# McCurley Responds to Keister



## Parakaleo (Dec 5, 2022)

This video podcast from Jeff Riddle (Word Magazine) came out on Friday. In it, Rob McCurley references what I can only assume to be Lane Keister's review of his paper in _Why I Preach from the Received Text_.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 5, 2022)

The video is quite long. Can you give a time mark for Pastor McCurley's reference? Or in keeping with general discussion decorum, summarize the remarks?


----------



## Knight (Dec 5, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The video is quite long. Can you give a time mark for Pastor McCurley's reference? Or in keeping with general discussion decorum, summarize the remarks?


The link already directs you to the relevant time stamp.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 5, 2022)

Looks like it is closer to 1:21 as far as Rob addressing or alluding to the text from the PB discussion someone sent him.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 5, 2022)

So it's basically the same old story. Doubling down on the "Satan's Bible" statement. Claiming that WCF 1:8 (on the preservation of Scripture "excludes the critical and eclectic texts of Scripture and all translations based upon them (ESV etc) as they draw on manuscripts unavailable and unrecognized by the church for centuries. Utilizing such manuscripts appears to deny the principle that God has providentially preserved his Word; instead this implies that the Lord left his church without the pure Word over an extended period contrary to his infallible promise."

But think about the KJV's textual approach to the OT. In most places it rigorously follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (even when that text is difficult to make sense out of). Yet there is one key place where the KJV departs from the MT and goes with the Septuagint: Psalm 22:16. The vast majority of the Hebrew manuscripts do not match what is in the KJV (or more modern English translations). Calvin even believed that this vast predominance was due to Jewish tampering with the text (a quite different view of providential preservation than the one being advanced in the book)! But you can't claim that it is principially wrong to go against the vast majority of the text copies in use by the church, and then use a translation (the KJV) that has no qualms in doing that, even once. Once it is fair game to do that, the only question is how often the Septuagint preserves a better text than the MT.

Your doctrine of preservation has to work for the OT as well as the NT.

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 5, 2022)

Also, he is responding to an outdated version of my review. He didn't mention the more central point of contention I had with him at all, which was the historical point regarding the Arian heresy.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## MChase (Dec 5, 2022)

I’m in the PRC. I’m a TR guy to the core. Honestly, the discussion in the video from the point forward in the video above does nothing for our side. Calling all critical text versions “Satan’s Bible” should be utterly condemned and not brushed off. There is such a thing as too harsh of language, and there is such a thing as a continuum of confidence or importance for different doctrines. Not every doctrine demands the same intensity of defense.

“I’m first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a paedobaptist and finally a Presbyterian.”

Mormonism is satanic, Lutherans have severe errors, Particular baptists are in sin, etc. I have concerns with some NAPARC brothers about things. But they are brothers. We need to treat our brothers, particularly brothers in our tradition, as such.

Reactions: Like 12 | Amen 5


----------



## Poimen (Dec 5, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> So it's basically the same old story. Doubling down on the "Satan's Bible" statement.


Did he? In the beginning of the discussion Riddle alludes to a chapter written by another pastor but Rob does not affirm or deny this claim. His chapter does cite Genesis 3:1 and he frames his chapter in light of the attacks on scripture that have arisen within and outside the church. But as he says this is uncontroversial and agreed upon by all parties. 





 Here he speaks of "godly guys" and "competent scholars" who differ from him. If he is referring to Lane's response to his chapter McCurley says despite the "brittle bluster" of the words -though he also admits is fine- we ought to cut people slack, namely godly people. 

I think his defense is rather mild in word and tone.


iainduguid said:


> Claiming that WCF 1:8 (on the preservation of Scripture "excludes the critical and eclectic texts of Scripture and all translations based upon them (ESV etc) as they draw on manuscripts unavailable and unrecognized by the church for centuries. Utilizing such manuscripts appears to deny the principle that God has providentially preserved his Word; instead this implies that the Lord left his church without the pure Word over an extended period contrary to his infallible promise."


In particular, he makes a claim about decoupling the phrases "by singular care and providence" and "kept pure in all ages." It might be profitable to have someone interact with that statement. This occurs a few minutes before the link I posted above.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 5, 2022)

Poimen said:


> Did he? In the beginning of the discussion Riddle alludes to a chapter written by another pastor but Rob does not affirm or deny this claim. His chapter does cite Genesis 3:1 and he frames his chapter in light of the attacks on scripture that have arisen within and outside the church. But as he says this is uncontroversial and agreed upon by all parties.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nobody in this debate disagrees that the Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages by God's singular care and providence. But in the quote I gave he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors. Meanwhile, he misses the fact that the KJV does not measure up to his own criteria in its "critical" decision to depart from the majority text in at last one place in the OT.

Besides, why does he frame _this debate_ as a Genesis 3:1 issue? To be sure Satan will and has attacked the Bible at every opportunity. But if he thinks _this debate _is a Satanic attack, then he is saying something specifically about those fellow Reformed pastors who disagree with him, not the wider world of critical scholarship. The ESV, which he explicitly mentions, was not the work of Westcott and Hort.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 5, 2022)

One thing said on the video is that we know what the Westminster divines had in mind when saying, "by singular care and providence" and "kept pure in all ages," based on other writings of their's. The insinuation seems to be that they were implicating the exclusivity of the TR in this. But my understanding is that there is actually evidence to the contrary in some of their other writings. I've tried searching some past PB threads where I thought this had been discussed, but haven't found what I thought I had once read. Does someone know if this is accurate, and if so where this may be? Maybe @Logan ?


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

I was kind of hoping a thread wouldn't take off on this; and I don't think Pastor McCurley's intention was to respond to anyone's argument, as much as comment on one part of it, so I think the thread title simply should've been something different.

Removing Pastor as a personal factor in my life, and trying my best to remove all bias: what exactly _is _wrong, about the Satan's Bible comment? I really don't get it. As mentioned in the video, when anyone takes position in the TR or CT camp, it is to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The consistent CT tenants believe we are adding to the word, and the TR tenants believe they are taking away from. In both these positions, each one affirms that the opposing text has been corrupted, either by addition or subtraction, that is the logical conclusion when we take a position. When we affirm A, we deny B; and if we affirm B, we deny A. This doesn't stop anyone from holding A or B from having fellowship one with another.

Again, this attitude is manifested in the above comment: "his he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors." The logical conclusion of someone (if the position is affirmed) being inconsistent in their adherence to the Confession, would be that they are not adhering to it, either by ignorance, or choice. A comment about how many people are wrong ("vast majority of NAPARC pastors") is irrelevant to whether the position is true or not. I almost tremble to say it, but it seems to me many of you are desiring to be offended more than would warrant.

Edit: also, the KJV comments above are largely irrelevant to the interview given by these three men, when they stated explicitly that their commitment isn't as much to the KJV, as to the TR; Pastor Beers even said his use of the KJV is rather "accidental" (consequential, I presume) to desiring the best available translation of the TR.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 5, 2022)

Why is it CT only and not the Majority Text also placed in the opposition camp?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

John it's because the majority text is the red headed stepchild everyone forgets about I was only intending to give an example of logic; when we are given the choice of A or B, and we affirm one, we deny the other. Make it A, B, or C if you like.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 5, 2022)

JH said:


> Removing Pastor as a personal factor in my life, and trying my best to remove all bias: what exactly _is _wrong, about the Satan's Bible comment? I really don't get it. As mentioned in the video, when anyone takes position in the TR or CT camp, it is to the exclusion of other viewpoints.


What very few TR advocates seem to acknowledge is that CT/MT/Sturzian guys do NOT agree with this. We do NOT believe one set of manuscripts should be set over against another set of manuscripts. We do NOT believe that the TR is not the Word of God. Many of you make it a zero sum game, but fail to realize that Reformed CT guys typically don't. That's why we find the Satan's Bible comment offensive. There is usually little attempt to acknowledge what the Reformed CT guys actually say, and what is done instead is the sort of putting words in people's mouths that you just did. Speaking just for myself, I am on record recommending five translations in a published article on English translations. They are the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and CSB. Many, if not most Reformed CT/MT/Sturzians believe that the differences among the manuscripts are not great enough to justify the confessional bibliology movement's rhetoric.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

Rev. Keister,

Thank you for your response. What we mean by whether something is "the word of God", misses the mark of what I originally mentioned; namely, that one of the two has been corrupted, either by adding or subtracting. Personally, I was saved reading an NIV, and if Faith cometh by hearing the word of God, then the NIV is at least in some sense the word of God. I could not logically say otherwise, at least in that sense.

Thank you for giving me insight into your position. There is no Pope for the CT, MT, sturzian, or TR positions as you well know. However, people can of course speak for themselves. But again, as I mentioned, if someone believes that the longer ending of Mark as an example, is illegitimate, then the TR adds to the word of God; and though some people may not wish to call it so in such an overt manner, that is corruption by definition. So again, something to bear in mind. That would then beg the question who is renowned for corrupting and casting doubt upon the word of God, and then the logical train follows. Me personally, speaking for myself, I believe there are many precious texts removed from the "Critical Text", many of which have to do with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity. So without desiring to sever the unity of the church, that personally keeps me from using anything but the Received Text. I do not think less of anyone who reads a CT/MT translation, though (without being tangential) I would argue the same, that it is inconsistent with the Confession.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 5, 2022)

I will only add that if anyone thinks that the Satan's Bible comment is well-calculated to make the TR position more attractive to those not currently holding it, then they are suffering from a severe mental delusion. The only thing it has done is completely polarized people. Therefore, it is a sectarian comment. One could wish that TR people like Mason and Steve, who recognize this, were the rule, rather than what appears to be the exception. Why anyone would defend that comment is beyond me. Would any of you TR folk not feel offended if I were to start calling the TR "Satan's Bible," and the KJV translated from it also "Satan's Bible?"



JH said:


> that is corruption by definition


The word "corruption," as I have tried to demonstrate in other posts, is ambiguous, and should be discarded in the discussion. It implies intentionality where such intentionality is most often lacking. If a scribe makes a mistake, that is what it is: a mistake. The word "corruption" is way too emotionally fraught to be helpful in this discussion. In addition, your comment seems to imply that if corruption has happened that nixes the whole kit and kaboodle. This is something no CT/MT/Sturzian would even remotely accept.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 5, 2022)

JH said:


> Rev. Keister,
> 
> Thank you for your response. What we mean by whether something is "the word of God", misses the mark of what I originally mentioned; namely, that one of the two has been corrupted, either by adding or subtracting. Personally, I was saved reading an NIV, and if Faith cometh by hearing the word of God, then the NIV is at least in some sense the word of God. I could not logically say otherwise, at least in that sense.
> 
> Thank you for giving me insight into your position. There is no Pope for the CT, MT, sturzian, or TR positions as you well know. However, people can of course speak for themselves. But again, as I mentioned, if someone believes that the longer ending of Mark as an example, is illegitimate, then the TR adds to the word of God; and though some people may not wish to call it so in such an overt manner, that is corruption by definition. So again, something to bear in mind.


I still cannot logically see the bridge from corruptions to “Satan’s bible”.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The word "corruption" is way too emotionally fraught to be helpful in this discussion.


Brother, if you could be charitable and consider your former posts in this matter about the semantics between "lie" and "untruth". I do not mean every person individually who has had a hand in the textual scholarship world had the intention of distorting the text. But rather that all corruptions of the text would be the desire and motive of none other than Satan himself (Genesis 3)



Polanus1561 said:


> I still cannot logically see the bridge from corruptions to “Satan’s bible”.


Post #15, last paragraph

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MChase (Dec 5, 2022)

JH said:


> what exactly _is _wrong, about the Satan's Bible comment? I really don't get it. As mentioned in the video, when anyone takes position in the TR or CT camp, it is to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The consistent CT tenants believe we are adding to the word, and the TR tenants believe they are taking away from. In both these positions, each one affirms that the opposing text has been corrupted, either by addition or subtraction, that is the logical conclusion when we take a position. When we affirm A, we deny B; and if we affirm B, we deny A. This doesn't stop anyone from holding A or B from having fellowship one with another.



I’m at a loss if the obvious problems of “Satan’s Bible” don’t come through. I’d wager that a good majority of us TR folks were converted and convinced of our position from a Bible translation of a CT Bible. One can have opinions. One can have strong opinions. One need not near anathematized those who differ because of the logical conclusion that holding ‘A’ excludes holding ‘not A’.

Let’s make this a bit more obvious. As far as I know, none of the US FCC guys hold to any form of mediatorial kingship. How would they feel if I died on that hill and made all sorts of railing accusations based on what I believe to be an incorrect view? Granted, that is not a confessional boundary, but not all confessional boundaries are to be defended with equal rigor.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

MChase said:


> I’m at a loss if the obvious problems of “Satan’s Bible” don’t come through. I’d wager that a good majority of us TR folks were converted and convinced of our position from a Bible translation out of that very manuscript tradition. One can have opinions. One can have strong opinions. One need not near anathematized those who differ because of the logical conclusion that holding ‘A’ excludes holding ‘not A’.
> 
> Let’s make this a bit more obvious. As far as I know, none of the US FCC guys hold to any form of mediatorial kingship. How would they feel if I died on that hill and made all sorts of railing accusations based on what I believe to be an incorrect view? Granted, that is not a confessional boundary, but not all confessional boundaries are to be defended with equal rigor.


