p. 190). This is a lie, as has been shown in the responsible secondary literature (particularly Fred Zaspel). Charles Hodge explicitly repudiated evolution in his Systematic Theology, and Warfield also rejected it (contrary to seemingly endless claims to the contrary). This essay should never have been included in this book at all.

*Jeffrey Riddle's Chapter*

I have no comment on this chapter, except that I found it unconvincing.

*Christopher Sheffield's Chapter*

The language “riddled with corruption,” which he is presumably putting in the mouths of modern text critics, is another example of the ambiguity of the word “corruption,” as well as being not true of confessionally Reformed text critics. We would prefer that people not put words in our mouths.

His argument about Acts 20:28 is specious, since “of the Lord” is just as fully affirming of the deity of Christ as “of God” is.

His statement about Romans 9:5 on page 209 is so highly misleading as to transgress into the "lie" territory.[see *footnote] The only modern editions of the text that substantially disagree with the punctuation in the TR are the 19th edition of NA, the 3rd edition of UBS, and the Lachman edition. All other editions are so agreed with the TR on this position that the NA 27th-28th edition doesn't even have a text-critical entry on the punctuation point. I would point out that the following translations agree essentially with the KJV on the meaning of this important verse: ASV, ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, NLT, NRSV, NET, CEB. All of these translations equate Christ with God, which is the central point of the translation/textual issue. 

While I am convinced that the correct reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is “God” and not “who,” his assertion that “who” constitutes a reading that “may lend themselves to a denial of Christ's deity” (210) is absurd. Being non-affirming is hardly equivalent to a denial, and the reading “who” does not constitute a denial of Christ's deity.

The argument about Revelation 1 doesn't wash either. The CT says just as plainly as the TR does that the speaker is Christ. All of verses 5-7 are explicitly about Christ, and the repetition of “the one who is, and who was, and who is coming” in verse 8 from verse 4 proves it conclusively.

He argues that “The changes introduced by the Critical Text strike at the very core of the Christian faith—the person of Jesus Christ.” That is ridiculous. First of all, I have answered all his specious arguments, including the lie. Secondly, this rhetoric is so overblown as to be ridiculous. The Critical Text affirms the deity of Christ every bit as much as the TR does. This essay was terribly argued.

*John Thackway's Chapter*

He seems to think that modern critics want to arrive at what they believe is the nearest text to the original (216), as if the editors of the TR were not trying to accomplish the very same thing. TR advocates want to drive a truck through the supposed differences in methodology between the TR and the CT editors, but the reality is that there is not nearly as much difference as there is similarity in methodologies. I don't really want to get into that here. Suffice it to say that the differences are usually grossly exaggerated. He commits a rather obvious anachronism in forgetting that Lloyd-Jones wrote well before Hendriksen (222).

*Robert Truelove's Chapter*

I don't have much to say about this chapter, except that I found it unconvincing.

*J.D. Watson's Chapter*

He seems to think that WH believe orthodox scribes intentionally altered the text (237), and that therefore WH were essentially accusing the orthodox scribes of lying. Alterations could happen for many different reasons, not all of them intentional (in fact, very few intentional!), and WH are quite clear on this point. He misunderstands Warfield, on p. 239. Warfield was talking about the originals AS PRESERVED IN THE MSS. This is nearly explicit in his quotation of WCF 1.8. I dealt with this misunderstanding above, as well.

*Joshua White's Chapter*

He also seems to gloss the word “corrupt” as Metzger uses it (247), in a far more sinister way than Metzger himself used it (see above). He utters a ridiculous caricature of Reformed textual critics on p. 250: “According to modern textual criticism, Christians during the first eighteen hundred years of church history were simply following the errant grammatical expressions of various scribes.” I know not a single Reformed textual critic who would agree that this is even remotely a fair description of his own opinion. Lumping all non-TR positions into one place doesn't help this statement either.

*Appendix*

I find it highly ironic that the editors exhort TR advocates in churches to “be sure to avoid overly-charged rhetoric” (255). This book engages in overly-charged rhetoric in perhaps half of the chapters, and certainly not just Myers's chapter. I also find it mind-blowing that they suggest “If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice” (255). This is a first-order issue for them. It is worth leaving a church over, at least for some people. This is divisive. Even entertaining the possibility that someone should leave a church over this issue is something I find objectionable. If someone objects, "But this is Scripture we are talking about!" My answer is simple. The objection assumes that the TR has Scripture and no one having a Bible based on the CT has the Scripture at all. The issue is not whether someone has Scripture at all, but whether the differences between TR and CT are worth leaving a church over. In my opinion they are not.

*Conclusions*
This book is full of caricatures and misrepresentations, is lacking in nuance, and offers a fundamental bait and switch. In saying that the book is not primarily about the KJV, and is about both the Hebrew and Greek originals, when it barely mentions anything about OT textual criticism, but mentions the KJV 149 times, is definitely a bait and switch. It is barely more about the TR than about the KJV. No doubt the authors want to distance themselves from KJVOism. However, as several reviewers have noted, functionally this book is KJVO. Jeffrey Riddle has already responded by saying, functionally, that any critique of this book at all is toxic (he used this label over Everhard's critique, which was, in my opinion, an extremely gracious and fair critique). If he is going to use that label over a gracious critique, then I will turn it around and say this book is toxic in many of its essays. I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from my church even knowing about its existence. We just put the ESV in our pews last year. This book would function to undermine the confidence of anyone whose Bible is not already the KJV. That is the fundamental problem here. The book is sectarian and divisive. It needs to be pointed out clearly and repeatedly that this kind of argument is not repeated regularly in reverse fashion in non-TR circles that are Reformed. I don't even know of anyone who would say that the KJV is not God's Word, or that there needs to be an asterisk beside it in such a claim.

*I am using the word "lie" (note the scarequotes) as a perfect synonym of "untruth." There is no judgment being made on the character of Mr. Sheffield, and there is no accusation here of any "intent to deceive." His statement on Romans 9:5 in the CT is simply false. That is what I mean.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 4 | Edifying 2 | Amen 2 | Wow 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 21, 2022)

Lane, thank you for your review. As it does not seem like a reasonable and sober-minded discussion of the subject, I see little point in buying or reading it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Thanks for your efforts Lane. I’ll read it over and give it some thought. 

Do you think we will see more attention given by Reformed ministers to refuting this position in the months and years ahead?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 21, 2022)

Agree with everything stated in the review. James White's book The King James Only Controversy is also a very good counterpoint to this book and really the KJV movement in general. It basically points out all of the same issues with the KJV position as Lane has in relation to this book, and goes on to even more areas that are problematic. I don't say TR because realistically, that is not what the book is about 90% of the time.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Thanks for your efforts Lane. I’ll read it over and give it some thought.
> 
> Do you think we will see more attention given by Reformed ministers to refuting this position in the months and years ahead?


Unless I’m mistaken, I think one may overestimate the exposure the average layman has with this issues. And then should the minister bring this up if that is the case?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 21, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Unless I’m mistaken, I think one may overestimate the exposure the average layman has with this issues. And then should the minister bring this up if that is the case?


Yes, because it needs to be addressed. As noted in the review, the TR rhetoric is often times not charitable or measured and is in fact schismatic. This is the type of thing that causes denominations to split.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Thanks for your efforts Lane. I’ll read it over and give it some thought.
> 
> Do you think we will see more attention given by Reformed ministers to refuting this position in the months and years ahead?


Yes, particularly if the CB position continues to pick up steam.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 21, 2022)

Thanks Lane. I have zero interest in purchasing this book, even for a critique. But I read the preview on Amazon and it followed essentially the pattern that I assumed it would:

First sentence of the introduction: "From the beginning, the devil has sought to destroy the souls of men by enticing them to doubt God's Word." And then draws the equivalent of anyone questioning the TR being in line with Satan questioning God's word "Yea, hath God said...?" And says Eve added some words to Scripture, and she also "deleted" words. And this goes directly into a discussion of those awful textual critics.

This is a scare tactic.

They then say that "God has raised up men in every generation since the fall and given them the courage needed to rebuke the devil and his servants."

This sets up the teams. We are the courageous men rebuking the devil. They are those who "delete" portions of God's word, _just like Satan_. Choose your side now.

This is hardly the setup for a gracious discussion or an irenic entreaty to consider things with an open mind. Throughout the introduction there is an "us" vs "them" mentality and I find that dangerous.

Reactions: Like 11 | Edifying 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 21, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, particularly if the CB position continues to pick up steam.


CB?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 21, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> CB?


Confessional bibliology


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 21, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> CB





RamistThomist said:


> Confessional bibliology


Sometimes called the Confessional Text position based on WCF 1:8 and the 1689 Confession 1:8

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Sometimes called the Confessional Text position based on WCF 1:8 and the 1689 Confession 1:8


I think the "based on" part is more opinion than fact.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Sep 21, 2022)

Thank you for the review Lane. I had considered reading the book and doing something similar. I may still read it, but you're better at doing this than I am.

I have met and sat under the preaching of several of these men. One was even briefly my pastor. I found as someone who had studied textual criticism a fair amount that the basic arguments I heard while in the FCoS(C) were persuasive for the TR. I began to assume for a period that it was _the_ confessional position as was often presented, and well, I wanted to be confessional as I love the Westminster Confession of Faith (and still do -- Chapter 1 is even my favorite!). I found as I re-evaluated later that at least the folks I knew were not honestly dealing with the data and didn't have good answers to questions beyond a high level defense. It's very helpful for me to see these arguments laid out in text form that I heard over the years so that they can be better responded to. It's men who fervently love the Lord and his Word, but our arguments should be rooted in truth and faithful representation. I'm afraid you've demonstrated many of these arguments are not that at all.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 21, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think the "based on" part is more opinion than fact.


Perhaps. I like the concept of taking the confession seriously at this point, but also believe the Confessional Text position has not solved the 'which TR' question - that is essential if you take a very literal interpretation of WCF 1:8 'kept pure in all ages'. Which edition of the TR is kept PURE in ALL ages?


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Perhaps. I like the concept of taking the confession seriously at this point, but also believe the Confessional Text position has not solved the 'which TR' question - that is essential if you take a very literal interpretation of WCF 1:8 'kept pure in all ages'. Which edition of the TR is kept PURE in ALL ages?


This is why WCF 1.8 cannot be referring to the TR. In the CB movement, "pure" means either 100% pure, or "vast majority pure." But no one manuscript exactly equals the TR. So which manuscript(s) was it that was "kept pure in all ages" before the TR existed? All ages has to include the time before the TR existed, which means that WCF 1.8 cannot be referring to the TR as that which was kept pure in ALL ages, even before the TR existed. To put it in the most stark terms as a question: which manuscript(s) represented the text kept pure in all ages before the TR existed? The manuscripts that eventually made up the TR? This seems like the most likely answer to the question from the TR position. But since none of those manuscripts are 100% equal to the TR, then by necessity the TR position has to back up and say that any one of those manuscripts was the text kept pure in all ages, _no matter what differences they have among themselves_. In which case, we certainly cannot have 100% pure any more in all ages, let alone have WCF 1.8 refer to the TR, since the TR is not precisely equal to any of the manuscripts used in its making. 

Most TR advocates say to me that if I am a Sturzian, I don't have an edition of the Greek NT to point to. Which edition will the TR advocates point to before, say 1500, as the text kept pure in all ages? There were no editions of the Greek NT at all before that time. If they say "It's the Byzantine tradition generally," than I ask why not the Majority text position? The TR position cannot use any Majority text arguments unless they want to jettison the _Comma Johanneum _(yet they do use such arguments). 

If a position says that the TR was providentially preserved through all ages, and that it was texts in use in the church, then a clear line of this preservation needs to be traced all the way back to the autographs. This cannot be done in the case of the Byzantine tradition. If it was visible texts in use in the church, then they need to trace that visibility all the way back, otherwise there is no visibility, which appears to be a sine qua non with the TR position. Only those manuscripts that are visible through their entire existence are those kept pure in all ages. I have not seen anyone do such tracing. It can be proven that the readings from the Byzantine tradition are older than most CT guys say they are (Sturz proved this). That is most definitely not the same thing as saying that the manuscripts are that old. Usually, the response is something like this, "But of course manuscripts that are in use eventually deteriorate." Why not assume that such manuscripts were rejected if they disappeared? That is the argument they use on the disappearance of Alexandrian manuscripts. No, "kept pure in all ages" refers to all the manuscripts by God's preservation preserved. All of them put together are the apographs in which the autographs are to be found. Any other position on that points runs into countless difficulties.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 21, 2022)

Jake said:


> I found as I re-evaluated later that at least the folks I knew were not honestly dealing with the data and didn't have good answers to questions beyond a high level defense. It's very helpful for me to see these arguments laid out in text form that I heard over the years so that they can be better responded to. It's men who fervently love the Lord and his Word, but our arguments should be rooted in truth and faithful representation. I'm afraid you've demonstrated many of these arguments are not that at all.



This is precisely what bothers me. I'm quite sure they are well meaning and I went into my investigation of the "TR position" with an open mind. It sounded great! Who wouldn't want a "confessional" and "reformed" defense of the text? I would love to believe that one TR edition is the standard, even if it were Scrivener. But what I generally found was well-meaning individuals who researched into something only as far as it supported their priors, and then stopped. Claims were made about historical figures and manuscripts that upon investigation, proved to be ignorant, at best.

Unfortunately it's easy to become persuaded by some partial truths in a blog post that claim the church had one text through all her history and now the evil textual critics are now deleting portions of the Bible. It's much, much harder to educate someone to the nuance that is behind textual history, textual criticism, and the views of those in the past.

We have to be willing to honestly deal with _all_ the data, not invent stories and scenarios for parts that don't fit a presupposition. And I am firmly convinced that we have to have a view of providence and purity that is general enough to encompass all ages (as the Confession says!), not just the 1500s onward.

I would actually think that all of us here would gladly jump on the TR side if it could actually be demonstrated that it was logically consistent, fit all the data, and could be shown to be the view of at least some of the major Puritans / Reformers, or if it was actually be a falsifiable hypothesis that could be evaluated objectively.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 21, 2022)

Dr. Riddle on 'Which TR'?


----------



## EvanVK (Sep 21, 2022)

This is troubling. I’ve always considered Rev McCurley to be a sober and godly minister. 

“
*Robert McCurley's Chapter*

Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying “Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions” (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the “world's depraved assumptions” in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity. His quotation of Matthew 5:18in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture. Jesus is talking about the law. The Old Testament is the plain referrent, as nothing in the New Testament had been written down at the time when Jesus spoke these words. It is in the context of hypothetical abrogation of OT law, not textual preservation. He also seems to think that any deviation from the TR constitutes “purposeful alteration of the text of Scripture” (p. 147). He uses the poisoned well fallacy of “a region rife with Arian heresy.” It doesn't seem to occur to him that Alexandria is actually the place where Athanasius opposed the Arian heresy. He was bishop of Alexandria! It was _everywhere else_ where the Arian heresy was making inroads, including the entire Byzantine empire! So he gets this history 100% wrong. The presence or absence of the Arian heresy is neither here nor there with regard to the copying of manuscripts. This was one of the very worst essays in the book, full of lies and twisting of Scripture.”


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 21, 2022)

Lane, much appreciation of your thorough review. You pretty much have confirmed many of the thoughts I had gotten from other reviewers, and lines up with my own experience from authors like Riddle and sites like “Young, Textless, and Reformed.”



Stephen L Smith said:


> Which edition of the TR is kept PURE in ALL ages?


From all the arguments I’ve read and heard of CB, the logical conclusion is that edition of the TR that is “pure in all ages” was in Early Modern English before it was published (or at least printed) in Greek. After all the KJV is “a TR itself.” Minus a few outliers, the vast majority of CB arguments I’ve heard assume it is the KJV that is perfect, and it identical with the ”true TR.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 21, 2022)

EvanVK said:


> This is troubling. I’ve always considered Rev McCurley to be a sober and godly minister.


You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water. He has a blind spot, apparently, where he can't see clearly. So do we all. Although I've never found the quotation, I have heard it was Calvin who said that the very best theologian could only be, at best, 80% correct in his theology. Chalk this up to his 20%.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Brian R. (Sep 21, 2022)

EvanVK said:


> This is troubling. I’ve always considered Rev McCurley to be a sober and godly minister.


He certainly is. Nothing in Rev. Keister's critique changes that.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 21, 2022)

I know some of the men involved in this book and met Rev. McCurley back in 1994 and venture to say few can match him in gifts and godliness, so I'm not happy with the severity of the language that Lane uses here, and it seems sort of incongruous to now flatter the man as useful to the church after saying his chapter was filled with lies and twisting of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> He certainly is. Nothing in Rev. Keister's critique changes that.


Did you read the comment above yours?


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I know some of the men involved in this book and met Rev. McCurley back in 1994 and venture to say few can match him in gifts and godliness, so I'm not happy with the severity of the language that Lane uses here, and it seems sort of incongruous to now flatter the man as useful to the church after saying his chapter was filled with lies and twisting of Scripture.


What’s your take on Rev. McCurley’s words?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> What’s your take on Rev. McCurley’s words?


I have not read the book. But someone who tells lies and twists scripture is not qualified for the gospel ministry. So language such as that leaves nowhere to go.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I have not read the book. But someone who tells lies and twists scripture is not qualified for the gospel ministry. So language such as that leaves nowhere to go.


I haven’t read his chapter yet, so I can’t comment about what he has written. 

