# Redeeming the time



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 10, 2009)

I was going to answer the new thread continuing the attack on the exclusive use of the AV in public worship as unconfessional, but it vanished (by admin / mod fiat, I assume), which is a good thing, as such an assertion is harmful and divisive, not to mention false, using an inappropriate definition of “vulgar language” in an attempt to disqualify the AV from that category.

Can folks really be so hostile to the Authorized Version that they would seek to marginalize those who primarily use _it_ in public worship and cast them without the pale of Presbyterian / Reformed orthodoxy?

Listen, if you prefer the modern-language Bibles for your ministry, well and good, but don’t lay a law down which outlaws my early-modern English Bible* in the Reformed community! That would be as divisive as the hardline KJO declaring all modern CT-based Bibles as per-versions (which view I oppose as both untrue and ungodly). Don’t turn into the flip side of the Ruckman-Riplinger coin! Is it your purpose to divide the Presbyterian and Reformed communions? It may be a good way to vent your spleens (from past bad experiences?), but it is both unwise and uncharitable.

I have learned some good lessons regarding AV – CT relations here at PB, interacting with godly CT and MT users, and seeing the need for – not compromise regarding my position – but living in harmony, peace, respect, and affectionate friendship with those holding different views.

If we folks really take the injunction “redeeming the time” (ESV: “making the best use of” it) seriously, then we would do well focusing our text-critical prowess and wisdom on such as Bart Ehrman, who is not only influencing the general culture powerfully against our Bibles – all of them! – but his teachings will impact our children and our unbelieving friends if not countered with sound arguments and understanding. Ehrman is tutoring a generation of disciples to attack the Christian faith, and here we are wasting precious time and energy in this internecine warfare, and I speak to both camps, mine included! The Admins here ought to do in this area what they did with the Credo – Paedo camps, as it seems to have solved the perennial warfare between them.

Have we withal to deal with Ehrman, and if not, why not, seeing as that is where the wall is being breached while we play futile war games within the camp.

* “The English language is divided into three periods. Old English, (700 to 1100 AD); Middle English, (1100 to 1500 AD); and Modern English (1500 to the present). [Marjorie Anderson and Blanche C. Williams, _Old English Handbook_ (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935), 6-7.]” Cited in Thomas Holland’s, _Crowned With Glory_, p. 210

Post too late to get into the closed thread at: PB blog.


----------



## TimV (Jul 10, 2009)

> Can folks really be so hostile to the Authorized Version that they would seek to marginalize those who primarily use it in public worship and cast them without the pale of Presbyterian / Reformed orthodoxy?



I didn't see anyone trying to marginalize people who use use of the KJV in public primarily. Pastor Ferrell who started the thread uses that version mostly, as he's said several times here, and when it come to questions dealing with the WCF he's the first person I go to.

I did hear people caution that much of the KJV is a foreign language to many people. And I personally gave my view that WCF 1.8 doesn't restrict non vulgar translations from being used in public. The concern seems that the Bible be available to the general population, and it is, in the form of modern versions. The Divines seem to me to have left the particular version used from the pulpit up to the Pastor.



> Listen, if you prefer the modern-language Bibles for your ministry, well and good, but don’t lay a law down which outlaws my early-modern English Bible* in the Reformed community!



On this board, and in churches, the only law I've every seen laid down come from the KJV onlies. Quoting verses like



> Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



and claiming that these verses are talking about the ESV, NIV, ASV etc....


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 10, 2009)

Philip Johnson has a great sermon on this (but I can't for the life of me remember the name of it). One part I recall talked about peoples' language now and how it is sprinkled with profanity. He mentioned that not even the evening news used this sort of terminology, so why should we conform our bibles to "the language of the people"? It was much better balanced than that, but that part is all I can remember.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 10, 2009)

Why would other minor topics not be off-limits or wastes of time, but this one would be? This seems like a worthy topic to discuss and I can't see how it would be harmful or divisive just because people have differing views.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 10, 2009)

It would be very difficult for us to defend the historicity and reliability of the Bible against someone like Ehrman if we believed the Textus Receptus was the only way to go.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 11, 2009)

Perg,

If one were to say that a certain Bible version (be it CT, AV, or MT) is illegitimate (as one could rightly do with the JW's New World Translation), and those who use solely it for public worship go against the Confession, and vigorously prosecute that view without relenting (despite sound objections), then you have a rend in the fabric of the Presbyterian and Reformed community, much like those in the old Credo-Paedo conflicts, where one side (and both sides did it) says the other is neither Reformed nor Biblical — and this is destructive without redeeming qualities. I'm not talking about calm discussion of the topic (which has been done), but relentless prosecution of a view on it.