Mason, thank you, I've enjoyed your contributions in the past.

Personally, as mentioned above, the Lord was pleased to begin his work in me while I was reading and NIV, and an NLT. None of the three men in the above interview were anathematizing, whatever implications that has. From the pastoral prayers in the pulpit, the PCA and OPC (as an example) are regularly prayed for.

The "rigor" you mentioned, I'm unsure what you mean. The example of Meditorial Kingship, if I'm not mistaken, the FCC allows for diversity on that view, though it is an affirmed distinctive of the RPCNA. Insofar as hills to die on, as you mentioned, it by no means for us is a term of communion, nor do we desire it to be; but it is a distinctive in our denomination, and I don't think that is a thing to be ashamed of.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 5, 2022)

If one believed indeed in the threat of 'Satan's bible'. Should they not (I assume they do not, correct me if wrong), pray that God would simply remove all such bibles in the world? Does anyone here/or any other Reformed churches do that? There are some logical applications from this conviction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 5, 2022)

JH said:


> Brother, if you could be charitable and consider your former posts in this matter about the semantics between "lie" and "untruth". I do not mean every person individually who has had a hand in the textual scholarship world had the intention of distorting the text. But rather that all corruptions of the text would be the desire and motive of none other than Satan himself (Genesis 3)


I'm not sure how my opinion about the word "corruption" is uncharitable. I simply don't find the word helpful. On the last sentence, are you implying that accidentally switching "Jesus Christ" to "Christ Jesus" is always and ever the desire and motive of Satan himself? Why can't it simply be an accidental mistake? Why would ALL mistakes be from Satan's hand and desire? I don't think I can go there.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I'm not sure how my opinion about the word "corruption" is uncharitable. I simply don't find the word helpful. On the last sentence, are you implying that accidentally switching "Jesus Christ" to "Christ Jesus" is always and ever the desire and motive of Satan himself? Why can't it simply be an accidental mistake? Why would ALL mistakes be from Satan's hand and desire? I don't think I can go there.


Charitable insofar as giving the benefit of the doubt. When I employed the word corruption, I did not mean is it to be laid at the feet of all textual scholars' ill intent, or at least not entirely (the Lord alone knows the hearts of men)

I'm not sure what text you're referring to in regards to switching Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus, but no that wasn't what I was referring to, as much as the variants of John 1:18, John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 5:7, etc. That is what keeps me from using CT/MT/ST.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> If one believed indeed in the threat of 'Satan's bible'. Should they not (I assume they do not, correct me if wrong), pray that God would simply remove all such bibles in the world? Does anyone here/or any other Reformed churches do that? There are some logical applications from this conviction.


Not a bad prayer to pray. Not aware of any ministers that pray so explicitly from the pulpit, no.

Edit: and to add, not much a different desire/prayer of those who wish we would move on from the TR/KJV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 5, 2022)

JH said:


> Charitable insofar as giving the benefit of the doubt. When I employed the word corruption, I did not mean is it to be laid at the feet of all textual scholars' ill intent, or at least not entirely (the Lord alone knows the hearts of men)


Ok. But as I was only pointing out the ambiguity of the word, why would you assume I thought you meant the negative connotations? My point was that since a lot of folk use the term ambiguously, sometimes including intent, sometimes not, that therefore the term should be discarded. 


JH said:


> I'm not sure what text you're referring to in regards to switching Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus, but no that wasn't what I was referring to, as much as the variants of John 1:18, John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 5:7, etc. That is what keeps me from using CT/MT/ST.


There are hundreds of variants in the NT where "Jesus Christ" is switched to "Christ Jesus" and vice versa. You said _all _corruptions of the text were from the motive and desire of Satan. If you don't mean every last difference, but are only talking about the important ones, clarity here is helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Ok. But as I was only pointing out the ambiguity of the word, why would you assume I thought you meant the negative connotations? My point was that since a lot of folk use the term ambiguously, sometimes including intent, sometimes not, that therefore the term should be discarded.


Just the comment about the word being too "emotionally fraught" is all – which now I understand you meant in general, and not me particularly. I brought up the former posts you had in regards to "lie" and "untruth", because what really is needed above all is clarity. I don't think it's profitable to discard things simply because they can drive emotion, or be easily confused, that's a good pattern of postmodernism.



greenbaggins said:


> There are hundreds of variants in the NT where "Jesus Christ" is switched to "Christ Jesus" and vice versa. You said _all _corruptions of the text were from the motive and desire of Satan. If you don't mean every last difference, but are only talking about the important ones, clarity here is helpful.


Rev. Keister, I simply gave a few examples, my examples are not representative of "all" corruptions, but rather some off the top of my head as I sit here in a recliner. Certainly there are more, and in all likelihood more than I am aware of.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JH (Dec 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> You said _all _corruptions of the text were from the motive and desire of Satan. If you don't mean every last difference, but are only talking about the important ones, clarity here is helpful.


If I did (not sure where I worded it in that fashion exactly), I certainly think corruption of God's word is Satan's desire, and the desire of those who know not God. Certainly God himself would not corrupt his own word.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> He didn't mention the more central point of contention I had with him at all, which was the historical point regarding the Arian heresy.


I have been so busy this year Lane. Can you lead me to where I can read this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 5, 2022)

Wow, Sorry I wasn't up on this thread earlier. I am a TR guy. The Satan Bible stuff needs to stop. I don't like it here. I have no problem discussing corruption. That is surely a nature of man. We do need to worry about, "Hath God Said," but the devil isn't always behind everything here. Man still is man. The Satan;s Bible stuff needs to go. My Opinion. And I am right. Just ask my Mom. LOL

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I will only add that if anyone thinks that the Satan's Bible comment is well-calculated to make the TR position more attractive to those not currently holding it, then they are suffering from a severe mental delusion. *The only thing it has done is completely polarized people.*


I can confirm this was definitely the case for me.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 5, 2022)

i enjoy a good TR thread but I don’t know the aim of this thread (if there is one) and when it ought to be headed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> One thing said on the video is that we know what the Westminster divines had in mind when saying, "by singular care and providence" and "kept pure in all ages," based on other writings of their's. The insinuation seems to be that they were implicating the exclusivity of the TR in this. But my understanding is that there is actually evidence to the contrary in some of their other writings. I've tried searching some past PB threads where I thought this had been discussed, but haven't found what I thought I had once read. Does someone know if this is accurate, and if so where this may be? Maybe @Logan ?



The problem is that the people making this claim rarely seem to even consider that it could be tested. They place their own interpretation back upon the writers without testing it. 

Hypothesis: the authors of the Westminster Confession penned "kept pure in all ages" and this means that they believed the printed Greek New Testament they had in their day was pure and by implication, they rejected all alternative readings.

Test: Can this hypothesis be shown to be faulty? Yes, if any of the authors, anywhere, argued for readings contrary to those found in the printed Greek New Testament of their day.

*Example 1:*
Stephen Steele recently wrote an article on Thomas Goodwin (Westminster Divine) who both subscribed to those words "kept pure in all ages" and yet also argued for alternative readings coming from Alexandrian texts. He clearly did not hold to "the TR" as being the only true text.








 A Westminster Divine and an Alexandrian Codex


At the heart of the critique of modern Bible versions by some in the Reformed world is their assessment of the Greek manuscripts on which they are based.




gentlereformation.com





*Example 2:*
Samuel Rutherford (Westminster Divine) subscribed to these words "kept pure in all ages" and yet had no qualms saying:
"And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had." - "Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience", 164 pp 360, 361
Note he did not make any kind of statement that the printed copies they had in their day had somehow been purified or were exempt from this kind of error.

*Example 3:*
William Bridge (Westminster Divine) subscribed to the words "kept pure in all ages" yet also said:
"How shall we hold and keep fast the letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another? Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them...In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginall reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all:" - Scripture Light the Most Sure Light" 1656, pg 47

Note that he never points to the printed text of his day as being definitive, but rather to "all" the copies of the New Testament.

I could add some more from Capel and Owen and Walton and Usher but I think it should be clear that the men of that day did not mean what the TR advocates today say they meant. They _both_ affirmed the purity of the printed text, _and_ the value and purity of all the copies _and_ often argued for readings _not found in the printed text of the day_ which clearly indicates they did not hold that as alone pure.

Would they have gone as far as affirming something akin to a Critical Text? We can only speculate. But we don't have to speculate whether they held the printed text of their day as the only pure line or as above correction or criticism. They tell us plainly they didn't. "Kept pure in all ages" is clearly not limited strictly to the one line of printed texts.

Reactions: Like 19 | Informative 6 | Edifying 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> The problem is that the people making this claim rarely seem to even consider that it could be tested. They place their own interpretation back upon the writers without testing it.
> 
> Hypothesis: the authors of the Westminster Confession penned "kept pure in all ages" and this means that they believed the printed Greek New Testament they had in their day was pure and by implication, they rejected all alternative readings.
> 
> ...


This seems to be pretty solid evidence.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 6, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Nobody in this debate disagrees that the Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages by God's singular care and providence. But in the quote I gave he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors. Meanwhile, he misses the fact that the KJV does not measure up to his own criteria in its "critical" decision to depart from the majority text in at last one place in the OT.
> 
> Besides, why does he frame _this debate_ as a Genesis 3:1 issue? To be sure Satan will and has attacked the Bible at every opportunity. But if he thinks _this debate _is a Satanic attack, then he is saying something specifically about those fellow Reformed pastors who disagree with him, not the wider world of critical scholarship. The ESV, which he explicitly mentions, was not the work of Westcott and Hort.



So did he say that those who use modern translations are using "Satan's Bible" or did he say they are unconfessional? Those are two very different things I'd say and unless someone explicitly claims modern translations are "Satan's Bibles" then to throw that phrase into your comment is just inflammatory. Claiming that Satan desires to sow discord between Christians over Scripture is not to say that those who use modern translations are using "Satan's Bible". That modern translations are unconfessional is a perfectly legitimate argument to make even if it were wrong (it's not). If you disagree then put your case but getting offended and using unhelpful rhetoric because you're offended is adding lots of heat but no light.

As to using Genesis 3:1 in this particular debate, whichever version/translation you think is the best, surely we can all agree that having so many versions is not good? Surely having so many translations, and new ones coming out all the time, does lead to confusion and division? If you don't think so then I think _that_ is the problem, not that he said you were unconfessional.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 6, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> , surely we can all agree that having so many versions is not good? Surely having so many translations, and new ones coming out all the time, does lead to confusion and division?


In theory, that seems to be plausible. In reality, I really don't see bemoaning of having too many versions, even from lay people. I do not see division over many translations here for instance (if we are talking about translations, not TR/CT). 

I benefitted from the endorsement of the CSB over here, opened my eyes.


----------



## NM_Presby (Dec 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> *Example 3:*
> William Bridge (Westminster Divine) subscribed to the words "kept pure in all ages" yet also said:
> "How shall we hold and keep fast the letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another? Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them...In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginall reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all:" - Scripture Light the Most Sure Light" 1656, pg 47
> 
> Note that he never points to the printed text of his day as being definitive, but rather to "all" the copies of the New Testament.


It is interesting, in line with the comments here-- I've started to notice in older commentators when they come across minor variants (or translational difficulties) they simply comment on both without spending much time to judge between the options.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 6, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> So did he say that those who use modern translations are using "Satan's Bible" or did he say they are unconfessional? Those are two very different things I'd say and unless someone explicitly claims modern translations are "Satan's Bibles" then to throw that phrase into your comment is just inflammatory. Claiming that Satan desires to sow discord between Christians over Scripture is not to say that those who use modern translations are using "Satan's Bible". That modern translations are unconfessional is a perfectly legitimate argument to make even if it were wrong (it's not). If you disagree then put your case but getting offended and using unhelpful rhetoric because you're offended is adding lots of heat but no light.


I wish your comments were an accurate summary of what is the case regarding Myers's article. Myers's actual words are thus: "Modern translations based on Satan's Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others" (p. 192). He plainly said that modern translations not based on the TR are based on Satan's Bible. He certainly did not merely say that they were unconfessional. If a translation is based on Satan's Bible, then how can the translation itself not be Satan's Bible as well? So to say that we are the inflammatory people regarding this term is quite remarkable. We didn't come up with it, Alexander. Therefore to claim that we are the ones bringing heat but no light is also quite remarkable.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 6, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I wish your comments were an accurate summary of what is the case regarding Myers's article. Myers's actual words are thus: "Modern translations based on Satan's Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others" (p. 192). He plainly said that modern translations not based on the TR are based on Satan's Bible. He certainly did not merely say that they were unconfessional. If a translation is based on Satan's Bible, then how can the translation itself not be Satan's Bible as well? So to say that we are in the inflammatory people regarding this term is quite remarkable. We didn't come up with it, Alexander. Therefore to claim that we are the ones bringing heat but no light is also quite remarkable.


I agree Lane. The argument cuts both ways. Do the confessional text proponents talk about 'Satan's Bible' regarding variants in the Received Text itself? Eg, the KJV and the Geneva Bible, both esteemed Reformation Bibles using the Received Text, use different textual variants at Rev 16:5 and a few other places.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 6, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have been so busy this year Lane. Can you lead me to where I can read this.