In your estimation, does Matthew 5:18 teach about the preservation of the TR?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 21, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I know some of the men involved in this book and met Rev. McCurley back in 1994 and venture to say few can match him in gifts and godliness, so I'm not happy with the severity of the language that Lane uses here, and it seems sort of incongruous to now flatter the man as useful to the church after saying his chapter was filled with lies and twisting of Scripture.


Rev. McCurley is of course our pastor, as we are a preaching station and are overseen by the session in Greenville. I’m speechless.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 21, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> His statement about Romans 9:5 on page 209 is so highly misleading as to transgress into the "lie" territory.


This is written about Pastor Sheffield who is a member of the Puritanboard.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 21, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> But someone who tells lies and twists scripture is not qualified for the gospel ministry.


There is a difference between writing an essay wherein lies have been propagated and being a person who is characterized by lies—the same thing with twisting Scripture. I am not commenting on whether or not Pastor Lane's assessment is accurate, but even the best of ministers can occasionally propagate lies and even twist Scripture, sometimes due to sincere ignorance. Again, I am not saying this is what Pastor McCurley in fact did. My point is simply that such things do not necessarily disqualify them from ministry.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> In your estimation, does Matthew 5:18 teach about the preservation of the TR?



I know that this question was addressed to Chris, but my take on it is that the passage does refer to the preservation of scripture, which includes but is not limited to the TR.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I know that this question was addressed to Chris, but my take on it is that the passage does refer to the preservation of scripture, which includes but is not limited to the TR.


Keeping in mind the immediate context, how does it refer to preservation?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 21, 2022)

If one searches PB one can find I'm not present as someone that has shown a lot of participation or interest in this subject. I'm KJV (or NKJV, horrors) preferred. But I know a little bit about the subject of scandal and we need to choose words very wisely even when refuting someone we think is in error. Look for instance with the respect James Durham treats Richard Baxter when addressing some of the latter's views, and Baxter had problems far weightier than said here. And even if "they've" been extreme, maybe more the reason to be extra careful not to be also, unless we truly want to consign them to the flames and discredit them altogether. That's all I'm saying on this topic.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Perhaps the best way to vindicate Revs. McCurley and Sheffield is to show how the accusations against them are incorrect. Rev. Keister’s words were based off of arguments made by them—let’s deal with the arguments.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Overblown as to be ridiculous


Well, my dear brother, don't let anyone say you are unkind in your critiques.


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I have not read the book. But someone who tells lies and twists scripture is not qualified for the gospel ministry. So language such as that leaves nowhere to go.


But the TR guys are often branded as the only divisive ones ...

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 22, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> But the TR guys are often branded as the only divisive ones ...


Indeed. Frankly I hope the author of this review is granted repentance for some of the statements made in it about godly men.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> *Pooyan Mehrshahi's Chapter*
> 
> One problem with this chapter is that he seems to assume that the proof-texts have to be held in their usually printed form if one is to adhere to the Westminster Standards. This is a very bizarre position, not one held by any Reformed or Presbyterian denomination of which I am aware. The proof-texts were added later as evidence of a long exegetical tradition in the commentaries about why and how this doctrine got its formulation in the way it did. The answer to his question on page 174 is “quite easily, as most Presbyterian and Reformed denominations actually do.” He commits an outright lie on page 175 when he says, “The critical text is generally based on the minority of available texts.” In the vast majority of the NT, the critical text matches the TR word for word and the Majority text word for word. So, it is GENERALLY based on the _same_ readings as the TR. This kind of lie undermines the TR position at every point: a gross exaggeration of the differences between the TR and the CT, and no acknowledgment whatsoever of the vastness of the agreement. Only a very few acknowledge the vastness of agreement. The majority of TR advocates only see differences. This is why it is difficult for me to respect the TR position as it is often argued.



I know I do not post very often but I would add my voice to those who believe the review posted here is unduly negative and, it appears to me, exaggerated. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the book but I plan to, and would not be put off of doing so by this review.

Just to choose one example, in the above section on Mr Mehrshahi's chapter, I believe it is both inflamatory and intellectually wrong to state he has committed "an outright lie" in the statement you quote. It is based on a very forced and, I think, misconstrued reading of his quote; even without the full context, it appears obvious to me that his statement has nothing to do with the separate point you are making. I do not think any objective reader would understand him to be saying that the CT is different from the TR in almost every verse. What he appears to be saying is that the critical text generally takes a small number of the available texts (presumably referencing, e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) as the authority and goes with their readings the vast majority of the time - nothing more and nothing less. It may be that in the majority of the text the CT manuscripts being referred to agree with the TR, but that does not make it factually wrong to say that the CT is generally based on the minority of available texts. The CT is generally based on those texts, both when they agree with the TR and when they do not agree with the TR. The crux of the matter is obviously where the manuscripts do not agree, and Mr Mehrshahi is simply making the point that where there is divergence, the CT generally goes with the minority manuscripts.

So it seems unwarranted to make so much out of this point in your review, even to the point of calling it an "outright lie". If you feel that TR advocates do not give sufficient acknowledgment to the amount of overlap between the CT and TR, you are free to make that point, but it seems unfair to use Mr Mehrshahi's words as a hook to do this, especially with the strong language used.

Without dwelling on it, I would also take issue with what you have said about the proof text point. I will not get into the question of whether strict subscription to the Confession includes the proof texts, but it does feel like your description of them downplays their standing somewhat. When you say these were "added later" . . . lest anyone reading the thread misunderstand, it is true that in the first draft sent by the Westminster divines to Parliament the proof texts were not included (though they had been discussed extensively by the Assembly), but they were added by the Westminster divines in 1647 (at the request of Parliament) and present in the final Westminster Standards as approved by Parliament.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 22, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> But the TR guys are often branded as the only divisive ones ...


When some (or many) TR advocates say CT/MV users

have a corrupted text and are compromising with (or just uncritically adopting) ungodly scholarship
are using Bibles that mistranslate the Word of God because they follow modern English and modern English is a corrupt language
are unconfessional because they don’t use the exact text family the Reformers used
must be either stupid or spiritually blindly to not be able to read Shakespearean English
Have you-know-who’s Bible
AND again many also…

Say the KJV is “not perfect” but when asked for an even modest revision to make it understandable or corrected they respond with mistrust, disgust, incredulousness, or with preconditions that are impossible to fulfill
say “it’s about the text, not the translation” when most of their talk is defending a specific translation
nitpick the NKJV or claim it is a CT translation because some translation choices match modern versions, when this is a translational and not a textual discussion
Refuse to speak out (at all or forcefully) when their fellow travelers ARE divisive (e.g. speaking about leaving a non-TR church or calling other Bibles satanic)
And when a CT brother tries to bring up these issues and call people to at least reflection and moderation, the gentle CT critic is called “toxic” and worse.

EDIT: not all TR advocates hold to all of these, but I’ve read them all from “I’m TR not KJVO” folks.

If a man comes up to me and repeatedly insults a loved one, am I being divisive because I tell him to stop and am not eager to have lunch with him?

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> If one searches PB one can find I'm not present as someone that has shown a lot of participation or interest in this subject. I'm KJV (or NKJV, horrors) preferred. But I know a little bit about the subject of scandal and we need to choose words very wisely even when refuting someone we think is in error. Look for instance with the respect James Durham treats Richard Baxter when addressing some of the latter's views, and Baxter had problems far weightier than here. And even if "they've" been extreme, maybe more the reason to be extra careful not to be also, unless we truly want to consign them to the flames and discredit them altogether. That's all I'm saying on this topic.



Thank you for this reminder, Chris. I definitely would like to clarify that I respect many of the godly contributors to the volume (and don't know the others). I can't speak for or against their specific statements. I took issue with the way the introduction was framed but understand that this shouldn't reflect the views of the individuals. 

I think individuals are often misinformed or led astray by claims of those who should know better, but I hope I do not generally impugn motives or character and if I do then I ask forgiveness for that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> When some (or many) TR advocates say CT/MV users
> 
> have a corrupted text and are compromising with (or just uncritically adopting) ungodly scholarship
> are using Bibles that mistranslate the Word of God because they follow modern English and modern English is a corrupt language
> ...


I grant all your points. That's why I said "the only divisive ones". No doubt many divisive statements have been made by TR advocates (I have said many of them in the past), and many frankly untenable positions have been taken by TR advocates, but reviews like this one return the favor. Brotherly charity is a two way street. I don't think Dr Ward's review was toxic at all personally. But while I appreciated much of the push back on the weak points of the book provided by Rev. Keister (including his push back on my own chapter) he also included, in my opinion, many unfair and divisive statements.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Although I've never found the quotation, I have heard it was Calvin who said that the very best theologian could only be, at best, 80% correct in his theology.


I always heard this attributed to N. T. Wright. In which case, perhaps he meant to say he is only 20% correct.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Funny 3


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I always heard this attributed to N. T. Wright. In which case, perhaps he meant to say he is only 20% correct.


"More like N.T. WRONG ... lolz" - J Mac

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2022)

I've disagreed with Pastor Lane on some issues and he has fervently disagreed with some of my book reviews. There was nothing wrong in his rhetoric. It sometimes feels explosive when a position is taken apart point by point.

For example, we all believe, correctly, that JI Packer was a godly theologian and someone to imitate. I also believe he was deeply mistaken in some comments on the subordination of the Son. If I had to review his writings on that point, I would not hold anything back. None of that, of course, takes away my admiration for him.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 22, 2022)

Instead of just “being offended” that Lane said “mean things” about “godly and beloved” men… interact with what was written. Maybe the comments were warranted. Or maybe they weren’t. But rather than simply being indignant, interact with what was written for publication by these various authors.

Reactions: Like 11 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I've disagreed with Pastor Lane on some issues and he has fervently disagreed with some of my book reviews. There was nothing wrong in his rhetoric. It sometimes feels explosive when a position is taken apart point by point.
> 
> For example, we all believe, correctly, that JI Packer was a godly theologian and someone to imitate. I also believe he was deeply mistaken in some comments on the subordination of the Son. If I had to review his writings on that point, I would not hold anything back. None of that, of course, takes away my admiration for him.


I second this.

And the reaction in this thread is successfully turning the sights off of the bad argumentation of the book in question, and putting them solely on Pastor Lane—_without interacting with the arguments_.

Some of you don’t say a peep when this conversation goes one direction (perhaps because there is no defense of your position you can make), but then the thread explodes with TR-proponents crying foul when strong language is pointed out.

Let’s get back to the arguments and see.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 22, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I second this.
> 
> And the reaction in this thread is successfully turning the sights off of the bad argumentation of the book in question, and putting them solely on Pastor Lane—_without interacting with the arguments_.
> 
> ...


Exactly. It’s the kind of thing I’ve complained about for years. There’s a segment here that has historically been given essentially a free pass to berate and belittle, and have been treated with kid gloves, like some sort of privileged class… and now when the light is turned on the egregiously bad argumentation they use, and proper labels are applied to their behavior… They wanna cry like victims.

I say: three cheers for Lane for having the nerve to accurately interact with their arguments and for saying what needed to be said! Hip, hip, hooray!

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 22, 2022)

SolaScriptura said:


> Exactly. It’s the kind of thing I’ve complained about for years. There’s a segment here that has historically been given essentially a free pass to berate and belittle, and have been treated with kid gloves, like some sort of privileged class… and now when the light is turned on the egregiously bad argumentation they use, and proper labels are applied to their behavior… They wanna cry like victims.


It seems that there must be a lot more history to this debate on this forum than I realize.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2022)

*Pausing thread. Now speaking as an board Admin. *If you don't want this thread closed, stop complaining about the board and calling into questioning the impartiality of the moderators. The moderators are volunteer and make it possible for this board to exist. They should be appreciated not attacked for saving this relative dinosaur form of online dialogue from dying, which it would have if the current team had not hung with it. *On the topic of this thread*, nothing prevents both discussion of the book and reaction to Lane's language from both carrying on; both are legitimate responses in regular discussion and on topic. If you don't like one of those, don't interact with it. Nothing prevents you from pushing forward on the other. This post is thread moderating; it is not up for discussion. Thread will open back up in a bit after a pause.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 22, 2022)

Obviously, a bit of explanation is needed here. Non-TR folk like myself are mortally tired of being misrepresented by the strong and extreme versions of TR. We are tired of being lumped together with WH, when many of us disagree strongly with WH. We are tired of the hints that we are in league with Satan for questioning the truth. We are tired of being told that we don't _really_ have the Word of God. These types of caricatures are _all over_ this book. There is a line that TR strong and extreme advocates have repeatedly crossed. Gentle approaches in the past by many have not made a single dent in that approach by the strong and extreme TR advocates. I have advocated in the past for the "police your own" approach. Admittedly, this is difficult to do, as it takes a huge amount of imagination and empathy to put oneself in another person's shoes on the other side of an issue. But when that TR rhetoric is constant, one gets inured to it if one basically agrees with it, or thinks it is within bounds. That is one point I am trying to make. It is not within brotherly bounds. If you think my post was not within such bounds, then welcome to the way non-TR folk have felt since the beginning of the controversy. I'm not going to try to claim there isn't blame on the non-TR side. There is. But we are not the ones claiming the other side doesn't have God's Word. 

Believe me, I was far more angry at this book than my review even suggests. Now, if you are TR and reading that, you could simply react with disgust. Or, you could ask yourself this question out of genuine curiosity, "Why is Rev. Keister so angry at this book?" You all should know by now that I do not get angry for no reason. I am angry that this is a book I have to actually keep away from my church. I am angry at all the misrepresentations. I am angry at what I perceive is sectarianism and divisiveness. 

I have delineated the moderate TR position in the other thread. I have absolutely zero quarrel with them. I have not seen misrepresentation on their part. In reality, I see them as the counterpart to my position on the TR side. What I am trying to point out is the lack of self-awareness on the strong/extreme TR side. Not all are equally lacking in self-awareness. But some are blasting me to smithereens while completely and utterly ignoring the misrepresentations mentioned above (or they may even mistakenly believe such things themselves). Such people are also not, by and large, engaging with anything of substance in my review. If you are basically going to say that I have no points of any validity whatsoever, then why should I listen to you on these things? 

I have taken an oath to my denomination to uphold the purity and peace of the denomination. I see the strong/extreme TR position as a threat to the peace of the denomination. This is not, therefore, a polite academic discussion. My suggestion is that the strong and extreme advocates do a reality check and back off that line they keep crossing. Another suggestion that would fix everything: go to the moderate position.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 4 | Edifying 2 | Amen 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> *Pausing thread. Now speaking as an board Admin. *If you don't want this thread closed, stop complaining about the board and calling into questioning the impartiality of the moderators. The moderators are volunteer and make it possible for this board to exist. They should be appreciated not attacked for saving this relative dinosaur form of online dialogue from dying, which it would have if the current team had not hung with it. *On the topic of this thread*, nothing prevents both discussion of the book and reaction to Lane's language from both carrying on; both are legitimate responses in regular discussion and on topic. If you don't like one of those, don't interact with it. Nothing prevents you from pushing forward on the other. This post is thread moderating; it is not up for discussion. Thread will open back up in a bit after a pause.


Thread pause lifted.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

Pastor Keister, where are the people whose rhetoric and inflammatory language you're mimicking and targeting in your review... my main question is, are they on the PB? Is one of them Pastor Sheffield for instance, such that you thought it appropriate to speak of his contribution in, in my view, a personally derogatory way? Are very many of us on the PB aware of, and participants in, these flame wars that apparently you're responding to? Several in the thread responded to your OP that they now will not be reading the book since they're satisfied with your review. To me that is problematic and sad. Yes, I have a prejudice in that I feel strongly about this issue, so will likely be missing some nuances or not-so-nuances that I'd otherwise perceive. But I don't know. This felt like a very painful and destructive bomb dropped into a place where in spite of high feeling, all have maintained to keep the 9th commandment or I hope ask forgiveness where they might have violated it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Pastor Keister, where are the people whose rhetoric and inflammatory language you're mimicking and targeting in your review... my main question is, are they on the PB? Is one of them Pastor Sheffield for instance, such that you thought it appropriate to speak of his contribution in, in my view, a personally derogatory way? Are very many of us on the PB aware of, and participants in, these flame wars that apparently you're responding to? Several in the thread responded to your OP that they now will not be reading the book since they're satisfied with your review. To me that is problematic and sad. Yes, I have a prejudice in that I feel strongly about this issue, so will likely be missing some nuances or not-so-nuances that I'd otherwise perceive. But I don't know. This felt like a very painful and destructive bomb dropped into a place where in spite of high feeling, all have maintained to keep the 9th commandment or I hope ask forgiveness where they might have violated it.


Jeri, which part of the review of Ps Sheffield's chapter do you feel is 'personally derogatory'? Is it this?

"His statement about Romans 9:5 on page 209 is so highly misleading as to transgress into the "lie" territory. The only modern editions of the text that substantially disagree with the punctuation in the TR are the 19th edition of NA, the 3rd edition of UBS, and the Lachman edition. All other editions are so agreed with the TR on this position that the NA 27th-28th edition doesn't even have a text-critical entry on the punctuation point. I would point out that the following translations agree essentially with the KJV on the meaning of this important verse: ASV, ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, NLT, NRSV, NET, CEB."

I do not have the access to the said Rom. 9:5 statement, but it seems Ps Keister has given objective evidence to reveal a truth proposed by Ps Sheffield to be an untruth. I do not see anything 'personally derogatory' here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 22, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I second this.
> 
> And the reaction in this thread is successfully turning the sights off of the bad argumentation of the book in question, and putting them solely on Pastor Lane—_without interacting with the arguments_.
> 
> ...