------

Willie,

Who do you think does the best job refuting him? (Please cite works or debates — I am most interested in this.) Do you think White did? Wallace? How about Ehrman's responses to them? I am in the process of examining these very things. I hold that the TR is the very best position from which "to defend the historicity and reliability of the Bible" against _any_ detractors. The proof will be in the pudding, won't it?

Just as the endless Credo-Paedo prosecutions turned from edifying to destructive, so the CT-MT-AV/TR prosecutions have become, especially when there are strong barbarians at the gate intending to destroy us while we have at one another!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 11, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perg,
> 
> If one were to say that a certain Bible version (be it CT, AV, or MT) is illegitimate (as one could rightly do with the JW's New World Translation), and those who use solely it for public worship go against the Confession, and vigorously prosecute that view without relenting (despite sound objections), then you have a rend in the fabric of the Presbyterian and Reformed community, much like those in the old Credo-Paedo conflicts, where one side (and both sides did it) says the other is neither Reformed nor Biblical — and this is destructive without redeeming qualities. I'm not talking about calm discussion of the topic (which has been done), but relentless prosecution of a view on it.
> 
> ...



One man's relentless prosecution is another man's ardent and vigorous discussion.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 11, 2009)

Sure, but at what cost?

I just finished reading Marcus Luttrell's, _Lone Survivor_, the account of his four-man SEAL team's ordeal in the mountains of Afghanistan. He also described the arduous phases of SEAL training. Although somewhat raw, it was edifying.

The church is, among other things, a military organization, with a commander-in-chief, subordinate officers, and the rank and file. We have standing orders / commands, a field manual, and officer oversight.

I am struck by how much more wholehearted and devoted a worldly military unit is than the command of the High King of Heaven and earth. They are loyal to one another, a core value being "teamwork is everything", willing to give their lives for one another.

We, on the other hand, think little of tearing one another down, disrespecting those in various levels of authority over us, disdaining those in differing branches of the High King's service, and making light of His commands, among the foremost of which is, "This is My commandment, That you love one another, even as I have loved you." (Jn 15:12)

We've got fast mouths and dull hearts. And a million reasons for justifying the way we are. But our Commander will whip us into shape for what is coming, and for the Kingdom. The days to come will see to that.


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 11, 2009)

Thanks Steve, 
May we all be slow to speak, quick to hear and gentle in our disagreements. 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> The Admins here ought to do in this area what they did with the Credo – Paedo camps, as it seems to have solved the perennial warfare between them.



So that's what happened. All this time I thought that the Credos had won!


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 11, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > Perg,
> ...



Pergamum

I think that honestly James White has done the best job. Some of the best resources are available from James White's ministry at aomin.org 
I think that his dividing line programs dealing with Ehrman's arguments are actually more profitable than his debate with Ehrman. The reason being, in the debate Ehrman really didn't answer objections or even acknowledge where he was. Although the debate does do a good job of putting this issues out there and works as a very good introduction to Textual-Critical issues.

I can try to find the links to the sources if you want me to do so.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 11, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Jerusalem Blade said:
> ...



Yes, please pass along the links.


It's not that I like arguing, but we all discuss the same things over and over on here anyway, like the baptism issue. So when people get sensitive over the KJV, I don't have a lot of sympathy. 

It's legitimately on the table too, as a matter to discuss, and we shouldn't make pleas to try to take it off. 

I could say similar things that this OP says, that "we ought to stop arguing against subtle nuance and focus more on missions" - which we should - but this is a discussion board and we are on it to discuss. 

So, to take the legitimacy of the use of the KJV as a "vulgar tongue" off the table of discussion because there are bigger issues to deal with and we might marginalize someone doesn't strike me as a good reason not to discuss an issue.