It's here. Just scroll down to the section on McCurley's chapter.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 6, 2022)

Help me reason this out: would not the LXX, which goes against the preserved word in the MT in some variants, not also logically be 'Satan's Bible'?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 6, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Help me reason this out: would not the LXX, which goes against the preserved word in the MT in some variants, not also logically be 'Satan's Bible'?


If I have learned anything from some of these TR threads I believe the answer is no because essentially the TR is never wrong. It is the preserved text.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If I have learned anything from some of these TR threads I believe the answer is no because essentially the TR is never wrong. It is the preserved text.



The LXX isn't the TR. Maybe I missed something? But it seems to me that your answer should have been "Yes", "because essentially the TR is never wrong".

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 6, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The LXX isn't the TR. Maybe I missed something? But it seems to me that your answer should have been "Yes", "because essentially the TR is never wrong".


You're right. That is how is should have been stated.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 6, 2022)

Another logical conclusion is that, whether conscious of it or not, Erasmus was preserving the word of God by some divine appointment (providential preservation?) as he sent his text to be printed. On that day Erasmus went to the printers, the word of God was sealed by divine appointment and from that day on, there would be 'Satanic' corruptions of the text discovered, in which the church must resist. In the days preceding that day, there were 'Satanic' versions all around in various translations with their variances. But whether the church knew it then or not, Erasmus was clearing everything up through what he sent to the printers. The church must then discover the preserved pure text in due time. 

In principle, whether or not the TR has the longer or shorter ending (or whatever variant) does not matter. Because the TR preservation view is of history. The text sent to the printers and was most used in the Reformation is the one that is preserved, as history reveals. 


Feel feel to poke holes in the above for correction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 6, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> It's here. Just scroll down to the section on McCurley's chapter.


I read what you wrote Lane and find it lacking. Just because a major defender of the faith is from Alexandria doesn't mean the root of Arianism didn't find its way into eliminating or adding to the scriptures in Egypt. Sure Arianism does find its roots there in Egypt. That even gives more credit to the corruption of the Alexandrian texts in my estimation. I think your argument backfires here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> *Example 1:*
> Stephen Steele recently wrote an article on Thomas Goodwin (Westminster Divine) who both subscribed to those words "kept pure in all ages" and yet also argued for alternative readings coming from Alexandrian texts. He clearly did not hold to "the TR" as being the only true text.
> 
> 
> ...


I actually found the article lacking. I am not sure I have my facts straight right now. So I am going to remain reserved here. I did edit out my comment. Thanks


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I read what you wrote Lane and find it lacking. Just because a major defender of the faith is from Alexandria doesn't mean the root of Arianism didn't find its way into eliminating or adding to the scriptures in Egypt. Sure Arianism does find its roots there in Egypt. That even gives more credit to the corruption of the Alexandrian texts in my estimation. I think your argument backfires here.



Alexandria was the most important intellectual center on the planet. Both heroes and villains would emerge from there. I'm not sure why you think it is consistent to count Arius against us but not Athanasius for us. It was the Egyptians (Alexandrians) who rallied behind Athanasius while everyone else was against him.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Alexandria was the most important intellectual center on the planet. Both heroes and villains would emerge from there. I'm not sure why you think it is consistent to count Arius against us but not Athanasius for us. It was the Egyptians (Alexandrians) who rallied behind Athanasius while everyone else was against him.


Jacob, the answer is there from my stance. I can't argue with you about that. I wasn't saying anything for or against your position. All I am saying is that the Arien manuscript theory needs to be confirmed or denied. Sorry but I haven't been presented with Lanes stuff yet. Take me to the water brother. It will make me study. Maybe I can ask some questions along the way. I have a wide TR view.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> All I am saying is that the Arien manuscript theory needs to be confirmed or denied.



I think we just denied it. I pointed out that we can just as easily call it the Athanasian mss theory.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 7, 2022)

Randy, Arianism was everywhere, including the places where the Byzantine manuscripts would be copied. McCurley's argument fails because it proves too much, and it simply is irrelevant. Just because a given heresy is present does not prove at all that said heretics changed the Scripture text. That is simply illogical. But that is McCurley's argument. It is not cogent.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Randy, Arianism was everywhere, including the places where the Byzantine manuscripts would be copied. McCurley's argument fails because it proves too much, and it simply is irrelevant. Just because a given heresy is present does not prove at all that said heretics changed the Scripture text. That is simply illogical. But that is McCurley's argument. It is not cogent.


The reason we believe disputed texts such as 1 John 5:7 goes beyond Arian tampering/corruption. To believe that precious texts that concern the blessed Trinity and person of the Lord Jesus Christ fell out in Arian ascendancy is no new thing (https://askfortheoldpath.wordpress....d-alexander-on-the-comma-johanneum-1-john-57/ as an example, shared by Daniel's permission in the past)

If it is the case that texts concerning Jesus Christ and the Trinity were excised by Arians, then the next logical question (not presuming the truth thereof) is where did Arianism run rampant? All other things considered and set aside, that in and of itself is should not be considered a perplexing thought/question, but a basic one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> The reason we believe disputed texts such as 1 John 5:7 goes beyond Arian tampering/corruption. To believe that precious texts that concern the blessed Trinity and person of the Lord Jesus Christ fell out in Arian ascendancy is no new thing (https://askfortheoldpath.wordpress....d-alexander-on-the-comma-johanneum-1-john-57/ as an example, shared by Daniel's permission in the past)
> 
> If it is the case that texts concerning Jesus Christ and the Trinity were excised by Arians, then the next logical question (not presuming the truth thereof) is where did Arianism run rampant? All other things considered and set aside, that in and of itself is should not be considered a perplexing thought/question, but a basic one.


I think you're missing the point of my argument. If Arianism was rampant _everywhere_, and the only serious pocket of resistance to it was in Alexandria, I'm sure you can see why we think that positing Arian interference in precisely the spot where Arianism was being most resisted is less than cogent. _It was rampant everywhere_. By McCurley's style of argument, then, all the manuscripts should be ditched, because all of them could have been influenced by Arianism. I think James White's argument against this is quite cogent. The foremost passage against Arianism in the entire Bible is John 1:1-14. If Arians were deliberately tampering with the text in pro-Arianism directions, how come there is no serious variation at all in that entire passage?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The foremost passage against Arianism in the entire Bible is John 1:1-14. If Arians were deliberately tampering with the text in pro-Arianism directions, how come there is no serious variation at all in that entire passage?


Possibly I'm misunderstanding, but John 1:18 in the CT/Alexandrian copies "the only begotten God" is also a text cherished by Arians. So I don't think John 1 in the CT is cogent against Arianism.

Although Arianism was an issue beyond Alexandria, the forefront of the hottest battle of Arianism would've been those places where it was contradicted. The Alexandrian copies being potentially corrupt (for whatever the conversation is worth) is not a foundational argument, as much as a tangential thought.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 7, 2022)

For what it's worth, Tertullian tells us that heretics _were_ tampering with the texts and that the check against them was to be found in the faithful copies, even originals, present in the churches, typically those who were the addressees.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> The reason we believe disputed texts such as 1 John 5:7 goes beyond Arian tampering/corruption. To believe that precious texts that concern the blessed Trinity and person of the Lord Jesus Christ fell out in Arian ascendancy is no new thing (https://askfortheoldpath.wordpress....d-alexander-on-the-comma-johanneum-1-john-57/ as an example, shared by Daniel's permission in the past)



The question then is did the Nicene fathers use that as a proof text against Arius? If they did, it would have been an open and shut case.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> Possibly I'm misunderstanding, but John 1:18 in the CT/Alexandrian copies "the only begotten God" is also a text cherished by Arians. So I don't think John 1 in the CT is cogent against Arianism.
> 
> Although Arianism was an issue beyond Alexandria, the forefront of the hottest battle of Arianism would've been those places where it was contradicted. The Alexandrian copies being potentially corrupt (for whatever the conversation is worth) is not a foundational argument, as much as a tangential thought.



I am currently reading Gregory of Nyssa's _Against Eunomius_ (possibly the most tedious, boring, and repetitive book ever written), and he uses the phrase "only begotten God" time after time again in a positive way. Given that this book is one written against an Arian, the use of the phrase was hardly exclusive to the Arians.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 2


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The question then is did the Nicene fathers use that as a proof text against Arius? If they did, it would have been an open and shut case.


"If" and "would have been", are signs of speculation. Yes we have no extant quotation from the council of 1 John 5:7, but there again is literature beyond the council that refers to the passage, as formerly mentioned by Alexander.


Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am currently reading Gregory of Nyssa's _Against Eunomius_ (possibly the most tedious, boring, and repetitive book ever written), and he uses the phrase "only begotten God" time after time again in a positive way. Given that this book is one written against an Arian, the use of the phrase was hardly exclusive to the Arians.


I don't think it has to be exclusive to Arians, in order to be Arian in origin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> I don't think it has to be exclusive to Arians, in order to be Arian in origin.



For an anti-Arian writer to be using this phrase in a positive way when writing explicitly against Arianism makes literally no sense. For that reason, Gregory's use of the phrase is strong _prima facie_ evidence against the Arian origin theory.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> "If" and "would have been", are signs of speculation. Yes we have no extant quotation from the council of 1 John 5:7, but there again is literature beyond the council that refers to the passage, as formerly mentioned by Alexander.



It's not speculation. It's evidence that the key figures in the Nicene debates weren't aware of any tampering with the text on either side.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> For an anti-Arian writer to be using this phrase in a positive way when writing explicitly against Arianism makes literally no sense. For that reason, Gregory's use of the phrase is strong _prima facie_ evidence against the Arian origin theory.


That would indeed be against logic, if he in fact _knew _that it was an Arian corruption; but again as mentioned earlier, whatever the conversation is worth, we don't have to be aware a particular text is corrupt/illegitimate in order for it to be so. Many godly men today do so, as an example.


RamistThomist said:


> It's not speculation. It's evidence that the key figures in the Nicene debates weren't aware of any tampering with the text on either side.


The above is also how I would personally respond. Again, I think it's a good question to ask, why it is that we have no extant quotation of it from the council of Nicea, but to use the language you used, that wouldn't make it "an open and shut case" either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I wish your comments were an accurate summary of what is the case regarding Myers's article. Myers's actual words are thus: "Modern translations based on Satan's Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others" (p. 192). He plainly said that modern translations not based on the TR are based on Satan's Bible. He certainly did not merely say that they were unconfessional. If a translation is based on Satan's Bible, then how can the translation itself not be Satan's Bible as well? So to say that we are the inflammatory people regarding this term is quite remarkable. We didn't come up with it, Alexander. Therefore to claim that we are the ones bringing heat but no light is also quite remarkable.



I thought this thread was about Mr McCurley's comments in the video, not Mr Myers' article in the book? I haven't watched the entire video but in the segment referenced in the OP at no point does Mr McCurley accuse those of using modern translations as using "Satan's Bible". He argues that the division which has come into the issue of Scripture translation, and the confusion, is a a result of satan's work. But as has been said already this is not the same thing. The pandemic introduced division into the church over a number of issues and that was certainly satan's doing but that is not to say that one side is promoting "Satan's Masks" or "Satan's Anti-Mask Position". 

It's time to just get over the whole "Satan's Bible" comment. As far as I know, no-one on this forum has used it. I don't know who you're arguing against by constantly bringing it up. It's unseemly to be going on about it for months on end, intruding it into every conversation about this issue. It was a crass phrase but as Mr McCurley said: stop sobbing over harsh rhetoric and just move on.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Poimen (Dec 7, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Nobody in this debate disagrees that the Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages by God's singular care and providence. But in the quote I gave he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors. Meanwhile, he misses the fact that the KJV does not measure up to his own criteria in its "critical" decision to depart from the majority text in at last one place in the OT.
> 
> Besides, why does he frame _this debate_ as a Genesis 3:1 issue? To be sure Satan will and has attacked the Bible at every opportunity. But if he thinks _this debate _is a Satanic attack, then he is saying something specifically about those fellow Reformed pastors who disagree with him, not the wider world of critical scholarship. The ESV, which he explicitly mentions, was not the work of Westcott and Hort.


Do you care to reply to my challenge concerning "Satan's Bible"? I believe you have misrepresented McCurley's position.

Furthermore, why do you refer here to "the majority text"? What in the interview demonstrates an adherence to that view as opposed to the received text?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

One other tangential thought, and I need to take a break. Since this is the PuritanBoard, the Puritans themselves were also aware that there was no extant copy of the council of Nicea that contained an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 — but was that conclusive to rejecting the authenticity of it? No. They stood upon it as a legitimate prooftext in the Westminster, London, Heidelberg, and Second Helvetic — all 4 major historic Reformed confessional documents. Turretin approved, as well as Owen, and Calvin. I'm not sure as to why the Council is treated as conclusive.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 7, 2022)

Poimen said:


> Do you care to reply to my challenge concerning "Satan's Bible"? I believe you have misrepresented McCurley's position.
> 
> Furthermore, why do you refer here to "the majority text"? What in the interview demonstrates an adherence to that view as opposed to the received text?