SolaScriptura said:


> Instead of just “being offended” that Lane said “mean things” about “godly and beloved” men… interact with what was written. Maybe the comments were warranted. Or maybe they weren’t. But rather than simply being indignant, interact with what was written for publication by these various authors.



In my post above I believe I did interact with the arguments, at least in relation to the review of one of the chapters (which I did by way of example, though I think there were similar issues with other chapter reviews). From my point of view, the concern is not just "mean" words (I am fine with robust and pointed debate when warranted). But accusing a minister of having "outright lied" is a serious accusation and, as I outlined in my response above to one of the chapter reviews, it does not appear to be at all warranted in the context. Just because you disagree with a statement or think it is wrong, that doesn't make it a "lie". I think this is one of the main reasons for the strong pushback in this thread. It veers into character assassination.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> This felt like a very painful and destructive bomb dropped





greenbaggins said:


> I have taken an oath to my denomination to uphold the purity and peace of the denomination. I see the strong/extreme TR position as a threat to the peace of the denomination. This is not, therefore, a polite academic discussion.





Jie-Huli said:


> In my post above I believe I did interact with the arguments, at least in relation to the review of one of the chapters (which I did by way of example, though I think there were similar issues with other chapter reviews). From my point of view, the concern is not just "mean" words (I am fine with robust and pointed debate when warranted). But accusing a minister of having "outright lied" is a serious accusation and, as I outlined in my response above to one of the chapter reviews, it does not appear to be at all warranted in the context. Just because you disagree with a statement or think it is wrong, that doesn't make it a "lie". I think this is one of the main reasons for the strong pushback in this thread. It veers into character assassination.


Sorry brother, I must have missed that in the several comments that showed up around the same time. I’ll read it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri, Christopher's treatment of Romans 9:5 is so misleading that I really have no choice but to call it an untruth. I don't have to believe that it was intentional to call it such. If you would prefer the term "untruth" to "lie," I would have no quibble with it. There are lots of people who are sincerely untruthful about something, who believe what they wrote. 

There are several on the PB who use such inflammatory language rather a lot. I think most people would know who I mean, the likes of Andrew Barnes, for example. And there are plenty of people off the PB who use this language as well. You think my review is a bomb. Well I think this book was a bomb. 

Do you honestly feel like I have absolutely zero points of validity whatsoever?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Jeri, which part of the review of Ps Sheffield's chapter do you feel is 'personally derogatory'? Is it this?
> 
> "His statement about Romans 9:5 on page 209 is so highly misleading as to transgress into the "lie" territory. The only modern editions of the text that substantially disagree with the punctuation in the TR are the 19th edition of NA, the 3rd edition of UBS, and the Lachman edition. All other editions are so agreed with the TR on this position that the NA 27th-28th edition doesn't even have a text-critical entry on the punctuation point. I would point out that the following translations agree essentially with the KJV on the meaning of this important verse: ASV, ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, NLT, NRSV, NET, CEB."
> 
> I do not have the access to the said Rom. 9:5 statement, but it seems Ps Keister has given objective evidence to reveal a truth proposed by Ps Sheffield to be an untruth. I do not see anything 'personally derogatory' here.


I'm thinking of this in relation to Rev. Keister's review of Rev. Sheffield's essay: 'First of all, I have answered all his [referring to Rev. Seffield's] specious arguments, including the lie. Secondly, this rhetoric is so overblown as to be ridiculous.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Obviously, a bit of explanation is needed here. Non-TR folk like myself are mortally tired of being misrepresented by the strong and extreme versions of TR. We are tired of being lumped together with WH, when many of us disagree strongly with WH. We are tired of the hints that we are in league with Satan for questioning the truth. We are tired of being told that we don't _really_ have the Word of God. These types of caricatures are _all over_ this book. There is a line that TR strong and extreme advocates have repeatedly crossed. Gentle approaches in the past by many have not made a single dent in that approach by the strong and extreme TR advocates. I have advocated in the past for the "police your own" approach. Admittedly, this is difficult to do, as it takes a huge amount of imagination and empathy to put oneself in another person's shoes on the other side of an issue. But when that TR rhetoric is constant, one gets inured to it if one basically agrees with it, or thinks it is within bounds. That is one point I am trying to make. It is not within brotherly bounds. If you think my post was not within such bounds, then welcome to the way non-TR folk have felt since the beginning of the controversy. I'm not going to try to claim there isn't blame on the non-TR side. There is. But we are not the ones claiming the other side doesn't have God's Word.
> 
> Believe me, I was far more angry at this book than my review even suggests. Now, if you are TR and reading that, you could simply react with disgust. Or, you could ask yourself this question out of genuine curiosity, "Why is Rev. Keister so angry at this book?" You all should know by now that I do not get angry for no reason. I am angry that this is a book I have to actually keep away from my church. I am angry at all the misrepresentations. I am angry at what I perceive is sectarianism and divisiveness.
> 
> ...


Rev. Keister, you made many fair points in your review. You are right to call out the in places absurd rhetoric. You are right to call out what is schismatic and divisive. However, accusing ordained ministers of "lying" is much different than boldly, manfully, or even sharply, refuting what you perceive as error. 

I can only speak for myself. In your review of my chapter, you were correct that I misspoke. I don't know how I didn't catch my error to be honest. I should have added "*English speaking* reformed preaching", or left it as "the TR". Thank you for pointing out that error as others have. Perhaps I will make a video addressing some of the errors I made in my chapter. 

To your point, I am all for repudiating much of the rhetoric in the TR movement. It is much needed. But we won't get anywhere if "you guys" on the "other side" employ the same rhetoric.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 2


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 22, 2022)

As I write this response to the thread in general and to the discussion concerning Mr. Keister's review, I will lay down the following clarifications for context. First, I'm a newly registered member of the board, having had my application approved just this morning. I've been an observer of the boards for the better part of 10 years, but found that others say most things better than I could. It's been immensely profitable benefiting from the greater lights here. Second, I hold to a Majority Textish view. I find the arguments of men like Robinson and Snapp compelling. I have considerable reservations with the modern text critical method, primarily in the underlying assumptions grounding them and the over confident faith that the methods proposed are effective in removing a large degree of human bias in their application.

That said, this book is not a book that I would recommend. It is, quite frankly, long on rhetoric and short on quality re: logical argumentation and rigorous scholarship. It reads like a book with a TR/KJV axe to grind because, well, it is. One may take issue with the polemic in Mr. Keister's critique, but the content is not far off the mark.

With regard to Mr. Keister's review, while some might find the language he has employed objectionable, the greater concern is the content that he is critiquing. Let's take his critique of Mr. Sheffield as an example, given the uproar that is apparently causing on these boards. The fact of the matter is that if Mr. Keister is correct, then Mr. Sheffield has either knowingly propagated a falsehood or has done so unwittingly through shoddy scholarship. Neither scenario is acceptable. Indeed, it behoves Mr. Sheffield to either demonstrate that Mr. Keister is incorrect in his analysis of the Romans passage, or to retract his statements from his contribution, if not the entire contribution. His being a minister and a member on these boards does not privilege him against being the object of scrutiny and criticism. Ministers are and ought to be held to a high standard. We are trusted sources of information, instruction, and spiritual guidance. There are many who will read our various books, blog articles, and posts on social media. There are many who will listen to our podcasts and our sermons. We must be rigorous in our scholarship, reasoning in our argumentation, and careful in our communication lest we lead others astray into error. And when we are short-sighted, as all sanctified sinners are at times, we ought to have the humility to listen to criticism and correct our course if said criticism is valid.

If Mr. Keister needs to repent and reword elements of his critique, then he ought to do it. But that ought not to detract from engaging with the legitimate concerns he has raised. Our tribalism is showing.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 22, 2022)

To those commenting on Lane's language, I will admit that I would not have used the word "lie" myself. That being said, I spent a fair bit of time in TR/AV circles when I was younger, and when I started to look into the facts of the matter further, I felt as if I had been lied to by these people. I was also increasingly disgusted by their hatred (and I can call it nothing else) of the NIV (sadly, now transferred to the ESV), which I increasingly came to regard as both profane and schismatic. 

As a result of these experiences, I will now instinctively turn to virtually any conservative translation of the Bible _except_ for the AV. That is one real-life example of the damage that TR/AV purists do to their own cause that could be avoided if they had been more intellectually honest and less hateful towards other translations of God's word.

One could argue that it is better to say that the people who contributed to this volume are misinformed. Conversely, one could say that ministers of the gospel, who are supposed to be heralds of truth, ought to know better and need to be judged more strictly than the average person.

I have known Lane online for sixteen years and have watched him contribute to debates on this subject for at least fifteen of those years. He has been patient with his opponents to a fault. He has even been humble enough to modify his own views partly, I presume, through interaction with reasonable people who are TR preferred. Hence, I do understand the frustration and will not be condemning him when the real elephant in the room is why ordained ministers, who have contributed to an edited volume, have been permitted to spread such misinformation with impunity.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Jeri, Christopher's treatment of Romans 9:5 is so misleading that I really have no choice but to call it an untruth. I don't have to believe that it was intentional to call it such. If you would prefer the term "untruth" to "lie," I would have no quibble with it. There are lots of people who are sincerely untruthful about something, who believe what they wrote.
> 
> There are several on the PB who use such inflammatory language rather a lot. I think most people would know who I mean, the likes of Andrew Barnes, for example. And there are plenty of people off the PB who use this language as well. You think my review is a bomb. Well I think this book was a bomb.
> 
> Do you honestly feel like I have absolutely zero points of validity whatsoever?


I think you do have points of validity (as far as pushback being valid against others' positions) in your interactions with propositions; that doesn't mean I necessarily think (or know) whether some points you make may be valid, as in correct, but it is always quite valid for you to make them in arguing and defending your position. But normally, when speaking temperately on a topic and wishing to maintain brotherly love, the word 'inaccurate' might be used instead of 'lie.' Words carry implication with them that have their effect. I think of the 9th commandment. I could go through your review and make a list of such instances, but I suppose the point is made.

I haven't read the book yet, I'm waiting for it to arrive, so I can't interact with your review of the book yet. But I can interact with your treatment of the contributors. I think the way you spoke of Rev. McCurley for instance will greatly prejudice some here on the board against him and his ministry and preaching, and that is a real shame. Words are powerful. In the end, .what can be proved regarding manuscripts and other outside data. It is all how one weighs the data in the end. It is based on each person's beginning presuppositions and is a theological and doctrinal matter that has to do with one's view on what the Bible actually teaches on the matter of preservation, and then secondarily on how we understand the implications of our confession's treatment of it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One could argue that it is better to say that the people who contributed to this volume are misinformed. Conversely, one could say that ministers of the gospel, who are supposed to be heralds of truth, ought to know better and need to be judged more strictly than the average person.


I think it would be best to keep the conversation to one's personal interpretation of the data, and to pointing out actual, provable erroneous claims. If one side speaks mistakenly, for example, about when a manuscript was discovered, that is misinformed. If one side is found to be lying, that's another matter.

Much of the conversation seems to surround interpretation of historical facts, and of course one's interpretation will depend on one's doctrinal presuppositions. I appreciate the need for forceful language at times. This is an extremely important matter.

And Daniel, I'm surprised that you were turned off to further investigation by rhetoric. The truth is the truth and one should never stop seeking. I hope that you settled the matter for yourself based on conviction rather than just being turned off by people's ways and words.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think it would be best to keep the conversation to one's personal interpretation of the data, and to pointing out actual, provable erroneous claims. If one side speaks mistakenly, for example, about when a manuscript was discovered, that is misinformed. If one side is found to be lying, that's another matter.
> 
> Much of the conversation seems to surround interpretation of historical facts, and of course one's interpretation will depend on one's doctrinal presuppositions. I appreciate the need for forceful language at times. This is an extremely important matter.



The first paragraph is about actual, provable erroneous claims. I agree we should focus on that. You then say that "much of the conversation" surrounds the interpretation of historical facts. 

So which is it? Are we engaging in facts or the interpretation of facts? Both have their place but it looks like you shifted gears.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> And Daniel, I'm surprised that you were turned off to further investigation by rhetoric. The truth is the truth and one should never stop seeking. I hope that you settled the matter for yourself based on conviction rather than just being turned off by people's ways and words.



Jeri, you have misread me. As I explained, I was turned off their position because I found it to be factually incorrect upon investigating it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jeri, you have misread me. As I explained, I was turned off their position because I found it to be factually incorrect upon investigating it.



I did miss it, thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 22, 2022)

And I do agree that the rhetoric itself does not necessarily make a position wrong. Some people who argue for EP have used rhetoric that I cannot condone, but that does not make the position mistaken. The problem with the rhetoric of the extreme TR/AV purists to which I alluded was that it went so far as to fall into the category of being profane, rather than simply being uncharitable. I would also add here that someone like Steve, as far as I am aware, has not used such rhetoric in any of his posts that I have read nor has he outrightly condemned other translations of the Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 22, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> I know I do not post very often but I would add my voice to those who believe the review posted here is unduly negative and, it appears to me, exaggerated. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the book but I plan to, and would not be put off of doing so by this review.
> 
> Just to choose one example, in the above section on Mr Mehrshahi's chapter, I believe it is both inflamatory and intellectually wrong to state he has committed "an outright lie" in the statement you quote. It is based on a very forced and, I think, misconstrued reading of his quote; even without the full context, it appears obvious to me that his statement has nothing to do with the separate point you are making. I do not think any objective reader would understand him to be saying that the CT is different from the TR in almost every verse. What he appears to be saying is that the critical text generally takes a small number of the available texts (presumably referencing, e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) as the authority and goes with their readings the vast majority of the time - nothing more and nothing less. It may be that in the majority of the text the CT manuscripts being referred to agree with the TR, but that does not make it factually wrong to say that the CT is generally based on the minority of available texts. The CT is generally based on those texts, both when they agree with the TR and when they do not agree with the TR. The crux of the matter is obviously where the manuscripts do not agree, and Mr Mehrshahi is simply making the point that where there is divergence, the CT generally goes with the minority manuscripts.
> 
> ...


A couple of points in response. Firstly, it is factually incorrect to state of an _eclectic_ text, based on _eclectic_ principles that it is _based on_ only a few manuscripts. That is factually wrong, in that it is precisely opposite to_ eclectic_ principles. There is no universe of discourse where that is a true statement. At the very least, it shows ignorance of the eclectic text position. It is also ironic, given that the TR is based on a very few manuscripts. The TR is not the Majority text. His comment seems to assume a Majority text argument, which is not consistent with the TR position, as I have noted previously. As for the proof texts, the OPC, PCA, URC and others (I know it is true of these at least) do not require subscription to the interpretation of the proof-texts as part of confessional subscription. 



danekristjan said:


> Rev. Keister, you made many fair points in your review. You are right to call out the in places absurd rhetoric. You are right to call out what is schismatic and divisive. However, accusing ordained ministers of "lying" is much different than boldly, manfully, or even sharply, refuting what you perceive as error.
> 
> I can only speak for myself. In your review of my chapter, you were correct that I misspoke. I don't know how I didn't catch my error to be honest. I should have added "*English speaking* reformed preaching", or left it as "the TR". Thank you for pointing out that error as others have. Perhaps I will make a video addressing some of the errors I made in my chapter.
> 
> To your point, I am all for repudiating much of the rhetoric in the TR movement. It is much needed. But we won't get anywhere if "you guys" on the "other side" employ the same rhetoric.


Dane, thanks very much for this. I appreciate your teachable spirit (which I find frankly rare in the TR movement). As I said in my response to Jeri, if one wants to substitute "untruth" for "lie" that is fine by me. I don't cling to a necessarily intentional untruth. However, there are definitely untruths in this book. And no one has yet even engaged on those particular points as to whether they are true or not. I will certainly not back down without logical refutation being part of it. 

As for rhetoric, as Daniel has pointed out now, I tried the gentle approach (for the most part) for the last 15 years, and got precisely nowhere with the points I was trying to make. The guys I have in mind never had their gloves on. I was fighting with cushioned gloves, and they were bare-knuckle. I took the gloves off on this review to hold up a mirror to the TR movement. This is the kind of thing the TR movement has been getting away with for decades now. But now that it threatens the peace of the church, my gloves come off. 

To others simply launching the ninth commandment violation response against me, mere assertion on your part will not move me one iota. You have to prove to me that I violated the ninth commandment. To do that, you will need to actually interact with what I wrote, and not just its tone. Otherwise, I will not answer such charges, which border on ninth commandment violations themselves.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> To others simply launching the ninth commandment violation response against me


I should not have said this in my post above. I sincerely ask your forgiveness and will delete that from my post so as not to introduce such into the thread.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Sep 22, 2022)

I am not a pastor or elder, but I do teach sunday school, and I have to brush up on topics. I've mispoken and misunderstood things I have taught on, or not researched them thoroughly enough. In fact, one example is I taught a series on "Why we can trust the Bible" and we looked at some of the disputed and difficult passages that are different between different Bible versions. I repeated the now I've realized unsubstantiated story about why I John 5:7 was included in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus. I heard it from Dan Wallace who cited Bruce Metzger, and even went as far as to look at Metzger and read it there. It was through the PuritanBoard I learned that this story has not been confirmed as truthful and that even Metzger has retracted it from later editions of the same works. I might have gotten there if I were researching for an academic paper, but I'm a laymen who is using the best sources I have available, which are not infallible.