Disagreeing also does not mean "tearing down" a brother. We all disagree in love. "Vigorously prosecuting without relenting" is emotionally-laden verbage to mean that someone disagrees with your position and won't stop disagreeing, which seems perfectly reasonable if we continue to post on the same topics in which people continue to disagree. 


By the way, I mostly use the KJV. But I get tired of how KJVers argue.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 12, 2009)

Thanks for your views, Perg.

Willie, I also would like those links, especially the DL ones, if you can find them. Thanks!


----------



## KMK (Jul 12, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I was going to answer the new thread continuing the attack on the exclusive use of the AV in public worship as unconfessional, *but it vanished *(by admin / mod fiat, I assume), which is a good thing, as such an assertion is harmful and divisive, not to mention false, using an inappropriate definition of “vulgar language” in an attempt to disqualify the AV from that category.



Are you sure it 'vanished'? It should be visible, although closed, in the T&M Forum.

I understand your concern about divisiveness, but by and large, I felt the participants were charitable.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 12, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks for your views, Perg.
> 
> Willie, I also would like those links, especially the DL ones, if you can find them. Thanks!



I can find them. But it will probably be tomorrow for I can post them. It is getting late here. So I hope you don't mind.

Just look for them tomorrow or Monday at the latest. I will do my best to track them down and post them.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 12, 2009)

As promised here a few links...but I couldn't get the DL programs just yet.


[video=youtube;xyQPNrQxqmo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQPNrQxqmo&feature=channel_page[/video]

[video=youtube;ZDrdQuk1Jwk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrdQuk1Jwk&feature=channel[/video]

These two videos should also direct you to more videos related to subject at hand. In other words it should be easy to find the other programs where James White deals with Ehrman from here.
If there is any trouble I can post more. I wouldn't mind. Just let me know.


----------



## Herald (Jul 12, 2009)

Steve, I use both CT and TR based translations. There is room among confessional believers who use either. I normally shy away from these threads because of the rancor and ungodly attitudes exhibited on both ends of the debate. When I look at the KJV, NKJV, ESV and NASB (the predominant translations in question) I see faithful translations that contain the clear and concise message of the gospel. This in itself is not an end of the discussion, but it should serve to legitimatize the claims of confessional believers on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## gkterry (Jul 12, 2009)

There is room for many faithful translations of the scripture. I utilize many myself ranging the gamut of KJV to NLT.

From the KJV Translators to the Readers, I quote:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 13, 2009)

Bill,

I heartily agree "there is room among confessional believers who use both...CT and TR based translations".

Hanging out as I did with IFBs a while I used to lean toward a more extreme KJV/TR position, but being here in the civilized PB and interacting with godly folks who differed textually I came to see it was rending the Body of Christ to divide over this issue, so I repented of my divisive militancy in this matter. 

Now when I see folks who do the same as I used to do - from whichever camp - I try to intervene. Especially when they go for the jugular and seek to disenfranchise the opposing camp from the Reformed community. It's equivalent to asserting that Baptists cannot be Reformed, or some paedos are not baptized - it's destructive. Of course one may discuss such things amicably (even vigorously), but to prosecute such views with intent to remove from the community - that should not be tolerated, even as certain other things are not tolerated here. I am glad to see the Admins / Mods concur.

Have we no other battles to fight than against our own? Is there no military intelligence in our midst? Are we not in pitched battle against adversaries truly after _our_ jugulars - and increasingly so as the days progress?


----------



## Herald (Jul 13, 2009)

Steve, well said. I am glad you gave assent to the fact that, while we do seek unity, there is still vigorous debate on the textual criticism issue. Instead of an egalitarian approach to debated issues, there is a realization that godly men hold to differing positions and should not be vilified or castigated for doing so.


----------



## KMK (Jul 13, 2009)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Have we no other battles to fight than against our own? Is there no military intelligence in our midst? Are we not in pitched battle against adversaries truly after _our_ jugulars - and increasingly so as the days progress?



Unfortunately, one of the battles we are fighting is a defense of this statement: 



> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic.



Both sides need to be able to argue their points without casting doubt that other 'versions' of the Bible are somehow not the 'authentic' Word of God. If I have done so in the past, I repent.


----------