Did you listen to his response (1:10ff)? He was explicitly asked to respond to the "Satan's Bible" comment. Not only did he refuse to condemn such language but he said that the concern "made him yawn" and that anyone who disagreed with his view about that was descending into irrationalism. His words. Hence my claim that he was doubling down on the claim. I didn't hear anything that suggested that he thought it in the least problematic.

In terms of the OT, what is the received text? How would you distinguish it from the Masoretic text?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 7, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> stop sobbing over harsh rhetoric and just move on.


Are you saying this also to the TR people who can't get over the rhetoric I have used in the recent past, which was far milder than the Satan's Bible comment? I don't see a level playing field here. We are supposed to just get over maybe the harshest rhetoric I've even seen in this debate, but that's not the reaction from most TR folk when I used far milder. As Iain mentioned, McCurley refused to condemn the comment. You ask us to get over it, but what you seem to fail to realize is that the comment implies that most of the Reformed world is in cahoots with Satan. How could we not be, if we are using Satan's Bible and not God's? If the entire TR world condemned Myers's comment, I think we wouldn't harp on it. Myers would then be an outlier. But many have refused to condemn it.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> why it is that we have no extant quotation of it from the council of Nicea, but to use the language you used, that wouldn't make it "an open and shut case" either.



There is another way to figure it out. Why didn't Athanasius use that text? I could be mistaken, but I don't think he did. I have read most of his works (all, I think). So the question now is: either Athanasius got duped by the Arians or rather the earliest mss didn't have it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> There is another way to figure it out. Why didn't Athanasius use that text? I could be mistaken, but I don't think he did. I have read most of his works (all, I think). So the question now is: either Athanasius got duped by the Arians or rather the earliest mss didn't have it.


Is it not also true that he didn't quote Matthew 28:19, at least in his major works against Arius?

It's possible that it wasn't used precisely because it was disputed, or other reasons. There are quotes of the comma dating in the 4th century (3rd if you count Cyprian), and it was used by the orthodox bishops in Carthage in the 5th century. How ubiquitous it was we don't know, but there is evidence of its existence at least as old as evidence of its absence.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Is it not also true that he didn't quote Matthew 28:19, at least in his major works against Arius?
> 
> It's possible that it wasn't used precisely because it was disputed, or other reasons. There are quotes of the comma dating in the 4th century (3rd if you count Cyprian), and it was used by the orthodox bishops in Carthage in the 5th century. How ubiquitous it was we don't know, but there is evidence of its existence at least as old as evidence of its absence.



I'll double-check, but that seems correct. In any case, Athanasius's intellectual argument is so sophisticated that it doesn't need proof-texts.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'll double-check, but that seems correct. In any case, Athanasius's intellectual argument is so sophisticated that it doesn't need proof-texts.


If true, doesn’t that flatly defeat your earlier argument (from silence) that because Athanasius didn’t cite 1 John 5:7 as a proof text therefore it’s not scripture?


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence


True, and we haven’t seen evidence that Arians tampered with the earliest texts

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> If true, doesn’t that flatly defeat your earlier argument (from silence) that because Athanasius didn’t cite 1 John 5:7 as a proof text therefore it’s not scripture?


Only if we’re operating from the argument from silence position. We don’t have to do that.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Only if we’re operating from the argument from silence position. We don’t have to do that.


Ok. Your post 66 says “Why didn't Athanasius use that text? … either Athanasius got duped by the Arians or rather the earliest mss didn't have it.” That’s the argument from silence position. Presumably you now retract it (even if absent clarity), which is fine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Ok. Your post 66 says “Why didn't Athanasius use that text? … either Athanasius got duped by the Arians or rather the earliest mss didn't have it.” That’s the argument from silence position. Presumably you now retract it (even if absent clarity), which is fine.


I’m standing in the position of the interlocutor. Yes, it is a fallacy, but we didn’t start it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

I need to clarify. It was originally asserted that the Alexandrian text was corrupted by Arians. For one, there is no evidence for that claim. Two, I should have clarified by saying, "_If that were true." _If that were true, then Athanasius got duped.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Dec 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> True, and we haven’t seen evidence that Arians tampered with the earliest texts


You're correct, _evidence the opposing position won't accept_; but understandably you'll say the same to me. To lay my cards out on the table (though not the foundation of my position), I simply think the evidence that there are numerous variants concerning the deity of Christ, and the Trinity, and that it was also the belief of some godly men that went before us (Alexander as one example), and that the enemies of the gospel are most likely to corrupt the text (as Satan's desire is also), I think the matter is pretty clear.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Randy, Arianism was everywhere, including the places where the Byzantine manuscripts would be copied. McCurley's argument fails because it proves too much, and it simply is irrelevant.


"*McCurley's argument fails because it proves too much, and it simply is irrelevant. Just because a given heresy is present does not prove at all that said heretics changed the Scripture text. That is simply illogical. But that is McCurley's argument. It is not cogent."*

I thought Country Wide election fraud was only a theory. I didn't think it was possible. But the evidence is mounting. * This is not a Political thread so don't rabbit trail on this. * It isn't illogical in my mind. And believe me, I thought it was impossible to even think up such a strange thing. Especially as it comes from a whole Nation of a Constituted United States. 

Maybe McCurley's argument is too squeaky clean. I am not familiar with him. Either way it seems your admitted theory has as too many holes if not more wholes in my thinking so far. It seems you just pulled your argument out of the air. It is easier for me to believe that the Arians polluted the landscape with Alexandria being a source. I read a lot on this topic many many years ago. It seems Lane's theory has holes too. Whether McCurley's is irrelevant or not, it seems your assumption is just as messed up. Just my humble opinion. Your own rules of engagement come right back on you. You are assuming the Arian corruption is bad form. Well, you haven't proven anything to me so far. Gee Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 7, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You are assuming the Arian corruption is bad form. Well, you haven't proven anything to me so far. Gee Thanks.



The TR position _postulates_ Arian corruption in this specific text. One can postulate anything they want but that doesn't mean the burden of proof is on those who don't accept the postulation.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> The TR position _postulates_ Arian corruption in this specific text. One can postulate anything they want but that doesn't mean the burden of proof is on those who don't accept the postulation.


Exactly. We don’t have to prove anything. We don’t have the burden of proof

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 7, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Did you listen to his response (1:10ff)? He was explicitly asked to respond to the "Satan's Bible" comment. Not only did he refuse to condemn such language but he said that the concern "made him yawn" and that anyone who disagreed with his view about that was descending into irrationalism. His words. Hence my claim that he was doubling down on the claim. I didn't hear anything that suggested that he thought it in the least problematic.
> 
> In terms of the OT, what is the received text? How would you distinguish it from the Masoretic text?


Mr. McCurley was asked to address the introductory paragraph of his article referencing Gen 3:1, which he did. This itself has been criticized as over the top rhetoric. Riddle referenced a phrase used by another minister which I doubt (knowing him well) that he knew nothing about. He was responding to what he himself wrote.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 7, 2022)

The text of the question submitted pre podcast reads "You begin by quoting Satan's words to Eve in the Garden, "Yea hath God said... (Gen 3:1). Thereby you cast the issue of the Biblical Text as a battleground with Satan. What would you say to those who might claim to be offended by this kind of rhetoric?"

Note the absence of any reference to the Satan's Bible quote from another man.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 7, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> The text of the question submitted pre podcast reads "You begin by quoting Satan's words to Eve in the Garden, "Yea hath God said... (Gen 3:1). Thereby you cast the issue of the Biblical Text as a battleground with Satan. What would you say to those who might claim to be offended by this kind of rhetoric?"
> 
> Note the absence of any reference to the Satan's Bible quote from another man.


Did you miss 1:10:30??? He is asked "One of the other men talks about Satan's Bible; what would you say to those who say we should be careful and temper this rhetoric?" This is the actual question he is supposedly answering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 7, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Did you miss 1:10:30??? He is asked "One of the other men talks about Satan's Bible; what would you say to those who say we should be careful and temper this rhetoric?" This is the actual question he is supposedly answering.


So your problem is that he did not specifically address an issue, not submitted in the pre podcast questions, a comment that he has no idea about, but that he simply answered in terms of his article and the criticism that he is aware of concerning it (previously on this board). I was on the podcast and had the questions and did not make the connection or notice Mr. Riddle bringing in the other quote. Nor did I think that Mr. McCurley was defending that statement. Perhaps that comes due to context both having those questions and also knowing the man and what he believes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

JH said:


> That would indeed be against logic, if he in fact _knew _that it was an Arian corruption; but again as mentioned earlier, whatever the conversation is worth, we don't have to be aware a particular text is corrupt/illegitimate in order for it to be so. Many godly men today do so, as an example.



You need to prove that the Arian corruption theory is true, not simply assume that it is and then explain away evidence that does not support your thesis. The idea that Gregory would cite these words over and over again *in opposition to Arianism* if they were originally an Arian corruption is not very likely.



Logan said:


> The TR position _postulates_ Arian corruption in this specific text. One can postulate anything they want but that doesn't mean the burden of proof is on those who don't accept the postulation.



It is a case of guilty of Arian corruption until proven innocent, which is contrary to natural justice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> The TR position _postulates_ Arian corruption in this specific text. One can postulate anything they want but that doesn't mean the burden of proof is on those who don't accept the postulation.


Maybe, but some postulations bear more reason than others. Just saying. Then where do you go? I see more evidence for my understood position. Just saying.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> The TR position _postulates_ Arian corruption in this specific text. One can postulate anything they want but that doesn't mean the burden of proof is on those who don't accept the postulation.


For conscience sake it might be.
We don't want others to believe something for no reason. It doesn't matter what side it comes from. Let's say person A (Majority) makes a statement to Person B (Minority). It is in conflict with what Person B was taught to know.. So Person B comes up with a story he conjectures by putting fragmented pieces of thought together. Then a group of people start to follow Person B's rhetorical response. Person C (me) jumps in late to the discussion. Person C asks for proof concerning Person B's claims. Person C finds out it is an assumption on person B's part. It is found out that Person A was being refuted by assumption. But Person B's response doesn't even measure up to his own standard by doing what he did. It is very confusing to this person C (me).

Do you get what I am trying to say. Thanks Logan.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I think we just denied it. I pointed out that we can just as easily call it the Athanasian mss theory.


I am not so sure about this Jacob. 
While both may hail from Egypt at some point it looks like one man is mostly singled out historically for the heresy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not so sure about this Jacob.
> While both may hail from Egypt at some point it looks like one man is mostly singled out historically for the heresy.



It still comes back to burden of proof. There is no evidence that Arians tampered with the text. There are assertions, but that's it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Dec 7, 2022)

If this "Satan's Bible" thing is such a big deal, then why doesn't someone just email Rev. McCurley and ask him to clarify his position on it. If you have something against a brother, go and talk to him. We all know that he is a gifted and godly minister so how about we extend just a little bit of grace, you know, like the Lord has done to us. Love is patient. Love does is not easily offended.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 7, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If this "Satan's Bible" thing is such a big deal, then why doesn't someone just email Rev. McCurley and ask him to clarify his position on it. If you have something against a brother, go and talk to him. We all know that he is a gifted and godly minister so how about we extend just a little bit of grace, you know, like the Lord has done to us. Love is patient. Love does is not easily offended.


Sure. But like my other thread, it's public. So it's argued that there should be a public admonishment.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> Sure. But like my other thread, it's public. So it's argued that there should be a public admonishment.


So, are you calling for somone here on the Puritanboard to do this? Remember we have a pretty strong commitment to the 9th Commandment. Is it your station in life to do this? I am just asking questions.

A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 7, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So, are you calling for somone here on the Puritanboard to do this? Remember we have a pretty strong commitment to the 9th Commandment. Is it your station in life to do this? I am just asking questions.
> 
> A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2]


I merely responded that some are probably going to use the argument. Nothing more. I haven't and won't condemn McCurley. But since this thread veered that way due to public and published comments, it seems too little too late and he already has from a few. Just sayin'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Did you miss 1:10:30??? He is asked "One of the other men talks about Satan's Bible; what would you say to those who say we should be careful and temper this rhetoric?" This is the actual question he is supposedly answering.


He is answering a question about the beginning of his portion of the book. ie. the Bible is under attack based upon Genesis 3:1. He answered the question also. I started at this spot. He acknowledges the other author who made the quote in my estimation. Is that William?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JH (Dec 8, 2022)

"He refused to condemn XYZ" — sounds like big media about the Orange Man when he was in office. If you refuse to condemn something, you are the enemy.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2022)

Here is a thought experiment: The Nestorian heresy originated from the Patriarch of Constantinople, giving it a specifically Byzantine flavor. In fact, Paul said there is one mediator between God and man, the _man _Christ Jesus. Strictly speaking, Chalcedonian orthodoxy said the person of the union was divine, not human. Nestorius said otherwise (sort of). If we postulate that Arians tampered with the Alexandrine text because Egypt, then we must do the same, by parity of reasoning, to the Nestorians and Byzantine text.

Of course, I don't believe any of this, but that's how the argument works.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 8, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> Sure. But like my other thread, it's public. So it's argued that there should be a public admonishment.


Big problem is the Satan's Bible thing is not his statement.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 8, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> Big problem is the Satan's Bible thing is not his statement.