Pastors of course have a special calling and have a lot to know -- and head knowledge is not their primary calling! Examination is thorough in many areas for would-be ministers, including in areas of bible, church history, theology, the confessions which interact with all of these, and so on. Most pastors are not experts in every area they have taken a position on. Just this past Lord's Day I was worshipping out of town at a church in my denomination and heard a defense for why we should have evening worship on the Sabbath, a position I heartily I agree with. In the course of arguing it, the minister said that Sunday morning and evening worship was the consistent pattern of the church from the Apostles up to and and including all branches of the Reformation and so we should follow their example. I'm not sure if this is true. I actually have been meaning to research this. But my hunch is that this is not true, though certainly Sunday evening worship has been much more common in past eras of the church than it is today. My pastor said the Septuagint was made at the direction of Alexander the Great. As far as I can tell, this is not true (but certainly, Alexander the Great's influence led to the translation of the Hebrew Bible to Greek and may have even been directed by his general's son). Are these examples of lies? Untruths? Being mislead? I'm not sure. Regardless, I think we have to admit that pastors make errors with regards to particulars just like the rest of us do. They should be held accountable.

I do think much greater precision is demanded in the context of writing a broadly published work like essays for his volume. I try to be careful about faithful representation with forum posts like this one, speaking to a friend, or whatever the case might be; but certainly, there is even greater precision demanded in a written context. The majority of contributors to this volume are not textual scholars. They are writing essays similar to what they would use to explain to their congregations why we use a particular Bible translation based on particular manuscripts. 

In a FCoS(C) congregation, I remember hearing lots of statements about the text of the Bible. It was hard not to hold to a TR position when you heard the TR consistently equated with the Confessional view, with the correct view, and others being problematic. But when I dug in and asked more questions, I found the arguments incomplete or inconclusive. This book is extremely helpful to me because I'm able to see these types of arguments I heard for years laid out and they can be responded to easier than in ad hoc conversations. I still have a deep respect for many TR advocates. I know several who are far more knowledgeable about the Bible and far more profitable servants of the Lord than I am. But I find nothing wrong with Lane's post, even as it critiques many men that the Lord has used in my life. 

There is a lot of heated rhetoric on this topic, which isn't surprising. We are talking about dearly held beliefs. It shouldn't be for only one side to be able to state things strongly. Yes let's be respectful, use charity, and
be accurate in our statements as much as we can, but we shouldn't be afraid to strongly state topics. I say this as someone who is actually quite "middle of the road" on this topic -- if the most faithful church in my area used the TR or the CT I would be okay with joining. It's low on my list, as I believe Bibles based on both traditions are faithful.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

Jake said:


> I repeated the now I've realized unsubstantiated story about why I John 5:7 was included in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus. I heard it from Dan Wallace who cited Bruce Metzger, and even went as far as to look at Metzger and read it there.



To be fair, Edward Hills said much the same, defending the KJV, on pg 162 of his KJV Defended:
"Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes."

I have not been able to find the location referred to in Erasmus' annotations to verify one way or the other.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> A couple of points in response. Firstly, it is factually incorrect to state of an _eclectic_ text, based on _eclectic_ principles that it is _based on_ only a few manuscripts. That is factually wrong, in that it is precisely opposite to_ eclectic_ principles. There is no universe of discourse where that is a true statement. At the very least, it shows ignorance of the eclectic text position. It is also ironic, given that the TR is based on a very few manuscripts. The TR is not the Majority text. His comment seems to assume a Majority text argument, which is not consistent with the TR position, as I have noted previously. As for the proof texts, the OPC, PCA, URC and others (I know it is true of these at least) do not require subscription to the interpretation of the proof-texts as part of confessional subscription.



I will refrain from getting too much into the specifics. You can quibble about one's choice of words but I think it is pretty clear what point Mr Mehrshahi was making in the sentence at issue - that where there is a divergence in manuscript families, the CT position generally follows the "minority" position (i.e. relying heavily on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). To prove his statement is factually wrong, that is what one would need to disprove. It is well and good to refer to the CT as an "eclectic" text, in the sense that the textual critics looked at a lot of manuscripts, but if in fact they gave outsized weight to a small number of these where there are differences, then the substance of his statement is true. In any event, I don't think he conflates the TR and MT positions (he works closely with TBS and is well-versed in all of this) - but TR proponents still recognise the TR stands much closer to the majority of extant manuscripts than what the CT has arrived at, and I see no irony in it being pointed out.

But my main point was that to say the statement was an "outright lie" is just not defensible. In your subsequent responses you seem to view the concerns we have expressed on this point as unimportant, and you seem to view "lie", "untruth" and "factually incorrect" as basically interchangeable, as though if someone doesn't like the word "lie" they can just mentally substitute a different phrase. But you must know that "committing an outright lie" carries a very different moral connotation than being "factually incorrect" (which is still debatable in any event and I think that, in this instance at least, you are misunderstanding/misconstruing the writer's position), and accusing a minister of "committing an outright lie" is a serious charge. It is not just a bit of colourful rhetorical flourish. And I think you should be much more sober minded in making such charges.

No doubt some will say that this is just a deflection from the issues at hand, focusing on your manner of expression rather than the substance, or that we are being prickly about criticism. But I do not think that is the case at all. As I said before, robust criticism (even with powerful language) is fair game; but making unwarranted and inapt charges of "lying" is not, and I don't really think it helps your cause.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2022)

Lane (@greenbaggins ), all, I got an email from Pastor Rob McCurley. Someone snipped portions of the review and sent them to him. He disagrees with the criticisms sent him, was not fazed by them, nor by the harsh language, and thought the diligent reader could discern the rebuttals he would give. I’m not posting the note because Rob is not an internet warrior and I’m not taking this up by proxy. I had determined not to say anything at all for this reason, but I changed my mind to say this much to ward off any more sharers of info; he knows; he’s not upset with criticism per se; neither is he upset or concerned by the strong language used. That was a part of the discussion, which I moderatorally approved, but as far as he’s concerned at least, he’s not bothered by it. He also said that he bears no ill-will toward Lane. Folks who've read both the review and Pastor McCurley's chapter certainly feel free to agree or disagree with the review; this is not meant to squash discussion. But I thought it important to pass along the things noted.

Reactions: Like 9 | Love 1 | Informative 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 22, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> I will refrain from getting too much into the specifics. You can quibble about one's choice of words but I think it is pretty clear what point Mr Mehrshahi was making in the sentence at issue - that where there is a divergence in manuscript families, the CT position generally follows the "minority" position (i.e. relying heavily on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). To prove his statement is factually wrong, that is what one would need to disprove. It is well and good to refer to the CT as an "eclectic" text, in the sense that the textual critics looked at a lot of manuscripts, but if in fact they gave outsized weight to a small number of these where there are differences, then the substance of his statement is true. In any event, I don't think he conflates the TR and MT positions (he works closely with TBS and is well-versed in all of this) - but TR proponents still recognise the TR stands much closer to the majority of extant manuscripts than what the CT has arrived at, and I see no irony in it being pointed out.
> 
> But my main point was that to say the statement was an "outright lie" is just not defensible. In your subsequent responses you seem to view the concerns we have expressed on this point as unimportant, and you seem to view "lie", "untruth" and "factually incorrect" as basically interchangeable, as though if someone doesn't like the word "lie" they can just mentally substitute a different phrase. But you must know that "committing an outright lie" carries a very different moral connotation than being "factually incorrect" (which is still debatable in any event and I think that, in this instance at least, you are misunderstanding/misconstruing the writer's position), and accusing a minister of "committing an outright lie" is a serious charge. It is not just a bit of colourful rhetorical flourish. And I think you should be much more sober minded in making such charges.
> 
> No doubt some will say that this is just a deflection from the issues at hand, focusing on your manner of expression rather than the substance, or that we are being prickly about criticism. But I do not think that is the case at all. As I said before, robust criticism (even with powerful language) is fair game; but making unwarranted and inapt charges of "lying" is not, and I don't really think it helps your cause.


In context, Mr. Mehrshahi was contrasting the TR as a whole from the CT as a whole. That this is proven is clear from the immediately preceding sentence, where he plainly contrasts the two: "The Received Text is _*mainly based* on the vast majority of extant readings_. It is _the fullest and most authentic text_, which has been preserved by God and used by the true people of God. The critical text is _*generally*_ based on the minority of available texts" (emphasis added). He cannot possibly mean that the CT is based only in the variants on the minority of texts. He has to mean that the entirety of the CT is based only on a few manuscripts. It is actually quite clear that he means what I said he means. It is equally clear that such a claim is completely wrong. Jie-Huli, if I am to be more sober-minded in such judgments, then what about these claims from the TR folk that are so completely out of court that they cannot possibly be said to be sober-minded?


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> “If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice” (255). This is a first-order issue for them. It is worth leaving a church over, at least for some people. This is divisive. Even entertaining the possibility that someone should leave a church over this issue is something I find objectionable. If someone objects, "But this is Scripture we are talking about!" My answer is simple. The objection assumes that the TR has Scripture and no one having a Bible based on the CT has the Scripture at all. The issue is not whether someone has Scripture at all, but whether the differences between TR and CT are worth leaving a church over. In my opinion they are not.


How does this avoid the label of TR- Onlyism (which currently defaults to KJVO)? Lane I at least concur with you that this is highly divisive to the body. We are dealing with manuscripts that themselves have variants! Thanks for reviewing, the portion I quoted from you above is the most disheartening quote you cited, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I also find it mind-blowing that they suggest “If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice” (255). This is a first-order issue for them. It is worth leaving a church over, at least for some people. This is divisive. Even entertaining the possibility that someone should leave a church over this issue is something I find objectionable.


I didn’t catch this on my first read through.

For context, at the end of the book there is given a step-by-step process for an “average church member” (254) “who would like to see the church reconsider its position on the text of scripture” (ibid). After you give this book to your pastor, and follow-up with him a couple months after, “if there is no openness to change [on his part]…you should begin considering your ability to remain in your church as a faithful member while holding a different opinion on this particular issue. If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice. The online “TR-friendly Church Directory” may be a helpful resource in such a case” (255).

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I didn’t catch this on my first read through.
> 
> For context, at the end of the book there is given a step-by-step process for an “average church member” (254) “who would like to see the church reconsider its position on the text of scripture” (ibid). After you give this book to your pastor, and follow-up with him a couple months after, “if there is no openness to change [on his part]…you should begin considering your ability to remain in your church as a faithful member while holding a different opinion on this particular issue. If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice. The online “TR-friendly Church Directory” may be a helpful resource in such a case” (255).
> 
> I’ll sleep on it before I give my thoughts.


The more I think about this, the worse it seems.

This book—this movement—is more or less telling Christians to divide over textual issues. The implications are staggering.

I wanted to look at Jeff Riddle’s church’s website to see what they say publicly.

In its “What We Believe” section, this is included:

“Our church's doctrinal statement also affirms "The providential preservation of God's Word in the received or traditional text of Scripture. We shall prefer to make use of Bible translations based on the traditional text of Scripture in our public teaching and worship."”

I’m assuming the eldership at this church must hold to this if it is an essential part of their doctrine.

Two questions:

1. Would this go beyond the biblical qualifications of an elder, to add this as necessary to eldership? Is it wrong to have this as a qualification? They would say it’s an essential part of the faith apparently.

2. What would you do if you were a member of their congregation? Leaving aside how you came to be there, what would you do now?









What We Believe


What does CRBC believe? Christ Reformed Baptist Church is a robustly confessional body of believers. We believe in the infallibility, total trustworthiness, and sufficiency of Scripture. We are...



www.christreformedbaptist.org

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 23, 2022)

Yeah I am very very unhappy with the divisive advice given at the back personally. I was heartbroken when my copy arrive and I read those words in the back.

Under no circumstances should a church member ever, ever leave a church merely over what translation of the Bible it employs in its preaching and teaching. Ever. The issue of what text one uses is, at best, at BEST, tertiary.

(For syllable catchers: with the obvious modifier that the texts and translations are those common, conservative, faithful Texts and translations)

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> In context, Mr. Mehrshahi was contrasting the TR as a whole from the CT as a whole. That this is proven is clear from the immediately preceding sentence, where he plainly contrasts the two: "The Received Text is _*mainly based* on the vast majority of extant readings_. It is _the fullest and most authentic text_, which has been preserved by God and used by the true people of God. The critical text is _*generally*_ based on the minority of available texts" (emphasis added). He cannot possibly mean that the CT is based only in the variants on the minority of texts. He has to mean that the entirety of the CT is based only on a few manuscripts. It is actually quite clear that he means what I said he means. It is equally clear that such a claim is completely wrong. Jie-Huli, if I am to be more sober-minded in such judgments, then what about these claims from the TR folk that are so completely out of court that they cannot possibly be said to be sober-minded?


This really does feel like words over substance. I am sure he knows the textual critics who feed into the CT position have looked at lots of manuscripts. For the sake of argument, let's posit that the minority CT manuscripts we know he is referring to (e.g. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) overlap with the TR or MT 90% of the time (obviously not the real numbers, this is just for the sake of demonstration). If the CT position matches up with this 90% (which does include the minority manuscripts) and also generally matches up with the minority manuscripts in the 10% of instances where they differ from the TR or MT, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is "generally based on" the minority of available texts, meaning the CT generally follows / relies especially on the minority of manuscripts. You could argue it would be better to say "generally follows" or "relies on", but it hardly seems worth making such a big point out of this one sentence, especially to the point of calling it an "outright lie".

Obviously summary statements always risk oversimplification. We all know there are complexities and nuances to all of this. (Westcott and Hort did not follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus 100% of the time, for example). But I think the thrust of what Mr Mehrshahi was saying is quite well known - a minority of old manuscripts were given special weight in the CT position. There can be debates about why that was, the rightness or wrongness of it, their various other principles of textual criticism, etc. . . . as there always have been.

I am happy to leave it there from my perspective . . . people can read and judge all of this for themselves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 23, 2022)

Going back to the point about accusing godly men of lying, we must keep in mind that even men of exemplary godliness can be given to such sins. King David was a man after God's own heart, yet telling lies appears to have been one of his besetting sins. Others among us likewise struggle with lust, pride, unjust anger, and much else. I do not think that we should go overboard on this point, though, as not every factual error constitutes a lie. Conversely, when people say things to the effect that a certain text/translation undermines the deity of Christ when it demonstrably does not, then I believe that it is fair enough to call that statement a lie. As Christians, we are to place a high value on truth and facts and not be like those who, to borrow a phrase from the AV, follow "cunningly devised fables" - even when such cunningly devised fables reinforce our opinions.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 23, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Yeah I am very very unhappy with the divisive advice given at the back personally. I was heartbroken when my copy arrive and I read those words in the back.
> 
> Under no circumstances should a church member ever, ever leave a church merely over what translation of the Bible it employs in its preaching and teaching. Ever. The issue of what text one uses is, at best, at BEST, tertiary.
> 
> (For syllable catchers: with the obvious modifier that the texts and translations are those common, conservative, faithful Texts and translations)


Who would have written those words in the back?? That is very disturbing. My copy of the book arrives today, I look forward to reading. 

I will say that the contributors to the book would not necessarily have known of this. I know our ministers would never make such a recommendation. I can also say that I have never known of this issue being raised since my time in the FCC. No one has ever inquired into what translation I use privately or at church for that matter. I have found a grand total of 2 sermons from FCC ministers (in our U.S. presbytery at least) on the topic and those are from almost a decade ago.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 23, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Who would have written those words in the back?? That is very disturbing. My copy of the book arrives today, I look forward to reading.
> 
> I will say that the contributors to the book would not necessarily have known of this. I know our ministers would never make such a recommendation. I can also say that I have never known of this issue being raised since my time in the FCC. No one has ever inquired into what translation I use privately or at church for that matter. I have found a grand total of 2 sermons from FCC ministers (in our U.S. presbytery at least) on the topic and those are from almost a decade ago.


Ultimately the blame can be placed with Mcshaffrey and Riddle since they edited the work. I agree, the other contributors didn't necessarily know about it. Same with the Satan's Bible comment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

It grieves me, brothers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ulsterscot (Sep 23, 2022)

"His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture."

Well there goes the Westminster Divines and their gross Scripture twisting. The only proof text recorded in support of "and by his singular care and providence, kept pure...." is Matt 5:18.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 23, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture."
> 
> Well there goes the Westminster Divines and their gross Scripture twisting. The only proof text recorded in support of "and by his singular care and providence, kept pure...." is Matt 5:18.


I do not agree with the Westminster divines at all in attaching this text to WCF 1.8 as a proof text. The text is not talking about textual preservation, but rather the enduring of the law in opposition to false charges laid against Jesus for supposedly abolishing the observance of the law. Of course, we know that observance changes from OT context to NT context, but that does not abolish it.


----------



## Ulsterscot (Sep 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I do not agree with the Westminster divines at all in attaching this text to WCF 1.8 as a proof text. The text is not talking about textual preservation, but rather the enduring of the law in opposition to false charges laid against Jesus for supposedly abolishing the observance of the law. Of course, we know that observance changes from OT context to NT context, but that does not abolish it.
> 
> Clearly, but my point was in a post that you are concerned about rhetoric, you may be guilty of the very thing you allege. I simply pointed out your comment and the Westminster Divines conviction concerning that text. It would seem they disagree with your limitation of the application of that text. Your charge is of their gross scripture twisting.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 23, 2022)

John Owen viewed Matthew 5:18 as relevant to the providential preservation of scripture. One may, of course, hold that view of the text without subscribing to the idea that providential preservation applies exclusively to the TR. And let us not allow ourselves to get distracted by this minor point. Lane's comments on this verse made up only a small section of a very lengthy review.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 23, 2022)

You say, "Clearly, but my point was in a post that you are concerned about rhetoric, you may be guilty of the very thing you allege. I simply pointed out your comment and the Westminster Divines conviction concerning that text. It would seem they disagree with your limitation of the application of that text. Your charge is of their gross scripture twisting."