OK, but I still find it incredible that so many TRers simply refuse to distance themselves from such a statement, regardless of its origins. They must in fact agree with it, it would seem. Otherwise, seeing the intense offense and division it has caused within the church, why not at least plainly say they disagree with that nomenclature - again, regardless of its origin - and find a better way to state the point?

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

JH said:


> "He refused to condemn XYZ" — sounds like big media about the Orange Man when he was in office. If you refuse to condemn something, you are the enemy.



The problem is that he was a contributor to a volume in which that statement was made. I am not saying that he is responsible for everything said in that volume, but it would not be that hard to say, "I disagree with the 'Satan's Bible' remark." To be truthful, though, this point is becoming tiresome. If the other contributors are not willing to distance themselves from such a comment, then I will presume that they agree with it. If a few random people believe that the rest of us are using Satan's Bible, then I am afraid that it is not keeping me awake at night.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 8, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The problem is that he was a contributor to a volume in which that statement was made. I am not saying that he is responsible for everything said in that volume, but it would not be that hard to say, "I disagree with the 'Satan's Bible' remark." To be truthful, though, this point is becoming tiresome. If the other contributors are not willing to distance themselves from such a comment, then I will presume that they agree with it. If a few random people believe that the rest of us are using Satan's Bible, then I am afraid that it is not keeping me awake at night.


Daniel it is becoming tiresome. Too many people are assuming too much and projecting it on Mr. McCurley and what he did not say and why he did not say it. The only reason I know that comment is in the book is because I learned of it from elsewhere - I have not read the book though I contributed to it, which is not particularly unusual. I have never once heard an FCC minister speak in terms of 'Satan's Bible,' furthermore I know Mr. McCurley's view. It is strange that the fact he did not address the particular comment of another contributor, not mentioned in the submitted questions to us, has turned into something of a witch hunt. The last time I heard such a comment was when I was in the FP Church of Ulster.

I have no problem distancing myself from such a comment and distinguishing the right application of Gen 3:1 and the natural question that this poses to an open ended textual debate in relation to our having the Word of God, from the conclusion that a Bible based on the critical text is 'Satan's Bible.' I know that this reflects the views of the men in my Presbytery.

But Mr. McCurley defending what he wrote while not commenting on something someone else wrote seems enough for the prolonged nonsense on this thread. If anyone wants his view on the thing he did not speak on but they feel they need to speak on, just email him for his view. Simple.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 8, 2022)

JH said:


> Personally, I was saved reading an NIV, and if Faith cometh by hearing the word of God, then the NIV is at least in some sense the word of God


This is another inconsistency I frequently hear from the anti-CT'ers. Surely, if a translation is based on texts that indeed merit being dubbed "Satan's Bible," how could it possibly fulfill the Word's primary purpose of regularly bringing it's hearers to salvation from Satan's bondage? This is simply incomprehensible. Surely a change in both verbiage and sentiment is needed. But at this point I'm not holding my breath...

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## JH (Dec 8, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> This is another inconsistency I frequently hear from the anti-CT'ers. Surely, if a translation is based on texts that indeed merit being dubbed "Satan's Bible," how could it possibly fulfill the Word's primary purpose of regularly bringing it's hearers to salvation from Satan's bondage? This is simply incomprehensible. Surely a change in both verbiage and sentiment is needed. But at this point I'm not holding my breath...


I don't think it's any different in example than the New World Translation containing the word of God, and yet excising/changing precious passages; though I would obviously not equate _the degree_ of corruption between the NWT and say, the ESV as an example. I would not be shocked if men came to a knowledge of the truth through such a translation, and were lead out of that cult by the Spirit of God. The Lord may use a crooked stick to strike a straight blow, if he will.

I mentioned before that we don't know whether all individuals who work in textual scholarship have ill intent or not, we cannot see their heart, though some of them have revealed their cards. See https://puritanboard.com/threads/en...-the-majority-text.108137/page-4#post-1302752

One thing that was misattributed to me in regards to "believing all corruptions stem from Satan", when all I said is that none would love the Bible to be corrupted more than Satan, and adding on top of that the suspicion of several variants in regards to the deity of Christ, and the Trinity in regards to potential Arian corruption in particular texts, as some who have gone before us believed the same (see previous posts).

The conversation is going in circles at this point. Personally I would not employ the language Satan's Bible, but if others do, I still see some aspect of truth in what they said and mean. Take that for what you will

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 8, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> But Mr. McCurley defending what he wrote while not commenting on something someone else wrote seems enough for the prolonged nonsense on this thread. If anyone wants his view on the thing he did not speak on but they feel they need to speak on, just email him for his view. Simple.


So, do you really believe that the onus of clarification of a highly controversial and divisive statement rests with the general public who may read it in a published volume, over and above the obligation of its co-contributors?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2022)

So if I am reading it correctly, the gist of the matter is:

"He didn't say that statement nor will he condemn it." How hard is it to say, "That statement is wrong and the majority of Reformed ministers aren't Satanically duped"?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 8, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> So, do you really believe that the onus of clarification of a highly controversial and divisive statement rests with the general public who may read it in a published volume, over and above the obligation of its co-contributors?


It rests on the one who made it. The modus of this thread has been assume the worst and condemn for silence

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2022)

All one has to say is that the majority of Reformed ministers aren't Satanically duped.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 8, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> OK, but I still find it incredible that so many TRers simply refuse to distance themselves from such a statement, regardless of its origins. They must in fact agree with it, it would seem. Otherwise, seeing the intense offense and division it has caused within the church, why not at least plainly say they disagree with that nomenclature - again, regardless of its origin - and find a better way to state the point?


This whole schtick is just becoming absurd. Loads of TR proponents on this board are on the record disagreeing with that particular comment, so there is first of all the question of who are the “so many” you’re referring to who simply refuse to? Then there’s the question of just weights and just measures - by your logic, you, and all other opponents of the TR on this board, must plainly say that you disagree with publicly slandering Rev MacCurley, Rev Sheffield, and a few others as liars, otherwise, you all must in fact agree with it, it would seem.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> All one has to say is that the majority of Reformed ministers aren't Satanically duped.


This is how I would deal with it. Ok, You have said it. Let's move on to the many other topics discussed in the book. We have spent three threads *Fixated* on Two words. Many of us here don't care. We all agree the three words hurt. Okay let's move on now. There is so much more to discuss about the Podcast.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 8, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Then there’s the question of just weights and just measures - by your logic, you, and all other opponents of the TR on this board, must plainly say that you disagree with publicly slandering Rev MacCurley, Rev Sheffield, and a few others as liars, otherwise, you all must in fact agree with it, it would seem.


I, Phil D., do hereby declare for the record, that I would not call the above mentioned persons liars, and until such time as definitive information to the contrary may by produced, I hereforth encourage any who have, to retract that term, and to henceforth use different terminology, that would better convey the presumed quality of "unwittingly propagating falsehood." _Dated, this eighth day, of the month of December, in the Year of our Lord, 2022._


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 8, 2022)

Brief thought: Jesus saw many variants in His day (LXX, DSS, Proto MT, SP). Yet He (and the apostles) presumably did not condemn whatever were the false texts. Why is that so? In fact, the apostles used both the MT and LXX!

All this to say: there was _some_ 'apostolic comfort' at the existence of variants from my human perspective.
Thus, I have no problem with living with the variants we have today. None substantially affects any doctrine. etc. I do not need 1 Jn 5:7 to show the Trinity in Scripture. I do not need to moan if Reformed people differ with me on variants. Take up and read.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Knight (Dec 8, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Take up and read.


About as good a place as any to end most of these kinds of threads.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 8, 2022)

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


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...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 8, 2022)

I'm of two minds on Chris Myers' "Satan's Bible" comment w.r.t. Rev. McCurley's contribution to the book. On the one hand, the book is an anthology with multiple authors and as with a journal, one contributor is not responsible for what another contributor writes. Indeed, some of the authors have distanced themselves from that comment already. Fault the editor but it is not fair to fault other contributors unless they explicitly affirm the same thing. The problem is in his long phrasing of the question on Rob's chapter, Rev. Riddle brings in Chris Myers' comment and lumps criticism of parts of both's chapters under the one objection of drawing the matter too narrowly; God's side v. Satan's side. While it is unclear to me per some comments above that Rob was in prepared remarks to defend his own chapter actually addressing the Myers' comment, Riddle's combining the two makes it a fair issue of inquiry to know for sure. So, if folks want clarity, as several have said, go ahead and write Rev. McCurley to see if he was defending or would defend the "Satan's Bible" comment.
So, *moderating now*, with all that said, I don't think that, short of additional explicit information bringing clarity, this question is profitable to pursue further on this thread.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2022)

As to the other content of the book, Lane more or less ended that discussion. If you don't think he did, then identify the specific arguments and show how the conclusions do not follow from the premises.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> As to the other content of the book, Lane more or less ended that discussion. If you don't think he did, then identify the specific arguments and show how the conclusions do not follow from the premises.


Like I noted, I am coming in on this stuff late. Sorry that my Schedule is hectic. I would like to be lead to the water that ends the discussion. Is it Lane's Critique?

Show me, I am from Missouri.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Like I noted, I am coming in on this stuff late. Sorry that my Schedule is hectic. I would like to be lead to the water that ends the discussion. Is it Lane's Critique?
> 
> Show me, I am from Missouri.








McCurley Responds to Keister


Sure. But like my other thread, it's public. So it's argued that there should be a public admonishment. So, are you calling for somone here on the Puritanboard to do this? Remember we have a pretty strong commitment to the 9th Commandment. Is it your station in life to do this? I am just...




puritanboard.com


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

Do you mean this? I asked a question and I don't have an answer still. I stated I was confused and hoped you would clear it up. As far as your Nestorian example I don't get it either. If that is an example to my statement concerning conscience, I am confused even farther as they are apples and oranges and a rabbit trail. I sincerely asked where the Alexandrian argument was settled. You pointed me to Lane. I responded here and asked for clarification. I am sorry if I am irritating you with my confusion. https://puritanboard.com/threads/mccurley-responds-to-keister.110107/page-3#post-1325132


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

I would like to know who started the Rumor about the Alexandrian manuscripts which are contested here. I have been hearing this stuff since the early 80's.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Do you mean this? I asked a question and I don't have an answer still. I stated I was confused and hoped you would clear it up. As far as your Nestorian example I don't get it either. If that is an example to my statement concerning conscience, I am confused even farther as they are apples and oranges and a rabbit trail. I sincerely asked where the Alexandrian argument was settled. You pointed me to Lane. I responded here and asked for clarification. I am sorry if I am irritating you with my confusion. https://puritanboard.com/threads/mccurley-responds-to-keister.110107/page-3#post-1325132



I'm still not sure what your exact question is. For clarity, could you say what persons A, B, and C, aforementioned in the post, believe? The Arian/Alexandrian hypothesis has been a TR talking point for a long time. I don't know who started it, but it doesn't matter. It's false (and logically fallacious).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> For clarity, could you say what persons A, B, and C, aforementioned in the post, believe?


A was Majority Texts. B is the critical text person. I am C. I point that out. Probably not that good.
I am concerned that disproving a supposed fallacy with a fallacy is weird to me.


----------



## gcdugas (Dec 9, 2022)

You guys wouldn't last a day in Luther's time or in Geneva. They faced physical swords, poisoning and so much more. And here I read endless debating about whether or not someone somewhere might have gotten butthurt over some words in a book or online in a chatroom? Really now.

Ανδρίζεσθε

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> A was Majority Texts. B is the critical text person. I am C. I point that out. Probably not that good.
> I am concerned that disproving a supposed fallacy with a fallacy is weird to me.



I see now. Person B didn't invent the story about Arians tampering with the text. That's a Majority-text talking point. We would have no reason to invent that story.


----------



## John The Baptist (Dec 9, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> You guys wouldn't last a day in Luther's time or in Geneva. They faced physical swords, poisoning and so much more. And here I read endless debating about whether or not someone somewhere might have gotten butthurt over some words in a book or online in a chatroom? Really now.
> 
> Ανδρίζεσθε


Should we be disappointed that things are not as violent today? Should Luther be commended for his profane rhetoric? This comment is unnecessary. I understand your point but there were much better ways to say it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gcdugas (Dec 9, 2022)

John The Baptist said:


> Should we be disappointed that things are not as violent today? Should Luther be commended for his profane rhetoric? This comment is unnecessary. I understand your point but there were much better ways to say it.



Ok, how about this.... Grow up. You all are embarrassing yourselves.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

gcdugas said:


> Ok, how about this.... Grow up. You all are embarrassing yourselves.



I'm personally not offended by the Satan's bible comment. I'm encouraged, actually. It means the other side doesn't have an argument and has resorted to that.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'm personally not offended by the Satan's bible comment. I'm encouraged, actually. It means the other side doesn't have an argument and has resorted to that.


Indeed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> We would have no reason to invent that story.


But that is what you said Lane did


RamistThomist said:


> Exactly. We don’t have to prove anything. We don’t have the burden of proof


That is the problem here. You do have to prove your assumption too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander brother. Especially if you say your view is as possibly correct also. I haven't seen one way or the other. Now you are going to upset what I have learned almost 40 years ago with no evidence it is wrong. I agree I need to find out. But you admit that what you are propagating is a lie. You are trying to overturn what I believe with a lie? Then claim I have no evidence. This sounds crazy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'm personally not offended by the Satan's bible comment. I'm encouraged, actually. It means the other side doesn't have an argument and has resorted to that.


Jacob now you are acting in as much presumption. Wow, you sound like the deniers of long past history who only find out by recent discovery that things the Bible recorded really did happen. Why make up a story and then claim it is false to prove my position is false. That just sounds crazy as I have said.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But that is what you said Lane did



I must be confused. I'm almost certain that a TR guy on here started the line that Arians tampered with the mss. Lane is reporting that claim, not making it.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> You do have to prove your assumption too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander brother. Especially if you say your view is as possibly correct also.



I do not have an assumption. I don't have to prove the mss tradition is corrupted. In particular, I am not arguing that CT is correct. I'm simply stating that we do not have evidence that Arians tampered with the text.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> . But you admit that what you are propagating is a lie.



I do not.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> You are trying to overturn what I believe with a lie?



I have no idea what you think I am trying to overturn. I'll restate my original claim yet again:

Claim: I do not believe the Arians tampered with the Alexandrian text. If someone says they did, show me how.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jacob now you are acting in as much presumption. Wow, you sound like the deniers of long past history who only find out by recent discovery that things the Bible recorded really did happen. Why make up a story and then claim it is false to prove my position is false. That just sounds crazy as I have said.



I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't make up any story.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I do not believe the Arians tampered with the Alexandrian text. If someone says they did, show me how.


Well, Lane did. Then you made up a new story which seems to be the MO you guys are running with. Just tell me you don't believe it. Then tell me why. Historically things have come back to haunt some people when the documents do turn up. I agree. If the Arien influence didn't happen we need to know about it. That is why I asked you if you know who the first guy was who wrote about what I am asking. First guy is not literal. I just wonder why so many people believe a lie. Doesn't matter what side it comes from. I am not so sure how you can overturn a long held believed history with a made up story and say, "See, you are wrong."

I am not opposed to being shown I am wrong. I own it when I can see. I am a Thomas.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Well, Lane did. Then you made up a new story which seems to be the MO you guys are running with. Just tell me you don't believe it. Then tell me why. Historically things have come back to haunt some people when the documents do turn up. I agree. If the Arien influence didn't happen we need to know about it. That is why I asked you if you know who the first guy was who wrote about what I am asking. First guy is not literal. I just wonder why so many people believe a lie. Doesn't matter what side it comes from. I am not so sure how you can overturn a long held believed history with a made up story and say, "See, you are wrong."
> 
> I am not opposed to being shown I am wrong. I own it when I can see. I am a Thomas.



What story do you think I made up?


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 9, 2022)

One moderating word regarding Chris Meyers and his "Satan's Bible" language. A few years ago, I spent a season on Facebook (I don't know that I'll do that again). I interacted with Chris a fair amount during that period, and can testify that he has a pension for inflammatory speech. He seemed determined to be an Ishmael--his hand against every man, and every man's hand against him.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think most folks who have interacted with Chris would say the same thing. That being the case, is it really fair to impute his rhetoric to the entire constituency of the TR position? 

I really question the judgment of the editors of the book in inviting Mr. Meyers to participate in in a polemical anthology. It's like inviting a pyromaniac to run a fireworks show.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 4


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 9, 2022)

EDIT: My comment wasn't actually edifying, so, deleted.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> What story do you think I made up?


I was mistaken maybe but I didn't get the whole Nestorian story attachment to this. I noted that to your earlier I think.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

TylerRay said:


> One moderating word regarding Chris Meyers and his "Satan's Bible" language. A few years ago, I spent a season on Facebook (I don't know that I'll do that again). I interacted with Chris a fair amount during that period, and can testify that he has a pension for inflammatory speech. He seemed determined to be an Ishmael--his hand against every man, and every man's hand against him.
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, I think most folks who have interacted with Chris would say the same thing. That being the case, is it really fair to impute his rhetoric to the entire constituency of the TR position?
> 
> I really question the judgment of the editors of the book in inviting Mr. Meyers to participate in in a polemical anthology. It's like inviting a pyromaniac to run a fireworks show.


How is this a moderating word? It is hear say and I don't care about his temperament. I understand this guy is obviously polarizing. I don't even know who he is.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is hear say



That's not what hearsay means.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> and I don't care about his temperament.



That's a troubling comment.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I understand this guy is obviously polarizing. I don't even know who he is.



He's the Pastor of Phoenix Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA) in Phoenix, Arizona.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 9, 2022)

Randy, I did not make up the story that Arians tampered with the Alexandrian text. McCurley said that in his article in the book (p. 147). I am challenging that claim. I am making no counter-claim except the obvious one that most church historians agree with, namely, that Arianism was everywhere. Therefore it does not make sense to posit a heightened localized influence to the point where Alexandrian manuscripts (and only these!) were twisted by Arian heretics. There is no evidence that Arianism was more influential in Alexandria than elsewhere in the Christian world. As has been pointed out, Athanasius was the one resisting Arianism, and he was from Alexandria!

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I was mistaken maybe but I didn't get the whole Nestorian story attachment to this. I noted that to your earlier I think.



That was a _reductio ad absurdum_. It was a "thought experiment." My point was that if we fault a mss tradition because of its provenance with heresy, as many TRs do, then the same standard must apply in other situations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I don't care about his temperament.


I do. He's a pastor.

1 Tim. 3:2-3, 2 Tim. 2:24-25

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> How is this a moderating word? It is hear say and I don't care about his temperament. I understand this guy is obviously polarizing. I don't even know who he is.


I understand that my statement is anecdotal, and I won't try to defend it. Let everyone who has interacted with him judge for himself.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Claim: I do not believe the Arians tampered with the Alexandrian text. If someone says they did, show me how.


Show you how? 
50 manuscripts were supposedly commissioned by Alexander to be made by Arius and his disciples or monks. I can't remember. I have got to go back 30 years. Yeah, That aint happening. I can't remember what I wrote yesterday. LOL. 


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That's not what hearsay means.


It is a rumor to me. 


greenbaggins said:


> Randy, I did not make up the story that Arians tampered with the Alexandrian text. McCurley said that in his article in the book (p. 147). I am challenging that claim. I am making no counter-claim except the obvious one that most church historians agree with, namely, that Arianism was everywhere. Therefore it does not make sense to posit a heightened localized influence to the point where Alexandrian manuscripts (and only these!) were twisted by Arian heretics. There is no evidence that Arianism was more influential in Alexandria than elsewhere in the Christian world. As has been pointed out, Athanasius was the one resisting Arianism, and he was from Alexandria!


Thanks for clearing up the mud and I am sorry for jumping in late. Alexamder and Arius were both from Egypt and the term For Arianism was attached to the false teaching. Alexander, wasn't he bishop at that time?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> I do. He's a pastor.


But we aren't arguing his temperament. We are discussing words here. Temperament has nothing to do with this. If he is doing something wrong then let his Presbytery handle his temperament. I am more worried about the truth of manuscripts and language. It is rumor to me. Two witnesses. Okay. Is it settled now. Let it be Known that Pastor Mcwhatever has a bad Temperament. Ok what has that added to the discussion? Nothing. I am no closer to the truth by knowing that. I still don't know the guy. It is rumor.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Show you how?
> 50 manuscripts were supposedly commissioned by Alexander to be made by Arius and his disciples or monks. I can't remember. I have got to go back 30 years. Yeah, That aint happening. I can't remember what I wrote yesterday. LOL.



Fair enough, but as it is you've just asserted something. That's where the argument stands for the moment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But we aren't arguing his temperament. We are discussing words here. Temperament has nothing to do with this. If he is doing something wrong then let his Presbytery handle his temperament. I am more worried about the truth of manuscripts and language. It is rumor to me. Two witnesses. Okay. Is it settled now. Let it be Known that Pastor Mcwhatever has a bad Temperament. Ok what has that added to the discussion? Nothing. I am no closer to the truth by knowing that. I still don't know the guy. It is rumor.



Anyone who has interacted with him will say the same thing. He attacks, yells, and uses inflammatory language to anyone with whom he disagrees. It's kind of like Steven Anderson.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is rumor.


Rumor would be something you hear but have not had any actual experience. We have not met, but I know Chris from working on an important article with him for _The Confessional Presbyterian_ some years back. He knew the author, a retired old time long time OPC minister, and brokered/encouraged/helped get the text together for publication. Nothing of our personal interaction would lead me to believe he was a barn burner in his manner in his social media disputations, yet, I can say the posts I saw the last few years since then and since he became an ordained minister and before he left Facebook, tended to use intense rhetoric. It didn't surprise me at least to see he was the writer to use the "Satan's Bible" line.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> That was a _reductio ad absurdum_. It was a "thought experiment." My point was that if we fault a mss tradition because of its provenance with heresy, as many TRs do, then the same standard must apply in other situations.


But you have to admit the heresy is majorly attached to a name of a Priest from Africa. It seems to have an origin of coming together in a person. The belief might be well received around the world before he even believed it. That has no bearing on the discussion. He is the person the heresy is attached to. He had influence over the Church in Egypt. It is to be seen now if he had any influence over the scribes of the New Testament Greek. I guess we need to start maybe discussing the what type of Greek the manuscripts contain. Maybe?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Anyone who has interacted with him will say the same thing. He attacks, yells, and uses inflammatory language to anyone with whom he disagrees. It's kind of like Steven Anderson.


It still doesn't matter to me if he was a great theologian who threw away the ministry to live with his Assistant Pastor's wife. It has no bearing here. I don't care about his temperament. I care if what he says is true. If he is an ill tempered man to you guys that is fine. It doesn't matter here.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 9, 2022)

This makes me wonder how people will regard America in a thousand years time. A hotbed of heresy or a chief country that proclaimed Reformed truth

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks for clearing up the mud and I am sorry for jumping in late. Alexamder and Arius were both from Egypt and the term For Arianism was attached to the false teaching. Alexander, wasn't he bishop at that time?


Did you mean Athanasius? Athanasius was under Bishop Alexander for a time in Alexandria (including the Council of Nicaea), but for the majority of the period of the Arian controversy (which was not settled at all by the Council!), Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > But you have to admit the heresy is majorly attached to a name of a Priest from Africa. It seems to have an origin of coming together in a person. The belief might be well received around the world before he even believed it. That has no bearing on the discussion. He is the person the heresy is attached to. He had influence over the Church in Egypt. It is to be seen now if he had any influence over the scribes of the New Testament Greek. I guess we need to start maybe discussing the what type of Greek the manuscripts contain. Maybe?


Arius was a deacon, not a priest. He had influence in many places in the Mediterranean. The type of Greek in the NT is Koine. There are not fine enough gradations of Greek style to go much further than that, not to mention the fact that we have such a small sample size of Greek in the NT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> This makes me wonder how people will regard America in a thousand years time. A hotbed of heresy or a chief country that proclaimed Reformed truth


They probably won't care. We are either the scourge or the blessing to the world now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> here are not fine enough gradations of Greek style to go much further


You all are going to make me lose my retirement mindset. LOL. Are they minuscule or ... I wonder if Paul wrote in what form. I have forgotten so much stuff. Maybe it is time for me to let the younger guys take over. Aren't there classifications for the script and form of the manuscripts?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But you have to admit the heresy is majorly attached to a name of a Priest from Africa. It seems to have an origin of coming together in a person. The belief might be well received around the world before he even believed it. That has no bearing on the discussion. He is the person the heresy is attached to.



That changes nothing. If you want to go that route, then you have to apply the same standards to Nestorius and the Byzantine text. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is to be seen now if he had any influence over the scribes of the New Testament Greek.



He almost certainly had none.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You all are going to make me lose my retirement mindset. LOL. Are they minuscule or ... I wonder if Paul wrote in what form. I have forgotten so much stuff. Maybe it is time for me to let the younger guys take over. Aren't there classifications for the script and form of the manuscripts?


I thought you were talking about grammar style, not handwriting style. The six main categories of manuscripts are papyri, uncials (used capital Greek letters), minuscules (using lower-case and even cursive Greek letters), lectionaries, versions (as in translations), and quotations of the ECF. In the time of Arius, the first two and the last are in play, as it were. Papyri were on the way out, as the codex was starting to take the literary world by storm. And the ECF were always quoting the NT, too, of course. These differences don't have a whole lot to do with whether heretics were tinkering with the text. The minuscules came into their own in the 9th century and later. Almost all of the Byzantine mss are minuscules. Most of the Alexandrian are uncials or papyri.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> And the ECF were always quoting the NT, too, of course.


And that is another issue. Both sides claim that. smh.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> These differences don't have a whole lot to do with whether heretics were tinkering with the text.


Are you sure? The Gnostics were.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 50 manuscripts were supposedly commissioned by Alexander to be made by Arius and his disciples or monks. I can't remember.


The legendary 50 Bibles were commissioned by the Emperor Constantine, and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea, who did have Arian sympathies. Whether or not Codex Sinaiticus may have been among these 50 is unknown, and probably unknowable. Eusebius is the sole source of that supposed commission. For that matter, Sinaiticus (or Vaticanus) might just as well have been produced by the arch-Trinitarian Athanasius (from Alexandria), as he recorded that, "I sent to him [Constantine] volumes containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him." (_Defense Before Constantius_, 4; NPNF2 4:239)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you sure? The Gnostics were.