My response, in addition to reminding you that you need to obey the signature requirements (as we do not allow anonymous posting, in general terms), is that my concern is far more with substance than with rhetoric. Yes, I object to much of the rhetoric. I am more concerned with the untruths (especially the misrepresentation of non-TR folk, which NO ONE has yet addressed), the lack of nuance (which no one has addressed), the lumping of all non-TR folk into one enslaved-to-WH group (which no one has addressed), and other such problematic elements of what is said.

There appears to be little attempt on the part of anyone to address those main concerns of mine. Some have addressed individual small points, but not what I regard as the heart of matter, which is all the problems with this book.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Sep 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> ...you need to obey the signature requirements (as we do not allow anonymous posting, in general terms)...


I believe @Ulsterscot is Gavin Beers, one of the contributors or the book in question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Sep 23, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> And let us not allow ourselves to get distracted by this minor point. Lane's comments on this verse made up only a small section of a very lengthy review.


It is far from a distraction since Lane wrote "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is _a gross twisting of Scripture_." I do not have the book so I have refrained from discussing his review but I could not allow this point to stand without a response.

Perhaps the book is as terrible as he says, but this is an ugly review.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

Poimen said:


> It is far from a distraction since Lane wrote "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is _a gross twisting of Scripture_." I do not have the book so I have refrained from discussing his review but I could not allow this point to stand without a response.
> 
> Perhaps the book is as terrible as he says, but this is an ugly review.


How can you assess a review without looking at the book?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 23, 2022)

I’m just curious: would someone be so kind as to point me to a post in which one of our resident TR/KJVonlyists has *condemned* language from their sides to the effect that the rest of us use a Satanic perversion of the Bible?

Not the back peddling in this thread that has been brought about by Lane’s brave review… no, prior to it. Show me, please. 

And then I’ll be interested in hearing their criticisms of Lane’s choice of words in regards to their thought leaders.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I believe @Ulsterscot is Gavin Beers, one of the contributors or the book in question.


I wouldn’t think so. That doesn’t strike me as how he would comment—from what I gather from his sermon delivery.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 23, 2022)

Poimen said:


> It is far from a distraction since Lane wrote "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is _a gross twisting of Scripture_." I do not have the book so I have refrained from discussing his review but I could not allow this point to stand without a response.
> 
> Perhaps the book is as terrible as he says, but this is an ugly review.



In relation to the entire review, it is a relatively minor point. If we were to omit that section entirely, it would make little difference to the substance of Lane's review. To be truthful, I agree with Lane that appealing to Matthew 5:18 *to justify the exclusive claims of the TR* is a misinterpretation of scripture. Still, as I have said a couple of times already, I do believe that we may appeal to that verse to justify the concept of providential preservation. I think that Lane's case would have been stronger if he had confined his remarks regarding Rev. McCurley's use of Matthew 5:18 to support what Lane sees as his overly narrow view of providential preservation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Poimen (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> How can you assess a review without looking at the book?


As I said this point required a rejoinder. And the review loses its credibility not merely because of one point but because he has been corrected on it and refuses to acknowledge the inflammatory and misleading language.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I wouldn’t think so. That doesn’t strike me as how he would comment—from what I gather from his sermon delivery.


See this post.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 23, 2022)

*Moderating. *Both sides have done the "he said that and therefore nothing else he's said I'm listening to". That's fallacious on either side. At least some authors of the book have lamented the "satan's bible" and separatistic tone of the book in which their chapters appeared. Has the pro review side been as willing to lament the tone of Lane's review which he himself owns was written in anger,? So, how do we move off the outrage over missteps on either side that are not the main point and address actual arguments? Ponder that and act accordingly; otherwise, this is going nowhere In my humble opinion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 23, 2022)

So much pearl clutching going on. If you all have a refutation of what was written, now would be the time to state it. If all that can be done is get offended, then perhaps the points Lane made are completely valid/on target?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 23, 2022)

Pausing. Unpausing. Sorry folks. Fell asleep. Let's all move beyond the way some things have been said; otherwise, the end result is it shuts down the discussion of the arguments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 24, 2022)

There's a lot of good discussion about Matthew 5:18 as a proof text for providential preservation in this thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...vidential-preservation-of-tr-tradition.97375/

I thought this was helpful to the discussion: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-6#post-1190510

A similar analog to Matthew 5:18 being the proof text for the relevant portion of WCF 1:7 is that Matthew 6:11 is the proof text for daily family worship. I don't think this is primarily what the Lord is teaching us in by "give us this day our daily bread" but it certainly applies in a spiritual sense, and taken together with what is being hung on this doctrine it makes sense to reflect on this if you want a single verse.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 24, 2022)

Jake said:


> I thought this was helpful to the discussion: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-6#post-1190510


Just an observation, one effect of my obscenely high post count on PB is the lack of recollection of writing much of them; this is a case in point.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Poimen said:


> As I said this point required a rejoinder. And the review loses its credibility not merely because of one point but because he has been corrected on it and refuses to acknowledge the inflammatory and misleading language.


Since you have panned the entire review as "ugly" (ironically an ugly thing to say), I don't think any backtracking on my part would alter your opinion of it. You would find some other reason to reject the whole without addressing the substance of the misrepresentations, lack of nuance, untruths, etc. Never mind that such is illogical. 

As I said in a previous post, this review was supposed to act in part like a mirror. Non-TR folk have not exactly been treated well by the strong/extreme TR crowd for quite some time (and the rhetoric from the strong/extreme TR crowd dwarfs anything I said in the review by miles and for decades). But by all means ignore the log in the TR eye in your quest to seek for the speck in the non-TR eye. I could just as easily reply that your failure to note the problems in the TR position makes your panning of my review lose its credibility.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 24, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Just an observation, one effect of my obscenely high post count on PB is the lack of recollection of writing much of them; this is a case in point.


Hey if we keep having "fun" topics like this my post count will be up there with you soon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 24, 2022)

Jake said:


> Hey if we keep having "fun" topics like this my post count will be up there with you soon.


Alas, even as a 12-year member (granted, I took about a 5 year hiatus), I still need 29 more posts just to reach the mere rank of Senior... So I'm always glad to glom onto posts like yours to eek out one more irrelevant posting in my painstaking quest for greater PB status, and eventual internet immortality...


----------



## Poimen (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Since you have panned the entire review as "ugly" (ironically an ugly thing to say), I don't think any backtracking on my part would alter your opinion of it. You would find some other reason to reject the whole without addressing the substance of the misrepresentations, lack of nuance, untruths, etc. Never mind that such is illogical.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, this review was supposed to act in part like a mirror. Non-TR folk have not exactly been treated well by the strong/extreme TR crowd for quite some time (and the rhetoric from the strong/extreme TR crowd dwarfs anything I said in the review by miles and for decades). But by all means ignore the log in the TR eye in your quest to seek for the speck in the non-TR eye. I could just as easily reply that your failure to note the problems in the TR position makes your panning of my review lose its credibility.


As you note in your initial post, we ought not to lump everyone in one basket simply they have similar or even identical concerns or convictions. Do you even know what my convictions are?

For the record, I am a strong TR-advocate and I think the position is defensible but I am not the man for the job. Moreover, I have not read the book so I am no place to agree with you about your criticism in _substance_ but in manner, especially due to your gross overstatement concerning Matthew 5:18 with respect to Mr. McCurley's engagement of it in his argument. Nor _did_ I wish to get involved in this issue but, in my opinion, you have crossed a line in the tone of your post. Now that you refuse to draw back I think I am entirely justified in reacting the way that I did. It was not just what you wrote that provoked me but your continual defense of it in light of how it been falsified (or at least undermined).

Perhaps I should have clarified but in case there is any misinterpretation I think your review is _ugly _in spirit, not in logic.

Am I not allowed to engage some of your words without engaging all? There is no moral or logical requirement for me to engage in every aspect of your review. I am convicted, however, that men whom I take to be in good standing in the church should be defended against misrepresentations and wild accusations (though, again, not their convictions).

Personally, I have always found you to be a reasonable person in all of your interactions. I can also understand how your buttons might be pushed and you thought a strongly worded response was necessary. And I have no problem with strong opinions but not when they veer into this kind of territory. Be a better or bigger man, amend the post, and let it stand or fall on its own merits without the rhetoric.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Poimen said:


> I can also understand how your buttons might be pushed and you thought a strongly worded response was necessary.


Does this constitute an acknowledgement of the many problems in how TR advocates have expressed themselves? Just to be clear, it is my opinion (being on the receiving end of this for years now) that TR misrepresentation, distortion, etc. far outdoes anything I've said. With the measure you use, etc. from the Sermon on the Mount. If it is your considered opinion that I have crossed the line, it is my opinion that TR advocates have crossed the line thousands of times, and with far more heated rhetoric. If you are acknowledging this, then I am content to modify that part of the review. It could be stated more accurately.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Does this constitute an acknowledgement of the many problems in how TR advocates have expressed themselves? Just to be clear, it is my opinion (being on the receiving end of this for years now) that TR misrepresentation, distortion, etc. far outdoes anything I've said. With the measure you use, etc. from the Sermon on the Mount. If it is your considered opinion that I have crossed the line, it is my opinion that TR advocates have crossed the line thousands of times, and with far more heated rhetoric. If you are acknowledging this, then I am content to modify that part of the review. It could be stated more accurately.


While I share your sentiment concerning the absurd polemic from many on the TR, I'd encourage you to edit some of your more problematic word choices. There is little to be gained in a back and forth over word choice while the substance is ignored. It perpetuates the cycle. Break the cycle. Yes, the most bombastic are often the most thin-skinned, but that reality isn't germane to discussing the actual substance of the review and being satisfied with hollow acknowledgements runs the risk of being seen as petty.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 24, 2022)

Lane, I would recommend dropping the point about Matthew 5:18. When I first read the review, I knew that people would run with this point because the WCF uses that verse as a proof-text for providential preservation. (Yes, I know providential preservation does not equate with the TR, but I presume that you get my point.)


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Certainty is, I believe, a common idol among TR advocates. If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word. One of his criticisms of the CT is that “there are many uncertainties in the Critical Text” (p. 121).



Hi, Rev. Keister. If I can just single out this statement of yours from the original review, I get that the following is fallacious: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word." That is, no one has to become a capable apologete, theologian, or philosopher before one _has_ God's word.

On the other hand, suppose we reformulate the statement: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't [_*know* that we_] have God's Word." Let's set aside that "knowledge" can have a range of meanings and focus on just this meaning (which is not clearly fallacious, even if it turns out to be unsound). 

That is, do you think that epistemic certainty is not a worthy goal? Is epistemic certainty unobtainable in this domain? Is this one difference between what a TR-advocate would claim about providential preservation and what you would claim? Thank you.



As an aside: most of this thread has been a chore to read (for me, at least). As an interested observer, is there anyone who is willing to attempt a rebuttal of the _substance_ of the original post?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Does this constitute an acknowledgement of the many problems in how TR advocates have expressed themselves? Just to be clear, it is my opinion (being on the receiving end of this for years now) that TR misrepresentation, distortion, etc. far outdoes anything I've said. With the measure you use, etc. from the Sermon on the Mount. If it is your considered opinion that I have crossed the line, it is my opinion that TR advocates have crossed the line thousands of times, and with far more heated rhetoric. If you are acknowledging this, then I am content to modify that part of the review. It could be stated more accurately.


No. Though I am certain, human nature being what it is, that many TR advocates have expressed themselves inappropriately and perhaps as often as you claim. But I have not engaged much if any in these threads in the past or other online discussion. Most of my convictions come from literature so I am not in a place to own (or own up to) anything from those who share my convictions. I do not represent anyone here but myself. 

Forgive me if it feels as if I am picking on you (and just so there are no misunderstandings I say that sincerely and not sarcastically) but I am simply responding in the context of this thread which you started. As such, I would rather that you modify your review because of a spirit wrought conviction, than one that requires some redress from others before your own. And, as an expression of true contriteness, I believe we would all gain good from it, regardless of how others respond. 

However, your statements do cause me to consider how much my convictions may cause me to overlook such rhetoric from those who hold to the same convictions as I, in which case I should be more sensitive to it in the future.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

MarrowMan said:


> While I share your sentiment concerning the absurd polemic from many on the TR, I'd encourage you to edit some of your more problematic word choices. There is little to be gained in a back and forth over word choice while the substance is ignored. It perpetuates the cycle. Break the cycle. Yes, the most bombastic are often the most thin-skinned, but that reality isn't germane to discussing the actual substance of the review and being satisfied with hollow acknowledgements runs the risk of being seen as petty.


While I don't exactly see a "cycle" going on here (generally speaking, it is decidedly one-sided), my critique of McCurley still points out plenty of real problems without the Mt 5:18 point. I still believe that text is NOT talking about providential preservation, let alone being a prophecy of the TR fifteen centuries before its existence, as some seem to think. 


Reformed Covenanter said:


> Lane, I would recommend dropping the point about Matthew 5:18. When I first read the review, I knew that people would run with this point because the WCF uses that verse as a proof-text for providential preservation. (Yes, I know providential preservation does not equate with the TR, but I presume that you get my point.)


I have done so. 


Knight said:


> Hi, Rev. Keister. If I can just single out this statement of yours from the original review, I get that the following is fallacious: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word." That is, no one has to become a capable apologete, theologian, or philosopher before one _has_ God's word.
> 
> On the other hand, suppose we reformulate the statement: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't [_*know* that we_] have God's Word." Let's set aside that "knowledge" can have a range of meanings and focus on just this meaning (which is not clearly fallacious, even if it turns out to be unsound).
> 
> ...


We have certainty that God's Word is in the apographs. We don't need certainty in a particular manuscript or edition. God's Word says NOTHING about having certainty in a _particular edition_ of the Greek NT. The main difference here is that the TR proponents say that we have epistemic certainty in a particular edition, and in a particular, narrow set of manuscripts. 



Poimen said:


> No. Though I am certain, human nature being what it is, that many TR advocates have expressed themselves inappropriately and perhaps as often as you claim. But I have not engaged much if any in these threads in the past or other online discussion. Most of my convictions come from literature so I am not in a place to own (or own up to) anything from those who share my convictions. I do not represent anyone here but myself.
> 
> Forgive me if it feels as if I am picking on you (and just so there are no misunderstandings I say that sincerely and not sarcastically) but I am simply responding in the context of this thread which you started. As such, I would rather that you modify your review because of a spirit wrought conviction, than one that requires some redress from others before your own. And, as an expression of true contriteness, I believe we would all gain good from it, regardless of how others respond.
> 
> However, your statements do cause me to consider how much my convictions may cause me to overlook such rhetoric from those who hold to the same convictions as I, in which case I should be more sensitive to it in the future.


Fair enough, but by the same token, then, you cannot regard my comments about crossing the line as being primarily addressed to you. If I can put a sliver of self-reflection and self-awareness into the TR camp by my review, then it will have been worthwhile. I have seen precious little of it in the past.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> We have certainty that God's Word is in the apographs. We don't need certainty in a particular manuscript or edition. God's Word says NOTHING about having certainty in a _particular edition_ of the Greek NT. The main difference here is that the TR proponents say that we have epistemic certainty in a particular edition, and in a particular, narrow set of manuscripts.



In the case of significant textual variants - variants that affect the meaning of a verse or passage - then, you would say that we can be certain God's word is preserved as one of those variants, right? Would you also say we can pinpoint with epistemic certainty which variant is God's word? If so, can you explain or point me to where your position would outline how this can be done?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Fair enough, but by the same token, then, you cannot regard my comments about crossing the line as being primarily addressed to you. If I can put a sliver of self-reflection and self-awareness into the TR camp by my review, then it will have been worthwhile. I have seen precious little of it in the past.


I don't and I thought that was clear. By speaking of representing myself I only meant in terms of speaking for a certain group, not for standing up for others whom I deem to be misrepresented. I matter not. You were criticising others, and I said that you should not do so in that manner.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Let me just make a general observation here. TR folk are blowing up at me wanting me to be winsome. The irony in the thread should be obvious. But I will go on to say that I know of no sector of the Christian world that has been less winsome in its presentation in general than the TR position (strong/extreme) has been. On many occasions, the behavior has been palpably un-Christian towards their brothers and sisters in Christ, accusing them of Satanic affiliation, liberalism, unbelief in God's providence, being uncaring of God's Word, slaves of WH, subtracting from Scripture (usually intentionally), and many other hate-filled accusations. At least, they sure feel hateful to those on the receiving end. So blowing up at me while not seeing these problems on your side of things has a name, and I will leave you to come up with that name. Some of you do see these problems, and I am grateful for it. But if you really truly think that the things I said are as problematic as the above accusations, then there is also a severe lack of discernment.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Knight said:


> In the case of significant textual variants - variants that affect the meaning of a verse or passage - then, you would say that we can be certain God's word is preserved as one of those variants, right? Would you also say we can pinpoint with epistemic certainty which variant is God's word? If so, can you explain or point me to where your position would outline how this can be done?