I am not denying the possibility that a heretic might have tinkered with the text (though I remain skeptical). I am questioning the connection between the question of the differences of uncials/minuscules and the question of whether heretics tinkered with the text. Those are two different questions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you sure? The Gnostics were.



But we have most of the Gnostic texts. We know exactly what they did. They are available because of the Nag Hammadi library. Therefore, if someone wanted to prove that the Gnostics tampered with the texts, they could show exactly how.

Gnostics were more likely to write their own gospels than to tamper with ours.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> The legendary 50 Bibles were commissioned by the Emperor Constantine, and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea, who did have Arian sympathies. Whether or not Codex Sinaiticus may have been among these 50 is unknown, and probably unknowable. Eusebius is the sole source of that supposed commission. For that matter, Sinaiticus (or Vaticanus) might just as well have been produced by the arch-Trinitarian Athanasius (from Alexandria), as he recorded that, "I sent to him [Constantine] volumes containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him." (_Defense Before Constantius_, 4; NPNF2 4:239)


Thanks Phil. It has been too long since I.... Yeah, facts tend to get a little jumbled up over 40 years. LOL So, Lane there is more of a possibility than you are leading on to.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Gnostics were more likely to write their own gospels than to tamper with ours.


Most likely. okay Jacob. I guess you have sealed it all up there wasn't any dabbling with the scriptures by Gnostics.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So, Lane there is more of a possibility than you are leading on to.


Just to make sure my point is clear: there is no more objective reason to believe that the two most important early codices that do not contain the Johannine Comma were the product of Arians rather than Trinitarians. And as Jacob has already pointed out, early Trinitarian apologists like Athanasius do not make reference to the Comma in any of their works. While not proof positive, this is nonetheless a significant fact.

You may also find this post informative.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Most likely. okay Jacob. I guess you have sealed it all up there wasn't any dabbling with the scriptures by Gnostics.



I've had this same conversation with Eastern Orthodox who said that Jews changed the OT prophecies. In order to prove a claim like that, you would have to demonstrate the change. What we have not yet (or will) seen is a demonstration of tampering.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks Phil. It has been too long since I.... Yeah, facts tend to get a little jumbled up over 40 years. LOL So, Lane there is more of a possibility than you are leading on to.


Randy, Phil's quotation proves the opposite of the conclusion you are drawing from it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Randy, Phil's quotation proves the opposite of the conclusion you are drawing from it.


I missed one word, _"supposed_." That one word makes a big difference. Thanks guys. Like I said, This is a rehash. I have to catch back up. I need to look for more references concerning why the teaching became so prevalent.


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I need to look for more references concerning why the teaching became so prevalent.


Like many things regarding this subject, speculation often takes on a life of its own and becomes accepted as truth.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 9, 2022)

Brothers and sisters,

Just reflecting historically, apart from questions of textual fidelity and transmission proper, Alexandria's entire tendency was not in the Arian direction, not only under her patriarch Alexandria (who excommunicated Arius), and then Athanasius, but in the whole 4th and 5th centuries, to the extent of being so Anti-Arian that Alexandrian heresies went in the opposite direction and denied the fully human nature of Christ (Apollinaris, condemned at Constantinople I, 381; Eutyches, condemned at Chalcedon, 451).

Arius himself, as has been noted, was not yet admitted to the priesthood, when he, thinking that he was being faithful to Origen and properly anti-Sabellian, denied homoousian and argued that "there was when [Christ] was not." He came to this, because, as best we can tell, he was influenced in this by his teacher, Lucian of Antioch. So the chief influence on him was the place that, when it committed heresy, went in the other direction: Antioch tended toward denying the fully divine nature of Christ (Arius, condemned at Constantinople, 325; Nestorius, condemned at Ephesus, 431--though Nestorius agreed with Leo's Tome, 449, and was likely not actually himself a "Nestorian").

All this is to say that no historian would locate Alexandria as a hotbed of unremitting Arianism. Rather, it was chiefly Anti-Arian, sometimes to a fault (falling at times into the heresies that downplayed Christ's humanity). Athanasius, of course, was Alexandria's anti-Arian champion. Alexandria, then, is the city par excellence that ought rightly to be identified with opposing Arianism (and the fourth-century councils of Alexandria bear this out as well as the agreement achieved chiefly by Athanasius and the Cappadocians with the Semi-Arians, foiling the abortive attempt of Julian, 361-363, to wreck the faith).

I'll not inflict this good board with my textual critical views, as I claim no expertise there and lean on the good work of many past and present scholars in this area who represent all sides of the issues. I find, as an aside, the new TC approach not threatening but one that might offer a better treatment of all the extant MSS. Some would take strong exception to that, I realize, and that's perfectly understandable and reasonable; both the mode of argumentation and the substance of the argument, however, are most helpful when done offering clear light and not only, or chiefly, heat. Office-bearers, particularly those who hold the teaching office, should know the place and importance of all the matters that rightly concern us as churchmen and should know how to handle them with respect to their relative importance.

It seems to me that this issue, and it's not the only one, but certainly a leading one in recent times, is an issue that can incite unseemly jangling among brothers: I regard it as unseemly because what's at stake in the manuscript disputes does not seem of the greatest moment to me (the variants appear to me to be quite minor). For the brothers that would differ with that and think me to minimize matters, I can understand their point, but, even then, the discussion should be more tempered, the sort that occurs among brothers with differing strong views who otherwise have so much in common.

The "Satan's bible" comment, then, reflects, I believe, overheated rhetoric unbecoming a debate among those who subscribe to the same standards, particularly Westminster and those in that tradition: it is the sort of sectarianism that does not advance the discussion in any meaningful way and engenders strife among brothers who ought to differ and argue reasonably with one another over these matters.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 13 | Love 1 | Informative 3 | Edifying 2


----------



## Jake (Dec 10, 2022)

In addition to Dr Strange's excellent point about the historical situation in Alexandria, what I also find interesting is that there are places in which the Critical Text has more explicit about the deity of Christ than the Majority Text or TR. I found this video interesting, a conversation with Dr. Maurice Robinson discussing textual differences in Jude which has the opposite pattern of what a lot of TR-folks like to emphasize:

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 10, 2022)

Jake said:


> In addition to Dr Strange's excellent point about the historical situation in Alexandria, what I also find interesting is that there are places in which the Critical Text has more explicit about the deity of Christ than the Majority Text or TR. I found this video interesting, a conversation with Dr. Maurice Robinson discussing textual differences in Jude which has the opposite pattern of what a lot of TR-folks like to emphasize:


I used to love the Jude 5 variant. I thought it was a slam-dunk text to show to Jehovah’s Witnesses and such who deny the deity of Christ: “Jesus saved people out of the land of Egypt.” in recent years, however, I have come to view this variant as _un_orthodox. Jesus, the God-man, was born some 1,400 years after the exodus, and therefore could not have rescued Israel out of Egypt. God the Son certainly did (as I believe he was in the pillar of cloud and fire), but not Jesus. But perhaps I’m being too picky. I’m just not as enthusiastic about the CT Jude 5 as I used to be. What do you think?

(Thanks for coming last night, brother!)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Dec 10, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I used to love the Jude 5 variant. I thought it was a slam-dunk text to show to Jehovah’s Witnesses and such who deny the deity of Christ: “Jesus saved people out of the land of Egypt.” in recent years, however, I have come to view this variant as _un_orthodox. Jesus, the God-man, was born some 1,400 years after the exodus, and therefore could not have rescued Israel out of Egypt. God the Son certainly did (as I believe he was in the pillar of cloud and fire), but not Jesus. But perhaps I’m being too picky. I’m just not as enthusiastic about the CT Jude 5 as I used to be. What do you think?
> 
> (Thanks for coming last night, brother!)


I think the goal was to make the connection and show who Jesus truly is, but I do understand the point you are making.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 10, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I used to love the Jude 5 variant. I thought it was a slam-dunk text to show to Jehovah’s Witnesses and such who deny the deity of Christ: “Jesus saved people out of the land of Egypt.” in recent years, however, I have come to view this variant as _un_orthodox. Jesus, the God-man, was born some 1,400 years after the exodus, and therefore could not have rescued Israel out of Egypt. God the Son certainly did (as I believe he was in the pillar of cloud and fire), but not Jesus. But perhaps I’m being too picky. I’m just not as enthusiastic about the CT Jude 5 as I used to be. What do you think?


That does seem a valid observation. Yet of course the larger point, as with the other examples given in the video, is that such variations help explode the myth that those behind the CT are somehow conspiring to deny or obfuscate the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, and hence the Trinity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 10, 2022)

Arianism doesn’t deny the pre-incarnate existence of the Son.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 10, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Arianism doesn’t deny the pre-incarnate existence of the Son.



May I ask what point this comment is directed at?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 10, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> May I ask what point this comment is directed at?


Just that in the context of arguing over variants that deal with the Son’s pre-incarnate works, one can’t necessarily argue that one variant is more or less Arian than another on that basis.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2022)

Logan said:


> Like many things regarding this subject, speculation often takes on a life of its own and becomes accepted as truth.


Like Moses in Egypt? I believe in Moses because of written scripture. There is no trace of Moses or the Hebrews in Egypt. I don't want to believe a lie. That is a rabbit hole. My point is that just because evidence is small or nil that doesn't mean it isn't true. Therefore making an analogy or rewriting history by story will not make it any less true. I think trying to prove Moses might even be harder.
My faith doesn't rest upon seeing clearly. Many things have come back to bite the historians in the hiney because archaeology did dig up something. If you need an example, Many of the critics of the bible have tried to disprove it only to later have a discovery of truth. 
I lean TR for reasons I have probably long forgotten or for reasons that I am just plain comfortable. There have been a few verses that make me lean one way. I am going to take some time out and pick up and read. It is Winter Time and Bundle Up time.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 10, 2022)

This discussion reminds me a lot of my early days on the internet with the Steelites (remember them?) Specifically when they linked to call hymn singers “public idolaters” yet when you called them on this they said “I dont see the big deal, we all have idols in our heart” - then keep on bashing hymn singers and those who didn’t hold to the SLC or Steeler’s Covenanters as the only legitimate Reformed body in the world, and encouraged Reformed Christian’s to leave non-Steelite churches. They provoked and then minimized the effect of their words.

The extreme wing of the TR movement (Riddle, Myers, Young Textless Reformed and - it appears - McCurley) have a similar MO. They can say (or defend) any extreme statement (Satan’s Bible, “You should leave a non-TR church”) Then when they’re called on it they either minimize it, ignore the criticism, attack the critic for bringing it up, or say “So? What are you gonna do about it?” 

The Trueloves, the Johannssons, and other seem to want to dialogue with “less accurate” brothers - I’m good with this. The extremists appear to want to “prophesy” against “heretics.”

Reactions: Like 4 | Wow 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 10, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I used to love the Jude 5 variant. I thought it was a slam-dunk text to show to Jehovah’s Witnesses and such who deny the deity of Christ: “Jesus saved people out of the land of Egypt.” in recent years, however, I have come to view this variant as _un_orthodox. Jesus, the God-man, was born some 1,400 years after the exodus, and therefore could not have rescued Israel out of Egypt. God the Son certainly did (as I believe he was in the pillar of cloud and fire), but not Jesus. But perhaps I’m being too picky. I’m just not as enthusiastic about the CT Jude 5 as I used to be. What do you think?
> 
> (Thanks for coming last night, brother!)


Is the CT in Jude 5 much different than what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 about the rock that followed the Israelites being Christ?

Anything that can be said about either nature of Jesus can be said about the whole person. Hence the phrase in Acts 20:28 where God (the divine person) purchased the church with His own blood (his human nature sustained by the divine nature). Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. What can be said about His divine nature can be said about His whole person. Therefore, in Jude 5, what can be said about His divine nature in leading Israel out of Egypt can be said about His person (Jesus). Therefore, not unorthodox.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Zach (Dec 10, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I used to love the Jude 5 variant. I thought it was a slam-dunk text to show to Jehovah’s Witnesses and such who deny the deity of Christ: “Jesus saved people out of the land of Egypt.” in recent years, however, I have come to view this variant as _un_orthodox. Jesus, the God-man, was born some 1,400 years after the exodus, and therefore could not have rescued Israel out of Egypt. God the Son certainly did (as I believe he was in the pillar of cloud and fire), but not Jesus. But perhaps I’m being too picky. I’m just not as enthusiastic about the CT Jude 5 as I used to be. What do you think?
> 
> (Thanks for coming last night, brother!)


Piggybacking on Lane, I'll point out that our Confession specifically states that it's perfectly acceptable to say Jesus saved his people out of Egypt in 8.7 without being troubled.

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 10, 2022)

I suddenly remembered, from Lane's review:
" 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."

Was this something that the writers were united on? Should not the denominations of these men at least investigate such statements, seeing it opens the way for people to leave their denominations for the sake of the TR?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 10, 2022)

Zach said:


> Piggybacking on Lane, I'll point out that our Confession specifically states that it's perfect acceptable to say Jesus saved his people out of Egypt in 8.7 without being troubled.
> 
> "Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."