Yes, God's Word is one of the variants. In most cases we can pinpoint which variant, though there will still be some disagreement about it. How to find that variant is a long and complicated process that has many moving parts. I have explained it in other threads, which I recommend to you.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Let me just make a general observation here. TR folk are blowing up at me wanting me to be winsome. The irony in the thread should be obvious. But I will go on to say that I know of no sector of the Christian world that has been less winsome in its presentation in general than the TR position (strong/extreme) has been. On many occasions, the behavior has been palpably un-Christian towards their brothers and sisters in Christ, accusing them of Satanic affiliation, liberalism, unbelief in God's providence, being uncaring of God's Word, slaves of WH, subtracting from Scripture (usually intentionally), and many other hate-filled accusations. At least, they sure feel hateful to those on the receiving end. So blowing up at me while not seeing these problems on your side of things has a name, and I will leave you to come up with that name. Some of you do see these problems, and I am grateful for it. But if you really truly think that the things I said are as problematic as the above accusations, then there is also a severe lack of discernment.


One of the PB moderators, someone who like yourself I take to be a voice of reason, and in fact the first one to respond critically to your post, said your review was severe. But I see that as something different than calling for winsomeness, which I generally deride.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Poimen said:


> One of the PB moderators, someone who like yourself I take to be a voice of reason, and in fact the first one to respond critically to your post, said your review was severe. But I see that as something different than calling for winsomeness, which I generally deride.


Pretty sure this is missing my point. Whether you want to call it my stopping being "ugly in spirit" or "being more winsome," the former being a phrase you did use, and the latter merely being my paraphrase of what you meant, people have been calling for my being more winsome when understood in that way. It seems pedantic at this point to introduce a distinction between "being more winsome" in the way I was talking about versus "being more winsome" in the way you deride. May I ask if you are deriding my call for the TR position to be more winsome?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 24, 2022)

I hope we can settle this serious dispute amicably – and we ought to be, as we *all* acknowledge the word and Spirit of our King as our law and standard of conduct.

Lane has good and important – _crucial!_ – points to make when he says that condemning any of our Bibles as satanic, or delegitimizing their status as authentic Bibles within the context of Puritan Board – whose members use a variety of Bible versions, and some under the derogatory labels just mentioned – should be forbidden as divisive and destructive of the unique Reformed community we are. The same forbiddance would – or could – apply to local churches whose members use similar varieties of versions, that their “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3) not be broken.

As a serious and vigorous TR proponent this makes God-honoring sense to me, for if this “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” is not kept we will be a divided house which will not stand. There is a command that supersedes all the others – given sincere godliness – and that is, “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:13).

And as I am defending Lane in saying this, let me go back to Ephesians 4 and also cite from Eph 4:1, 2: that we walk worthy of the calling to which we are called, “With all lowliness (humility) and meekness (gentleness), with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love”.

For two years Lane has felt the oppression of a condemning spirit from the “strong” and “extreme” CBTR sectors – both as a churchman, and as an admin here – and the publication of a book, in parts, supporting this oppression, well, just sort of snapped something, like the straw that broke the camel’s back. *Even so*, Eph 4:2 is our law from the King. I do not believe any of the authors deliberately and knowingly lied – per Lane’s charge – and being self-deceived and/or mistaken is quite a different thing.

Even were these authors instead Muslim captors and guards mistreating him and his fellow prisoners, our marching orders are, to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt 5:44). I would say – as perhaps the eldest among us, not in wisdom or experience, but simply years (at 80) – that forgiveness ought to be asked of those defamed as liars, when the judgment of charity would say “mistaken”.

I have not always been, in Lane’s terminology, a “moderate” TR/AV sort. Perhaps 12, 13 years ago here, in a discussion regarding confessional adherence to the WCF at 1.8, pastor Fred Greco said to me, in effect, “If I, in good conscience and careful scholarship before my Lord, have a view of preservation different than yours, am I to be condemned as ‘unconfessional?’ ” Well, that powerfully affected me and raised my awareness, for I am not the lord over any man’s sincere and godly conscience. And in the years following the Lord has continued to work on my heart.

Pastoring in churches where a variety of versions are used, my focus was not to _require_ adherence to my views, but to build up the faith, understanding, and Christ-likeness of my brethren. Yes, I taught what I thought sound – in the area of textual criticism – but did not _require_ it. There was a freedom of conscience in such matters.

Yes, if there is a local church that believes this matter may be pretty much required of its membership – whatever version is in question – that is that church’s business before the Lord. There are many such churches. But not my church, where varying versions are used. My approach to this is well known here. Being here at PB has somewhat civilized me, being among gracious and godly men and women. I desire to see this community thrive, and it will only be done if we abide in the word of the Lord.

I love this PB community, and so does our King – may You work in our hearts, Lord, such as is pleasing to you.

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Poimen (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Pretty sure this is missing my point. Whether you want to call it my stopping being "ugly in spirit" or "being more winsome," the former being a phrase you did use, and the latter merely being my paraphrase of what you meant, people have been calling for my being more winsome when understood in that way. It seems pedantic at this point to introduce a distinction between "being more winsome" in the way I was talking about versus "being more winsome" in the way you deride. May I ask if you are deriding my call for the TR position to be more winsome?


Yes and I stand by that phrase. I used a strong word that fits the severe nature of your review. The call to "winsomeness" I deride because it often means do not say things that hurt other people's feelings or "offend" others so perhaps we understand it differently. 

To the question, a straight up no because, it seems to me that, I have no right to do so.


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Yes, God's Word is one of the variants. In most cases we can pinpoint which variant, though there will still be some disagreement about it. How to find that variant is a long and complicated process that has many moving parts. I have explained it in other threads, which I recommend to you.



Can you point me to something a bit more specific? One other statement in your review - "_I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves_." - gave me the impression that you believed we could not have such epistemic certainty from apographs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2022)

Rev. Keister, in your review of Rob McCurley's essay, you said,

"Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying 'Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the 'world's depraved assumptions' in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity."

I wanted to go ahead and interact with this, so I read Pastor McCurley's essay (just got the book yesterday).

The essay is titled "Scripture Identifies Scripture." Pastor McCurley fleshes out this title in the 5th paragraph of the essay. In this essay I see assertions and beliefs expressed which, if held with conviction, do have ramifications and consequences, and will lead to decided views on courses of action. They are logical, whether one agrees with his take on the main assertion expressed in the title, and with his beliefs and convictions surrounding it, or not. I did not see overblown rhetoric, but did see firm language, based on a real and present danger if Pastor McCurley is correct in his views. For context, I thought I'd briefly sum up the paragraphs preceding it.

The first paragraph comments on how Satan has attacked God's word from the beginning ("Yea hath God said...?") and that nothing has changed since that day. He notes that 4,000 years later, Paul was still warning the Corinthians, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3).

The second paragraph describes Satan's limited arsenal for assailing the Scriptures: limiting physical access to them, tempting men to turn away their hearts and minds from the truths of Scripture, and undermining men's confidence in the Scripture. "Given these varied assaults, we are warned to watch, to stand, and to resist."

The third paragraph describes Rev. McCurley's growing up like so many, with multiple translations in use in his home and church, but with no one to furnish the reasons or provide tools and resources to decipher and assess.

In the fourth paragraph he comments on his practice now, a few decades later: "I have served Christ in the gospel ministry for over 20 years. In my personal studies, our family worship, and in all aspects of my pastoral ministry, I confine myself to the Received Test in the original languages and to the English language translation based on that text, known as the Authorized (KJV) Version. This present volume seeks to supply an answer to the question: Why?"

In the fifth paragraph he gives his answer; this supplies the quote above from Lane in its context:

"What then is the answer? I preach from the Received Text out of personal conviction and commitment to biblical principle. I believe that the scriptures identify the text of Scripture. God alone supplies his word, specifies his word, and sustains his word. And he reveals that to us in the Bible. We ought to answer questions about the text and translation of Scripture based on the Bible itself. God has not left the church to the whim of computer geeks who must develop software and run algorithms in order to inform us what text should be included in our Bibles. Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions regarding God's word. We must look to the Lord and turn to our Bibles on matters of such enormous magnitude. The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, must receive the word that God provides."

These aren't words of overblown rhetoric in my opinion but rather is direct talk from a pastor's conviction that we must derive our doctrine of the preservation and purity of Scripture from Scripture itself; and that he sees the Bible's teaching to be such that we can know we have that preserved and pure Word in the RT. Yes, they are scathing words; but if he is correct in his doctrinal approach, then worldly methodologies and assumptions are indeed at work in the CT field, and 'depraved' is the strong, but accurate, definition of worldly things touching those things that are holy. I am sure we all admire stalwarts of the past who spoke so against threats to the church; so even if you don't believe Pastor McCurley is correct in his take, you can take into account that he is speaking in that admired vein, and charity "believing all things" will compel you to take mildly those descriptions and not apply them to yourselves.

My time is so limited to engage and I am so slow! I will have to leave it here as far as interacting with the review.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Jeri, are you seriously going to defend his rhetoric after bulldozing me for my far milder rhetoric? That is unbelievably offensive. You can't possibly interpret my rhetoric in the same vein as your pastor's, can you? I would like to know how "depraved" in describing the approach of Warfield, and the vast majority of today's Reformed scholars is ONE WHIT less objectionable than the Satan's Bible comment. I assure, to me, it is not. And not all your attempts to excuse it will move me one iota on that. You are demonstrating the exact tone-deafness I am trying to point out. You seem to think that any rhetoric is acceptable if the position is correct, but my rhetoric is unacceptable even if I am correct. But you can't see how uneven this playing field is?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Jeri, are you seriously going to defend his rhetoric after bulldozing me for my far milder rhetoric? That is unbelievably offensive. You can't possibly interpret my rhetoric in the same vein as your pastor's, can you? I would like to know how "depraved" in describing the approach of Warfield, and the vast majority of today's Reformed scholars is ONE WHIT less objectionable than the Satan's Bible comment. I assure, to me, it is not. And not all your attempts to excuse it will move me one iota on that. You are demonstrating the exact tone-deafness I am trying to point out. You seem to think that any rhetoric is acceptable if the position is correct, but my rhetoric is unacceptable even if I am correct. But you can't see how uneven this playing field is?


I'm not wanting to get into comparing rhetoric again; my aim was to highlight how the word depraved was being applied. It was not personal toward anyone doing CT work. It was describing worldly methods. Is there no Christian endeavor where you believe Christians are not employing worldly assumptions and methodologies in doctrinal matters? And is it fair to call worldly assumptions and methods in finding out the things of God 'depraved'? As someone who holds to a young earth (and six-day creation), I would say that Christians who interpret historical data as proving or implying evolution or an old earth are "employing the world's depraved assumptions" (those assumptions being that Genesis is not a factual account, for instance; or that scientific methods are to be trusted over the Bible).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 24, 2022)

The extracts given from Rev. McCurley are very useful for comprehending the tone of Lane's review. People need to understand if you are going to make charges as serious as the ones that he makes in his essay, you are going to receive very severe criticism in return. When you say such things in public, you open yourself up to public critique. I honestly do not see how Lane accusing Rev. McCurley of lying and scripture twisting is any worse than his implication that non-TR people are following Satan's lead and imbibing "the world's depraved assumptions." In fact, I think Lane's statements against one person are relatively moderate compared to those of Rev. McCurley against millions of sincere Bible reading and Bible-loving Christians.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I honestly do not see how Lane accusing Rev. McCurley of lying and scripture twisting is any worse than his implication that non-TR people are following Satan's lead and imbibing "the world's depraved assumptions."


Again, I really don’t want to get caught up in “which is worse.” And now you have added some implications by adding “following Satan’s lead” and the concept of “imbibing.” “Using” the methods and assumptions is more accurate. I would say this applies to many doctrinal issues where the church has reasoned herself out of the will of God areas of worship, for instance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 24, 2022)

Jeri, I will try one more time to communicate. And I will do so by reversing his language and applying it to the TR.

"What then is the answer? I preach from the ESV out of personal conviction and commitment to biblical principle. I believe that the scriptures identify the text of Scripture in the apographs, not in one edition. God alone supplies his word, specifies his word, and sustains his word. And he reveals that to us in the Bible. We ought to answer questions about the text and translation of Scripture based on the Bible itself. God has not left the church to the whim of computer geeks who must develop software and run algorithms in order to inform us what text should be included in our Bibles. Likewise, the believer does not depend upon the unbelieving methodology of the TR, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions used in the TR in grappling with textual questions regarding God's word."

I could make that argument, you know. The TR denies to ages previous to itself the purity it requires out of WCF 1.8. If the TR followers accuse the CT guys of shifting from apographs to autographs, the TR makes a mirror-image shift from manuscripts to editions. Manuscripts were good enough for the church for 1500 years. All of a sudden, afterwards, a group of people arbitrarily decide that God's providence has completely halted in the text-critical realm and no textual criticism should ever be done again. Too bad for the centuries previous. Too bad for any church not having a Byzantine manuscript. Their Christian experience is irrelevant. Their belief in God's word through Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is erroneous. This is a depraved viewpoint. Now do you understand? If you don't, I really don't know how I can make this any clearer.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 24, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Again, I really don’t want to get caught up in “which is worse.” And now you have added some implications by adding “following Satan’s lead” and the concept of “imbibing.” “Using” the methods and assumptions is more accurate. I would say this applies to many doctrinal issues where the church has reasoned herself out of the will of God in the use of worldly things.



If your summary of his opening paragraphs is accurate, then Robert McCurley's aim in defending the TR is not merely to assert that it is a more accurate text, a view with which very few of us have any serious problem, but that he needs to defend the TR from the Satanic attempt to undermine "men's confidence in scripture". In context, this statement has to mean that those who do not share his view of the TR are doing the work of Satan in undermining scripture.

Also, I regard the distinction between "using" and "imbibing" the "world's depraved assumptions" to be frivolous.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Sep 24, 2022)

@Jeri

Thanks for the summary. I'll refrain from commenting further on Rob's essay until I have the book to read, but I am concerned about the narrative being developed of Satan's deception and how that relates to non-TR based manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian R. (Sep 24, 2022)

Aren't we over analyzing a book that was never intended to be a robust defense of the TR position? These contributors were, for the most part, just providing their experiences and offering their reasons for preaching from the TR. Disliking their essays is fine, but I don't think we should pick apart every "jot and tittle" of a work that wasn't meant to be a high level scholarly account.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 24, 2022)

The fundamental issue is the move beyond a position that says "I think the TR position is generally (even almost universally) correct over against all other manuscripts" to "I believe principially that the TR position is the only possible vuew for Christians to hold." The problem with the latter view is that it is demonstrably NOT the position that the translators of the KJV took in the OT (though the former certainly is - in most cases, they adhered firmly to the MT, even where it is textually questionable). The proof text is Psalm 22:16, the end of which (as translated in most English versions) "they pierced my hands and my feet" is based on a tiny minority of MT manuscripts and the Septuagint. Indeed, Calvin was unaware of any Hebrew manuscripts with the Septuagint reading and still favored it, arguing that unbelieving Jews had tampered with the MT. At the very least, the MT could hardly have been said to be perfectly preserved within the believing community, most of whom had a strong preference for the Septuagint.

This is perhaps why the CB movement never talks about the text of the OT: it doesn't fit their presuppositions about preservation.

There is also another issue, which is, I think, why the CB movement is drawn toward KJV-O. Even if you establish a universally agreed Greek and Hebrew text, you still have to translate it into other languages, at which point there are sometimes different possible translation alternatives (have I ever made the point that translation is really hard?). So unless you baptize a particular English translation as perfectly inspired (something the framers of the Confession were not willing to do, appealing to the Greek and Hebrew as the ultimate standard), you are left with a certain level of epistemic uncertainty - similar to the present level of uncertainty in the text of Scripture: the central things are undeniably plain and clear, but there are enough knots and wrinkles to keep scholars busy until our Lord returns.

Reactions: Like 11 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 24, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> Aren't we over analyzing a book that was never intended to be a robust defense of the TR position? These contributors were, for the most part, just providing their experiences and offering their reasons for preaching from the TR. Disliking their essays is fine, but I don't think we should pick apart every "jot and tittle" of a work that wasn't meant to be a high level scholarly account.


A book that ends by calling Christian’s to leave their congregation if the leadership fails to move to using the TR should certainly be analyzed critically and heavily so. It is a very very serious matter. Sure every contributor may not agree, but this is 1 book that is intended to be in harmony. That level of a man-made requirement should be concerning for the average pastor and should also be a source of righteous anger for those charged to lead, guide, and protect their flocks.

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 1 | Amen 3


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 24, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> Aren't we over analyzing a book that was never intended to be a robust defense of the TR position? These contributors were, for the most part, just providing their experiences and offering their reasons for preaching from the TR. Disliking their essays is fine, but I don't think we should pick apart every "jot and tittle" of a work that wasn't meant to be a high level scholarly account.


The authors make assertions of things as fact, and imply or (come out and say) that the opposing views are compromising, liberal, worldly, or satanic. When others see what they call as “fact” as inaccurate, and call some of the authors out on a less than Christlike attitude, how is that not interacting with the testimony of the authors? If Dr. Ward, Pastor Everhard, and Pastor Keister see this as an incorrect and divisive polemic, do they not have the right to refute? Or do only Jeff Riddle and Christopher Myers have the right to attack another opinion “if they see it as a problem to the church?”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 24, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> A book that ends by calling Christian’s to leave their congregation if the leadership fails to move to using the TR should certainly be analyzed critically and heavily so. It is a very very serious matter. Sure every contributor may not agree, but this is 1 book that is intended to be in harmony. That level of a man-made requirement should be concerning for the average pastor and should also be a source of righteous anger for those charged to lead, guide, and protect their flocks.



And for this reason, Lane is being a faithful shepherd of the flock of God, over which the Holy Spirit has made him an overseer, in sounding an alarm about the evils of this book. If such a volume falls into the hands of unlearned and unstable people, it will cause untold damage in many Reformed churches.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2022)

Daniel, the apostle Peter did the work of Satan. More than once. So have I, so have we all. I’m probably doing it by keeping on with this thread (when I have duties I’m neglecting). It’s not blasting someone to the pit to speak this way.

Rev. Keister, you could certainly say that about the ESV and that would be your view. I would expect you’d be able to show how you derive your view from Scripture. Rev. McCurley did not develop in his short essay how he derives his view from Scripture, but he did say that is the basis for his position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 24, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> Aren't we over analyzing a book that was never intended to be a robust defense of the TR position? These contributors were, for the most part, just providing their experiences and offering their reasons for preaching from the TR. Disliking their essays is fine, but I don't think we should pick apart every "jot and tittle" of a work that wasn't meant to be a high level scholarly account.



The problem is that the book is commenting on issues that require a certain level of scholarly competence to discuss accurately and profitably.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Brian R. (Sep 24, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> A book that ends by calling Christian’s to leave their congregation if the leadership fails to move to using the TR should certainly be analyzed critically and heavily so. It is a very very serious matter. Sure every contributor may not agree, but this is 1 book that is intended to be in harmony. That level of a man-made requirement should be concerning for the average pastor and should also be a source of righteous anger for those charged to lead, guide, and protect their flocks.


I don't believe the book encouraged anyone to leave their congregations. It just said it could be a possibility if one could not in good conscience remain in their current local church. That's a bit different.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 24, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> I don't believe the book encouraged anyone to leave their congregations. It just said it could be a possibility if one could not in good conscience remain in their current local church. That's a bit different.


Was it then encouraging Christian’s to remain in churches that are using “Satan’s Bible” and liberal translations created by untrustworthy men?

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2022)

All: this thread was unpaused in order to provide opportunity to interact with Rev. Keister’s review. Yet here we are right back again at complaining and comparing about language and tone. Are we incapable to sticking to interaction with the review.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 24, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> I don't believe the book encouraged anyone to leave their congregations. It just said it could be a possibility if one could not in good conscience remain in their current local church. That's a bit different.


I agree that was put in a parentheses, BUT a far wiser council would have been to point out that this topic is not a primary issue. Rather is leaves the reader (of a burdened conscience) 1 option, leave. On this topic of leaving, I am alway reminded of my favorite A’ Brakel quote below:

This comes from Vol. 1 (TCRS) and is found in the Preface Biographical Sketch by Dr. W. Fiercest, page lxviii :

Dr. Fiercest:


> Rev. à Brakel, with the Labadists, confessed the corruption (“de verdorvenheyt”) of the church; she was corrupt from the head to the sole of the foot. The field of the Lord was filled with weeds and His threshing floor was filled with chaff. The vineyard of the Lord had become a wilderness; thorns and thistles were growing in it. After having enumerated a variety of sins which were committed by members of the church, giving a description of the government as not manifesting itself as the guardian of the church, and deploring the fact that so many ministers proved to be unfaithful shepherds, à Brakel writes:


Brakel:


> “Who would not weep when he thinks upon Zion and perceives that the Lord is departing from her?” Yet, departure from a church which is that corrupt is not permitted! “May we say that she is no longer the church of Christ due to her corruption? Shall we despise her? Shall we walk away from her? No, that is foolishness. It is certain that a corrupt church is nevertheless a church and that from the beginning until the present God has always permitted His church to be filled with many corruptions. Therefore, he who despises a church for its corruption acts contrary to God‟s Word and all experience, thereby denying her to be a church.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 24, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> All: this thread was unpaused in order to provide opportunity to interact with Rev. Keister’s review. Yet here we are right back again at complaining and comparing about language and tone. Are we incapable to sticking to interaction with the review.


The ball is in the CB court. 

I’d love to see the men on this board who wrote part of the book chime in.


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 24, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> I don't believe the book encouraged anyone to leave their congregations. It just said it could be a possibility if one could not in good conscience remain in their current local church. That's a bit different.


The book agitates for people to seek to change the minds of their elders and, ultimately, if they cannot to leave if they cannot submit to the pastor's decision and remain faithful members. Schism, even on an individual level is still schism. The early church didn't even find leaving over a bishop who denied Christ a good enough reason to depart from the Church. We are too often Donatists without recognizing it.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 24, 2022)

Well, clearly…

Lane has masterfully demonstrated that the entire exegetical, linguistic, historical, philosophical, and theological rationale used in the advocacy and defense of TRonlyism is spurious, if not fraudulent.

I trust that our TRonlyist brethren, being the clear-minded seekers of truth they are, will see that they have been misguided on nearly every point.

Well done, Lane!

Reactions: Like 2 | Wow 1


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

Knight said:


> Can you point me to something a bit more specific? One other statement in your review - "_I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves_." - gave me the impression that you believed we could not have such epistemic certainty from apographs.



It is okay to bump questions that may have been missed? If not, I guess a mod can delete this.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 24, 2022)

No problem reminding with bumping per se. But it's time to prepare for the Lord's Day (in the USA at least), so let's give this a rest and if there is an interest in discussion rather than agitation and flesh pleasing chest thumping, we'll take it up again on Monday. Pausing thread.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 26, 2022)

Thread reopened.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 26, 2022)

Perspective on the TR in the 20th and 21st centuries

Seeing as I supported Lane in his view regarding “strong” and “extreme” CBTR views condemning other versions as “satanic” or “illegitimate” Bibles *here on PB*, I want also to present a balanced perspective on this whole issue, including the TR generally.

Perhaps I have alienated some of my TR and AV friends with my stand, which I have explained earlier here – as apart from such a stand our house will be divided. But as regards Lane’s sense that he has been oppressed by TR views for a long while – let me give some perspective.

Here on PB I started posting on textual issues in 2006, to bring some light on the matter, which I had been studying for years. Yes, I was still in the rough in those days, and had much to learn, but had a basic grasp of the main issues.

Starting in the late 19th century, after Westcott and Hort finished their Greek Critical NT, and the English version of it was published, slowly the academics in the field of NT criticism began to believe that these new versions were superior – due to its claimed “neutral” Greek text – to the old Textus Receptus, and, with BB Warfield’s support for it, slowly it began to take the field, as it were.

In the following years textual critics and scholars – in the main – followed suit, though there were some scholars who strongly differed. It was the promise of a “neutral” uncorrupted text, with a new methodology for ascertaining the most reliable readings, that was the big draw. Seeing as how the Bible was under attack by liberals and rationalists, all sound scholars rightly were eager for withal to fight back. The TR/AV were set aside as inferior to the new critical text and English translations of it, in light of the new textual discoveries and attending theories.

When, in the 1970s the NASB came out, and slightly later, the NIV, these became very popular, and even Reformed preachers began using them. The word among scholars and textual critics was that the old Received Text – and its primary English translation, the KJV – were inferior and intrinsically flawed, and that the newer modern versions were far superior. Remember these words: *inferior* and *superior*. In the 1990s _déclassé_ would describe its standing among many pastors and scholars, and this was almost an established “truth” in most seminaries.

Puritan Board has been one of the very few places on the internet that gave a fair hearing to the TR/AV, and that is partly because we are conservative, confessional, and scholarly, a legacy of sorts of ours. Yes, there have been some overbearing TR/AV folks here, but of late I have not noticed any. Yes, on the internet there are many such, but not here, to my knowledge. I have not frequented Confessional Bibliology sites of late, as I am busy, and what with my age I don’t work quickly anymore, so my time is precious.

With the publication of the new TR book this seemed to introduce a new element *here*. I can understand that the articles in it were _not_ addressed to the PB, although some of the authors are members, but to the general Christian world to assertively push back against the label of *Inferior* so widely pronounced against the TR and its English AV translation. My brother, James White, pronounces this hard, with ridicule and condescension, and his influence is wide and deep. Now I like James, and would delight to have a peaceable meal with him, and consider him a stand-up brother in the current spiritual combat, yet he has almost single-handedly turned many against the Scripture editions many hold very dear. In truth, so intense has the opposition to the TR/AV been that it is little wonder some pastors and scholars feel *compelled* to counter this with their own views. I haven’t read the TR book, although I have a free pdf copy the publishers sent me, and have looked through it a bit, and I will get to it, but pdf books are hard for me to read (I’ll be glad to send a pdf copy to any here who ask me for it – it was a freebie from the publisher anyway).

My point is this: the TR/AV folks have long been an underdog and looked-down-upon class in the general Christian culture of seminary trained or influenced people – not to mention the books such write – so it’s healthy and appropriate to push back, and defend their views. Only it’s a shame there wasn’t better foresight in the editorial oversight, to cull out some extreme statements.

I don’t think Lane has been oppressed here on PB by such – or very little – extreme CBTR views, but rather is concerned that those views may enter into our PB community. But apart from the “strong” and “extreme” positions he’s said he’s okay with TR views here. And I’m with him on that. I would not allow _divisive and condemning_ teaching regarding *any* of our Bibles in my congregation, and likewise would counter such on PB.

That some folks here are dismayed when they hear a pastor say, “If in good conscience you have trouble with a church not holding to a TR/AV preference, it is okay to think about leaving, and finding a church that does hold to such”, I wonder how many of you have been to churches that belittle and ridicule the TR/AV? I have, and it detracts from the worship of our God, and offends our sense of reverence for His word. I could deal with it, but it is understandable why some don’t want to. After all, the TR/AV folks – just like the CT or ET folks – have reverence and love for the word of God they hold to be authentic and sacred, and are tired of the general Christian world declaring that their Bible is *Inferior* and *Unreliable *(not “satanic”, but still _a crushing judgment_!). Desiring a church that *respects* – does not belittle – what is sacred to them is not bad, but good.

I think it healthy that there is – here at PB – some pushback on the claimed excesses and _errors_ of said new book (I have not read it yet), but let’s get real – the TR/AV folks have endured an unwarranted disdain and condescension from their brethren for their love of the Reformation text from the Christian world generally (usually not here at PB, with some exceptions) and it is certainly understandable to want to hear preaching and teaching from the Bible they love and hold most dear to their hearts of all things on this earth.

*Inferior* and *Unreliable* – how is that much different from “satanic” and “illegitimate”? *All* our Bibles – CT, ET, TR, ESV, NIV, NASB, CSV, AV etc – are sacred to those who hold them and commune with their Lord through them.

Concerning the “strong” and “extreme” CBTR views: according to Lane’s definition of the “strong” – “the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them” – I’ve already discussed this earlier here; even the CT have asterisks regarding parts of the TR and AV. *Inferior and unreliable* are strong asterisks! Why should James White get a free pass, and not the TR folks? We can have strong doubts about versions due to their variants – all camps have this of other versions – and yet acknowledge they are sacred to their holders in good conscience before the Lord, and to honor them!

About even the “extreme” view per Lane: “all other Bibles [than the TR based are] based on Satan’s Bible”. This is certainly not a view I would tolerate among my flock, and would oppose it strongly here, yet it is _understandable_ for some to have this _feeling_ when considering the scandalous doings and purposes of some on the Westcott and Hort Revision Committee of 1871-1881, some aspects of which I have documented here. Lying and deceiving are satanic (I have earlier asked Lane to seek forgiveness from those he accused of lying, when deceived or mistaken would have been more appropriate and godly), but W&H went beyond this, admitting such.

*Even so*, I myself would *not* say that the Greek CT of W&H was satanic (despite _their_ antics), as it but represents an alternative textual line which, in the main, is God’s word. “In the main” meaning, except for the variants – an “asterisk” even the CT and ET folks use.

Would one say of the Roman “church” it is satanic? – does not the Reformed stand on the papal office as antichrist clearly mean that? What then does the Vatican involvement with the production of the modern CT texts indicate? *Again, even so*, I would *not* call their work satanic, as B and Aleph – their exemplars – are historical NT documents, and are valuable. I even *like* some of the translation choices in the NIV, NASB, and ESV, and have written them in the margins of my KJV!


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 26, 2022)

"Can you point me to something a bit more specific? One other statement in your review - "_I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves_." - gave me the impression that you believed we could not have such epistemic certainty from apographs."

Ryan, there is a difference between having certainty that the original readings are the apographs vs. certainty in every single case that we know what the autographic reading is. So the statement you quote in italics has to do with whether we know, in every single case, what that autographic reading is. It does not refer to the certainty we do have that the original reading is in the apographs. Hope this clarifies for you.


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

Looks like Riddle has taken notice of you Lane:


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 26, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perspective on the TR in the 20th and 21st centuries
> 
> Seeing as I supported Lane in his view regarding “strong” and “extreme” CBTR views condemning other versions as “satanic” or “illegitimate” Bibles *here on PB*, I want also to present a balanced perspective on this whole issue, including the TR generally.
> 
> ...


Steve, very much appreciate your last two posts in particular, and I agree with most of them. I do have a question, though, about one particular argument that you raise about Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholic interaction with textual criticism. Why does Vatican involvement of the production of the modern CT texts indicate anything at all? And why is this not the poisoned well fallacy? This fallacy says that something is incorrect because of its origin. It is a variant of the guilt by association fallacy with particular reference to origins. I have seen multiple examples of this fallacy in the TR camp. For instance, the lurid details of how Sinaiticus was found is used as proof by some that the manuscript is worthless. This argument would completely forget that Sinaiticus was probably not written in St. Catherine's monastery. How it got to that place has no bearing whatsoever on its usefulness. Similarly, just because the Vatican has a hand in the production of the CT doesn't make it wrong. Erasmus never left the Roman Catholic Church, and the TR is largely based on Erasmus's work. So does that make the TR tainted, as well? If Roman Catholic false teaching taints everything it touches, then does it do that to the generally pro-life stance that Rome takes? Does that mean we are participating in Rome's taintedness if we stand by them in opposing abortion?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> All: this thread was unpaused in order to provide opportunity to interact with Rev. Keister’s review. Yet here we are right back again at complaining and comparing about language and tone. Are we incapable to sticking to interaction with the review.


Let's try a logical experiment

1. Depraved thought patterns are sinful. 
2. McCurley claims that non-TR methodologies are depraved. 
3. Therefore, McCurley claims that all non-TR methodologies are sinful. 
4. Someone who lives in unrepentant sin should not be a minister of the gospel. 
5. In fact, such a person should be excommunicated. 
6. Therefore, McCurley and those supporting him are recommending that all non-TR folk should be defrocked and excommunicated. 
7. Individual people do not have the authority to pronounce this. 
8. The only communions which do allow this are the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions. 
9. Therefore, McCurley's claims and those who support them bear closer resemblance to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy than to Reformed thought patterns. 

I have no doubt that McCurley and Jeri would probably disagree with the entailments I have listed. But this might help them understand why I believe that such claims on McCurley's part are sectarian and divisive.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> Looks like Riddle has taken notice of you Lane:


Hopefully he actually addresses what was said and refutes it with argumentation rather than just claiming to be a victim and cry about that. To be blunt, we need men to start acting like men. Men speak directly and bluntly sometimes to other men and there needs to be the ability to not get offended immediately. If Dr. Riddle uses strong direct language back and is actually using logical and rational argumentation, then please have at it. I for one see the inability for men to be men in discussions with each other another mark of feminism on society. Now please understand me, I am not advocating for slander and sinful speech, but strong speech does not always equal those two things.


----------



## Knight (Sep 26, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> "Can you point me to something a bit more specific? One other statement in your review - "_I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves_." - gave me the impression that you believed we could not have such epistemic certainty from apographs."
> 
> Ryan, there is a difference between having certainty that the original readings are the apographs vs. certainty in every single case that we know what the autographic reading is. So the statement you quote in italics has to do with whether we know, in every single case, what that autographic reading is. It does not refer to the certainty we do have that the original reading is in the apographs. Hope this clarifies for you.



I think I understand you. We can have certainty that apograph*s* (plural) contain or are the original reading, but we may not have certainty that a given apograph (singular) is the original reading.

If that's true, I think you would dispute the argument of [some] CBs who analogize the recognition of which canon of Scripture is God's word (e.g. Roman Catholic vs. Protestant) to the recognition of which specific, textual variant is God's word. They frame this in terms of macro-canon (biblical books as a whole that we can find in a table of contents) and micro-canon (specific verses within these books): "If the former is self-authenticating, the latter must also be self-authenticating, for there is no macro-canon without the micro-canon." Or so the argument goes. 

Have you seen this argument? How would you respond to it? In my opinion, *this is the argument that seems to be at the root of CB.*

I'm not trying to pester you, by the way, just work through the issue myself.


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Hopefully he actually addresses what was said and refutes it with argumentation rather than just claiming to be a victim and cry about that.



Unfortunately I found Riddle's response to be his normal response: play the innocent victim and repeat the "accusations" against him in the worst possible interpretation and which is obviously not meant. It's almost like he goes out of his way to misunderstand critiques. In the end, he indicates that Lane has "Received Text Derangement Syndrome", and sounds like an unhinged KJV-onlyist. Riddle concedes not one single criticism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> Looks like Riddle has taken notice of you Lane:


Nice! Hopefully some meat to dig into.

Edit: Just saw the post above. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> Unfortunately I found Riddle's response to be his normal response: play the innocent victim and repeat the "accusations" against him in the worst possible interpretation and which is obviously not meant. It's almost like he goes out of his way to misunderstand critiques. In the end, he indicates that Lane has "Received Text Derangement Syndrome", and sounds like an unhinged KJV-onlyist. Riddle concedes not one single criticism.


Good grief.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> In the end, he indicates that Lane has "Received Text Derangement Syndrome"…


Is this a quote?


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Is this a quote?



His transcript is here. The Riddle quote I was referring to is toward the bottom and states:

"I don’t know this man, but the review tells me a lot about him. Back when the 'Orange Man' was in office some of his most unhinged critics were described as having 'Trump derangement syndrome.' Sometimes it seems that there are those who have 'Received Text derangement syndrome.'"


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 26, 2022)

to be fair, I don’t think Dr Riddle has knowledge of the long history Rev Keister has with interacting with the TR movement. Without knowledge of that, the review may be seen as “out of nowhere”, which it isn’t

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LanceJ (Sep 26, 2022)

What is the advice or statement at the end of the book everyone is referring to?


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

I’m beginning to understand why Mark Ward recently released a video about why he is no longer publicly interacting with the CB camp. 

@greenbaggins , are you willing to get into a back-and-forth with Riddle?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 26, 2022)

LanceJ said:


> What is the advice or statement at the end of the book everyone is referring to?


Post 74 page 3


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 26, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> *Inferior* and *Unreliable* – how is that much different from “satanic” and “illegitimate”? *All* our Bibles – CT, ET, TR, ESV, NIV, NASB, CSV, AV etc – are sacred to those who hold them and commune with their Lord through them.


Very different! They aren’t moral judgments. I would assume a TR supporter should consider a CT Bible inferior. im not bothered by that. I’d even say an ESV user calling the NKJV (which I prefer of the two) inferior is fair game. I’m not bothered by it.

I‘lol concede on “unreliable.” “Less reliable“ is better but perhaps being more positive (“I think my text is more reliable“) would be better. You might say the TR is more reliable. Farstad would say the same about the MT, Wallace about the CT, and Lane here about the Sturzian text (is that a thing?) I would expect no less if that’s your position!

But these are very different from the many TR/KJV advocates (e.g. Riddle, Myers, Van Kleeck) who are subtly hinting - if not downright accusing - MT and CT advocates of SIN. That’s a step away from questioning their salvation, and that’s coming. I don’t know ANY CT advocate that accuse the TR position of innate sinfulness - some of their methods are definitely sinful, but the position is morally neutral.

It‘s making a difference of opinion and understanding into an article of faith, a matter of sin, and a reason to separate. It’s IFB KJV onlyism all over again. Early fundamentalists went from the “KJV-standard utilizing other translation” folks like John R. Rice to the angry, bitter, schismatic and cultic Ruckman and Hyles positions fairly quickly. Many of us in the CT (and MT and possibly even the moderate TR camp) see the TR movement headed in that direction.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Many of us in the CT (and MT and possibly even the moderate TR camp) see the TR movement headed in that direction.


There definitely seems to be something of a similar attitude—and I’d guess it’s instantly off-putting to many who aren’t already convinced of the position.

If the errors and inconsistencies keep getting pointed out, I wonder if the CB position’s rhetoric will also increase accordingly.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Daniel, the apostle Peter did the work of Satan. More than once. So have I, so have we all. I’m probably doing it by keeping on with this thread (when I have duties I’m neglecting). It’s not blasting someone to the pit to speak this way.



True, I accept that it is not condemning someone to hell if we speak in this manner. But if we are bold enough to speak in such a fashion, then we have to be prepared to receive a dose of similar medicine from our opponents.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 26, 2022)

Knight said:


> I think I understand you. We can have certainty that apograph*s* (plural) contain or are the original reading, but we may not have certainty that a given apograph (singular) is the original reading.
> 
> If that's true, I think you would dispute the argument of [some] CBs who analogize the recognition of which canon of Scripture is God's word (e.g. Roman Catholic vs. Protestant) to the recognition of which specific, textual variant is God's word. They frame this in terms of macro-canon (biblical books as a whole that we can find in a table of contents) and micro-canon (specific verses within these books): "If the former is self-authenticating, the latter must also be self-authenticating, for there is no macro-canon without the micro-canon." Or so the argument goes.
> 
> ...


Ryan, you are being the farthest thing from pestering, I assure you. You are asking the right questions. I would respond by saying that the worst manuscript we have in existence is still God's Word (and the early church fathers said that, and some of the Reformers also said that). Any position that consigns manuscripts to the flames of history is therefore too narrow in its application of God's preservation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 26, 2022)

I have responded to Riddle here. It is an article because the PB apparently didn't like my word formatting. Sorry for that. It is in a pdf, which I knew would go through.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 26, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I’m beginning to understand why Mark Ward recently released a video about why he is no longer publicly interacting with the CB camp.
> 
> @greenbaggins , are you willing to get into a back-and-forth with Riddle?


Which video is this? I would very much like to see it. I have posted a reply to Riddle (see the immediately preceding post).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Which video is this? I would very much like to see it. I have posted a reply to Riddle (see the immediately preceding post).


I believe it was this one:

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 28, 2022)

Hello Lane,

You said (post #147),

Steve, very much appreciate your last two posts in particular, and I agree with most of them. I do have a question, though, about one particular argument that you raise about Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholic interaction with textual criticism. Why does Vatican involvement of the production of the modern CT texts indicate anything at all? And why is this not the poisoned well fallacy? This fallacy says that something is incorrect because of its origin. It is a variant of the guilt by association fallacy with particular reference to origins..."​ 
Put in a nutshell: I much rather choose the judgment of the Reformation scholars and editors in their textual choices, over those by Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. It’s a no-brainer to me. I don't discount the value of having another textual tradition, though – even though I think it not as good. This is not poisoning the well or guilt by association, but my sober judgment in choices, having all the data in mind.

I can, and/or have, answered the various objections to the TR itself you've listed in your review, and I can respect your view. You're one of few really eclectic scholars here on PB. When you say, “we have the Word pure and complete” – *but to discern it is “immensely difficult and painstaking*” [emphasis added], I take this to mean that I, or your congregation, must depend on your scholarship to get this "pure and complete" (or close) product of your labors. I'd rather place my confidence in the Reformation scholars, and what I believe is the text God preserved through them. Between us, we can differ amicably on this.

I have a far greater concern though, and that's the spirit of the Puritan Board now. 

I'm preaching through Mark these days, and of Mark 4:24, William Hendriksen in his commentary (p 163) says, "*In accordance with the measure whereby you measure it shall be measured back to you* … If the one who does the measuring is kind, he will judge favorably, will take delight in giving credit where credit is due, in bestowing favors (see Luke 6:38). On the other hand, if he is of the opposite disposition, he will easily fall into the habit of judging severely, unkindly (see Matt. 7:1–5; especially verse 2). Whatever it be, the measure he gives will be the measure he gets."

As one of the leading scholars on textual matters at PB you have dealt very harshly with men who put forth another view, which you deem divisive and destructive. You know my own stand regarding what is divisive and condemning (see #116 here, and in your other thread as well), and how I also oppose it. As one of the seniors here you set the tone of the board in great measure, which is becoming rancorous and harsh toward the TR view holders. Many here, who have held you in high esteem as godly and learned, are dismayed at the tone being set. They also are many, and are valued and godly members.

We are becoming a divided house, here. We depend on our admins to be not only firm, but gracious, and kind, and Christ-like. I realize that many members here are tired of the TR view, and even the respectful and "moderate" presentations / defenses of it are grievous to them, and many support your harshness. You should know the state of the flock here, and be a peacemaker. A lot depends on that for this board to flourish.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 28, 2022)

Taking in the whole picture of Lane’s past with this text issue, and what he believes is at stake, I think he is correct both in his arguments and tone. 

Further, those on the other side, after having sent up the smokescreen of being “troubled by his tone,” have mostly vanished now that the smoke has cleared. 

Lane’s arguments have not been answered adequately. Apart from a couple people, it’s all quiet on the CB front. 

With that said, I ask for forgiveness for any harshness of tone, as well as not striving to partake of these conversations in love. Please forgive me.

I believe the same things still, but how I have carried myself in that belief leaves more to be desired by me.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2022)

Steve, thanks for your interaction on all these matters over the years. By and large it has been most pleasant, even where we have disagreed. 

On the matter of the TR and Roman Catholicism, I am curious why then you trust the work of Erasmus, who was Roman Catholic, not Reformed? 

On the issue of the tone of the PB, I doubt I have that much influence on the tone. If I did, my gentle approach of the last 15 years would have made a dent in the strong/extreme camp, and it did no such thing. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that my quarrel is not with the TR or with the KJV. If you look closely, my responses towards folks like Andrew, Dane, and yourself have been quite moderate. Even my review of Dane's chapter is not harsh. It merely expresses disagreement on particular points (and this is true of my review of a number of chapters). To anyone who says, "I prefer the TR, I prefer the KJV, because I think they are the most accurate, or the best" I have absolutely no quarrel. I have every quarrel with anyone on this board attacking non-TR Bibles in a sectarian and divisive manner. Again, here I am not talking about simple critique of the ESV. The ESV is open to critique on individual points, as is any English translation. I have a few critiques of the ESV myself. I am rather talking about "The ESV is not God's Word," "The people who use the CT have depraved worldly methodologies," or "those who use non-TR Bibles use a Bible based on Satan's Bible." These comments have not been limited to the book I reviewed. They have been on the PB. And on particular arguments, like the foolish argument about Sinaiticus being worthless because of where it was found (poisoned well fallacy), or the equally foolish argument that Alexandrian manuscripts are worthless because Arianism was around, or that WCF 1.8 is specifically referring to the TR, when "in all ages" completely precludes that understanding of the sentence; these "arguments" have been pointed out as fallacious in gentle fashion before, but on completely deaf ears. 

As I have mentioned, I have a very specific reason for answering with the sternness I did. It was to hold up a mirror to how the strong/extreme TR position has come across to non-TR folk for a very long time, both here on the PB and in other places. Those not on the receiving end will no doubt try to justify their harshness. But let me be very clear: it was precisely by showing this harshness in a mirror that I am trying to meta-regulate the tone on text-critical issues. The kind of thing judged acceptable by the TR folk in defense of their position is not acceptable. There are ways of critiquing the CT and the ESV et al without the kind of rhetoric employed in the book and on the PB in the past. That is what really needs to happen. I am saying "Enough is enough." Enough with too many TR advocates (not yourself) lacking in self-awareness of how they are coming across to people. Enough with the one-sided rhetoric. 

The division on text-critical issues has always been here. I didn't introduce that. What I did do was find arguments in favor of saying that any responsible Greek edition is God's Word in the New Testament, ranging from the TR to the CT. What I did do was to call "enough" on the TR position's all-too-divisive tendencies (tendencies you, Dane, and Andrew for example, among others, have been able to avoid). If you think my tone was too harsh, then please tell me what I could have done differently, given the following parameters: 1. Everything gentler had failed; 2. The tone of the strong/extreme TR folks had not changed one iota; 3. The book in question is highly divisive and sectarian; 4. I made an oath to the OPC to promote the peace of the church, and I see this book as a serious threat to that peace. 5. Therefore, this is not an academic discussion where the thrust and parry must always be made politely. This is an issue of holding together the body of Christ, and not allowing the differences between TR and CT to rise to first-level importance, worth splitting a church or the denomination over. Yes, I will fight tooth and nail to prevent such a split from happening. So how would you go about doing this with those parameters in mind? How could you do that without an ounce of harshness? I didn't see a way. Otherwise I would have done so. I certainly do not relish this kind of thing. If it weren't for my oath, I would never have engaged in this manner at all.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Andres (Sep 28, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture."
> 
> Well there goes the Westminster Divines and their gross Scripture twisting. The only proof text recorded in support of "and by his singular care and providence, kept pure...." is Matt 5:18.


Cut the Divines some slack...they had a deficient copy of the Scriptures.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2022)

Andres said:


> Cut the Divines some slack...they had a deficient copy of the Scriptures.


Why bring this up when I retracted that particular part of the review, and by no means believe that the divines had a defective Scripture?


----------



## Andres (Sep 28, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Why bring this up when I retracted that particular part of the review, and by no means believe that the divines had a defective Scripture?


Wasn't referencing you (or anyone specifically) just generally speaking.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2022)

Andres said:


> Wasn't referencing you (or anyone specifically) just generally speaking.


Ok, sure. The only difficulty is that the person you quote was quoting my review in a place where I have now retracted what I said. That's why I brought it up. The line ""His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture" is from the original version of my review.


----------



## Andres (Sep 28, 2022)

Sorry I didn't even pay attention to his quotation. Again, it was a general comment.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 28, 2022)

Andres said:


> Sorry I didn't even pay attention to his quotation. Again, it was a general comment.


Fair enough.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 28, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Taking in the whole picture of Lane’s past with this text issue, and what he believes is at stake, I think he is correct both in his arguments and tone.
> 
> Further, those on the other side, after having sent up the smokescreen of being “troubled by his tone,” have mostly vanished now that the smoke has cleared.
> 
> ...


I posted a response to this earlier but then deleted it as I really don’t want to drag this out. But I will point out the irony that, in a post ostensibly asking for forgiveness due to “tone”, you basically state two paragraphs above that those who have an issue with the “tone” of the original review (e.g. accusations of “outright lies” by ministers who contributed to the book) were just using that as a “smokescreen”; thereby continuing to belittle the real concerns that were expressed (and were certainly about something more than “tone” in the touch-feely sense).

It is a fallacy to imply that supporters of the TR don’t have answers for the “substance” of the review, such as it is, just because we have not engaged with each point. For one thing, several substantive points have been addressed. For another thing, some of us have not read the underlying book yet so would be wary of debating it at length before we have. After all, even a correct position can have better and worse arguments advanced in favour of it. But there were some statements that called out for a response just on the basis of what was in the review itself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 28, 2022)

I posted a response to this earlier but then deleted it as I really don’t want to drag this out. But I will point out the irony that, in a post ostensibly asking for forgiveness due to “tone”, you basically state two paragraphs above that those who have an issue with the “tone” of the original review (e.g. accusations of “outright lies” by ministers who contributed to the book) were just using that as a “smokescreen”; thereby continuing to belittle the real concerns that were expressed (and were certainly about something more than “tone” in the touch-feely sense).


Jie-Huli said:


> It is a fallacy to imply that supporters of the TR don’t have answers for the “substance” of the review, such as it is, just because we have not engaged with each point. For one thing, several substantive points have been addressed. For another thing, some of us have not read the underlying book yet so would be wary of debating it at length before we have. After all, even a correct position can have better and worse arguments advanced in favour of it. But there were some statements that called out for a response just on the basis of what was in the review itself.



Thank you for your response. I’ll work through it when I can, brother.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 28, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> *I am using the word "lie" (note the scarequotes) as a perfect synonym of "untruth." There is no judgment being made on the character of Mr. Sheffield, and there is no accusation here of any "intent to deceive." His statement on Romans 9:5 in the CT is simply false. That is what I mean.


You just made this footnote to your original post. It is a lame attempt to cover over the slander of an ordained minister of the gospel. I will not debate you because you have exhibited an astounding lack of moderation in this discussion from the outset and continue to do so.

*You have accused me of lying.* By definition, you have accused me of making an untrue statement _with the intention of deceiving._ I did not do that and therefore, your accusation is slanderous. You should be ashamed of yourself and repent. I do not mind you saying my arguments are terrible or even misleading. But accusing me of lying crosses a line. And you know that in your conscience, or should.

*I am asking you to withdraw that statement and apologize.* That is all that duty requires in this situation. I've requested this multiple times privately to no avail and so now I am asking publicly. My request is just and reasonable. We all sometimes say things we later regret. When that happens, the manly thing to do is to be humble enough to admit it and apologize. That's what you need to do now, brother. You are only aggravating your sin and making things worse for yourself by not doing so.

I would also kindly ask the other admins (@NaphtaliPress @Jeri Tanner @Herald @Semper Fidelis @Contra_Mundum @py3ak) of the board to help in this matter. Rev. Keister has violated the ninth commandment by accusing me of lying. I only ask that he withdraw that comment and offer a public apology. Thank you for your help.

Reactions: Like 6 | Wow 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 28, 2022)

The thread is locked - the moderators are looking into this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 30, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The thread is locked - the moderators are looking into this.


*Mods and Admins determination:* "Given Lane's clarifications on thread and in changing his review text, mods and admins will not be finding a 9th Commandment violation on his part." The thread will remain closed.

Reactions: Like 6 | Sad 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 6, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> *Robert McCurley's Chapter*
> 
> Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying “Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions” (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the “world's depraved assumptions” in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity. He also seems to think that any deviation from the TR constitutes “purposeful alteration of the text of Scripture” (p. 147). He uses the poisoned well fallacy of “a region rife with Arian heresy.” It doesn't seem to occur to him that Alexandria is actually the place where Athanasius opposed the Arian heresy. He was bishop of Alexandria! It was _everywhere else_ where the Arian heresy was making inroads, including the entire Byzantine empire! So he gets this history 100% wrong. The presence or absence of the Arian heresy is neither here nor there with regard to the copying of manuscripts. This was one of the very worst essays in the book, full of lies and twisting of Scripture.


Lane, I would hope there is more to this than that? I do not see your reasoning as having been fully thought out. If you don't think the Arian heresy had any influence in Egypt as to manuscript evidence I would hope you had a better defense than this assumption. Just my humble opinion I will need more evidence as the two families are geographical. That doesn't mean you are wrong. I just think this sounds weak as a defense.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 6, 2022)

Sorry, I was just replying to Lane. I didn't know the thread was locked. Sorry.


----------