Thanks for including this. I think I had meant to, but for reasons of being sick today with a cold, my brain is not fully functional.


----------



## Zach (Dec 10, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Thanks for including this. I think I had meant to, but for reasons of being sick today with a cold, my brain is not fully functional.


Feel better, brother!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 10, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> I suddenly remembered, from Lane's review:
> " 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."
> 
> Was this something that the writers were united on? Should not the denominations of these men at least investigate such statements, seeing it opens the way for people to leave their denominations for the sake of the TR?


This was in the appendix I think and one of the authors at least I thought distanced himself from it on an earlier thread.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 10, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Is the CT in Jude 5 much different than what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 about the rock that followed the Israelites being Christ?
> 
> Anything that can be said about either nature of Jesus can be said about the whole person. Hence the phrase in Acts 20:28 where God (the divine person) purchased the church with His own blood (his human nature sustained by the divine nature). Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. What can be said about His divine nature can be said about His whole person. Therefore, in Jude 5, what can be said about His divine nature in leading Israel out of Egypt can be said about His person (Jesus). Therefore, not unorthodox.





Zach said:


> Piggybacking on Lane, I'll point out that our Confession specifically states that it's perfect acceptable to say Jesus saved his people out of Egypt in 8.7 without being troubled.
> 
> "Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."


These are helpful comments, brothers. I had considered the hypostatic union and the communication of attributes in relation to this text. The reference to 1 Cor. 10 was especially helpful. I’ll think about it more. I’m not manifestly opposed to it, just uneasy. But this is giving me pause.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I am not denying the possibility that a heretic might have tinkered with the text (though I remain skeptical). I am questioning the connection between the question of the differences of uncials/minuscules and the question of whether heretics tinkered with the text. Those are two different questions.


I understand that they are two different things to you. It basically comes down to faith and how we view what God has done. I believe in the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures. We both claim that. After the originals were penned we get what we get the farther the line goes. Remember I am just a simple guy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2022)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The "Satan's bible" comment, then, reflects, I believe, overheated rhetoric unbecoming a debate among those who subscribe to the same standards,


I would agree with this whole heartedly. I prefer to think in terms of 'Unholy Hands on the Bible'.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> The legendary 50 Bibles were commissioned by the Emperor Constantine, and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea, who did have Arian sympathies. Whether or not Codex Sinaiticus may have been among these 50 is unknown, and probably unknowable. Eusebius is the sole source of that supposed commission. For that matter, Sinaiticus (or Vaticanus) might just as well have been produced by the arch-Trinitarian Athanasius (from Alexandria), as he recorded that, "I sent to him [Constantine] volumes containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him." (_Defense Before Constantius_, 4; NPNF2 4:239)


Okay, so that is his opinion about what he thinks. He also noted the below. So is there some truth in the issue? 

Chapter XXXVI.—_Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures._
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.
“It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also be increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.3333 The catholicus3334 of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible.3335 You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother!”
3333 _Molz._in a note regards these as lectionaries, but they are usually thought to have been regular copies of the Scriptures in Greek—Septuagint and N.T., and the Codex Sinaiticus has been thought to be one of them. It dates from not earlier than the time of Eusebius, as it contains the Eusebian Canons, but yet from the fourth century. Altogether it is not impossible that it was one of these, and at all events a description of it, extracted from Scriveners (_Introduction,_ 1883, p. 88 sq.), will be a fair illustration. “13½ inches in length by 14-7/8 inches high.” “Beautiful vellum.” “Each page comprises four columns, with 48 lines in each column.” “Continuous noble uncials.” “Arranged in quires of four or three sheets.” It is evident from comparison of several quotations of Eusebius that the copy of the New Testament which he himself used was not closely related with the Sinaitic text, unless the various readings headed by this ms. are all mistakes originating with it. Compare allusions in the notes to such different readings. The last clause, although in the text of Heinichen, is of doubtful authority.
3334 This word is a transcription, rendered “Procurator” by _Bag.,_ and is perhaps corresponding to that official (cf. Long. article _Fiscus,_ in Smith, _Dict. Gr. and R. Ant._). But this transcription is recognized (cf. Ffoulkes, _Catholicus,_ in Smith and Cheetham, _Dict._).
3335 The fact that the Sinaiticus exhibits two or three hands suggests that it was prepared with rapidity, and the having various scribes was a way to speed.

Thanks for the lead to Schaff Phil. That helps answer me a little bit. There is some root to it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2022)

Strictly speaking, 1 John 5:7 doesn't prove Trinitarianism. "These three are one." One what? We would say "one essence," but we are reading that into the passage. Of course, I believe "one essence" but you can't get the niceties of Basil's distinctions on ousia and hypostasis from that passage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Okay, so that is his opinion about what he thinks. He also noted the below. So is there some truth in the issue?
> 
> Chapter XXXVI.—_Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures._
> “Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.
> ...



Even if this is legit, what does it prove?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 10, 2022)

Conjecture of what happened in Alexandria is not substantial to the TR view anyway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Even if this is legit, what does it prove?


I had a gentleman ask me this question the other day, "What is Truth?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 10, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I had a gentleman ask me this question the other day, "What is Truth?"



Truth is correspondence to reality. Not sure what that has to do with what I asked.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 10, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Okay, so that is his opinion about what he thinks. He also noted the below. So is there some truth in the issue?


I don't necessarily deny the authenticity of the letter from Constantine claimed by Eusebius, but again Athanasius also claimed an imperial commission to produce copies of scripture.

That editorial note in NPNF reflects some of the early scholarship on the document, which was divided even then. Even the meaning of the original Greek phrase rendered here as “arranged in quires of four or three sheets” has been a matter of much dispute. Many textual scholars, including Lake, Aland, and Metzger have deemed the overall evidence to favor an Alexandrian rather than Caesarean origin for Sinaiticus. Others disagree. Hence my previous statement that the true origin is not known for sure, and is probably unknowable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 10, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Strictly speaking, 1 John 5:7 doesn't prove Trinitarianism.



This brought a personal anecdote to mind...

I was raised in a Modalist, Pentecostalish, Mormonistic cult that demonized the Trinity as the most egregious and devious doctrinal error ever foisted in church history - Satanic was the exact term used. That's a hard and ugly thing to overcome after 20 years of indoctrination. When the Lord gave grace for me to finally be able to step back and study Scripture for myself, and still using the KJV, it wasn't 1 John 5:7-8 that convinced me of the Trinity. Those verses present a basic enough statement that fundamentalist-modalists insist they merely denote three-modes/offices/roles in one being, while Trinitarians take them as a clear statement of the three-persons-in-one-being of the Trinity.

On the other hand, I found John 1:1-5, 14 to set forth inescapable proof of the eternality of the Son - and by necessary extension, more than one person in the eternal Godhead

In the beginning was the Word, and *the Word was with God*, *and* t*he Word was God*. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.​​...The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.​
In relating this to the present discussion, it seems that if heretics were wanting to tamper with the Bible so as to hinder the doctrine of the Trinity, John 1 would be ground-zero, given its much more explicit teaching. But, notably, the Greek in verse 1 is identical in both the 1550 TR and the NA27 CT (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ* ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος*).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 10, 2022)

Thanks Phil. The Trinity is the hardest doctrine for me. Always has been. I tend to just know that God is who he says he is. He is Triune. I was unchurched when I came to faith. I read the four Gospels so fast. But there are many places in John to see the Diety and Trinity. John 8:58 shocked me. God loved me. Two of my problematic passages that bothered me concerning are:

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the *Son of man which is in heaven*.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: *God* was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 13, 2022)

Some of these conversations remind me of the general ignorance around the propagation of manuscripts around the early Church, the copying of those manuscripts, and then the later discovery of those manuscripts. 

On the one hand, Bart Ehrman will leverage this general ignorance to assert conspiracies as to the presence of variants or "tampering" by Scribes in popular works. He'll also propose a "phone game" analogy as if there was one manuscript that kept getting copied in successive turns and that the Church lost the manuscripts.

Proof? He needs none. He can simply assert and the ignorance of most as to how the Scriptures were transmitted and used regularly gets lost in the ideas that the ignorant are willing to believe.

in my opinion, the conspiracy that versess were removed or tampered with by heretics is on the same level of intellectual and theological piety. It's only value is that it fits a narrative. No extant manuscripts exist for certain readings and so the preservation of the text is abandoned (for the moment) in the Greek and it is assumed that God did not preserve any surviving Greek manuscripts for those texts that are simply known to be original. In order to add a false sense of sobriety to the consipiracy men propose that a Church-wide effort was undertaken by heretics to excise these texts. As has been pointed out, however, the consipracy is one of the dumbest ever because they don't even bother to excise the most important texts.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 13, 2022)

Follow up on speaking with Mr. McCurley, I can confirm the following three things.

1. He has no context for nor was he aware of the statement in the book regarding 'Satan's Bible.'
2. He is not supportive of such language being used of other Bible Versions.
3. That no-one involved in this thread has reached out to him for clarification.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> 1. He has no context for nor was he aware of the statement in the book regarding 'Satan's Bible.'



I find that somewhat hard to believe, given, unless I am mistaken, that he was a contributor to the very book.


----------



## Ulsterscot (Dec 13, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I find that somewhat hard to believe, given, unless I am mistaken, that he was a contributor to the very book.


So was I, and I only found out about it online. Do you assume contributors to the book read all the other contributions. As to what you believe about Mr. McCurley's clarification, it is irrelevant apart from the aspersion it implies against him. Everyone has been invited to contact him for clarification. No-one has, but yet the online questioning continues. This really should stop now.

Debate the merits of the TR arguments in the book all you want.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> Do you assume contributors to the book read all the other contributions.



Actually, yes.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 13, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> So was I, and I only found out about it online. Do you assume contributors to the book read all the other contributions. As to what you believe about Mr. McCurley's clarification, it is irrelevant apart from the aspersion it implies against him. Everyone has been invited to contact him for clarification. No-one has, but yet the online questioning continues. This really should stop now.
> 
> Debate the merits of the TR arguments in the book all you want.


As I pointed out earlier, in the video he was EXPLICITLY asked about the "Satan's Bible" comment as an aspect to the question of whether the book "drew the lines [between the Received Texts and other manuscripts] too sharply" around 1:10:29. So it is hard for me to believe that his answer, in which he completely dismissed that concern with a yawn (his words), did not also apply to that terminology. I'm glad he doesn't think that terminology is fitting. I wish he had said so in the video, when he was given the perfect opportunity to do so. But it's easy to miss something in a video interview.

I'm not personally offended, so feel no need to reach out to him personally. It is God's Word that is being defamed, not me. When people speak publicly, it is fitting to respond to them publicly.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2022)

Ulsterscot said:


> Debate the merits of the TR arguments in the book all you want.



We actually have many times in this thread. Lane did a whole thread on it. In fact, the Satan's bible comment had died out in the thread until you brought it up.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 13, 2022)

*Moderating*. Let's stop impugning people's integrity. We now have clarity that as with other contributors to the book, Rev. McCurley disowns the type of language employed by Rev. Myers. I don't find it hard to believe and understand perfectly that a contributor has not read the anthology to which he may have contributed. Generally they are relying on the editor to guard the integrity of the whole pre publication and have not seen the other pieces and busy pastors may not have read their comp copies by now either. And as already explained, it seems clear Rob was only replying as far as the yawn comment to Rev. Riddle's question pertaining to his own piece. Rob told me almost the same yawn comment verbatim in an email conversation when this first hit referenced on an earlier thread weeks before this video was even taped (*and this was solely regarding criticism of his chapter here on PB). If the substance of the book is deemed talked to death, maybe this thread is at an end.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 13, 2022)

It's worth noting that Dane Jóhannsson, Gavin Beers, and Rob McCurley have all disclaimed the "Satan's Bible" language, and I have yet to see any of the authors own it other than Chris Meyers, who wrote the piece in question. Perhaps you could say that the editors and publisher are responsible, but I think it's safe to say that we can't assume any of the other contributors approve of it. 

It's the nature of a work like this that each piece in the collection stands or falls on its own. None of it was written collaboratively. It may be that the author of one piece would reject outright what was written in another.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 13, 2022)

Below is an excerpt from the sample at https://www.thegreaterheritage.com/...eceived-Text-ed.-by-Riddle-and-McShaffrey.pdf
----
Editor's Introduction
Jeffrey T. Riddle & Christian M. McShaffrey

---
From the beginning, the devil has sought to destroy the souls of men by enticing them to doubt God’s Word. Our first father Adam received God’s Word through direct revelation in the Garden of Eden. The Lord commanded, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). Sadly, on the very next page of Scripture, we witness the devil’s first attempt to deceive mankind, when he asked, “Yea, hath God said...?” (Genesis 3:1).
It is a dangerous thing to challenge the integrity and authority of God’s Word. It appears that our first mother succumbed to this danger. She tried to answer the enemy of her soul, but made no less than three mistakes in the attempt: Eve modified, added to, and deleted from God’s Word.
Eve’s modification of Scripture consisted in replacing a singular pronoun with a plural pronoun. She answered the serpent, saying, “Ye shall not eat of it...” (Genesis 3:3) when God had actually said “thou shalt not eat of it” (Genesis 2:17). This was not a major modification. Some might even argue that it was good for her to apply God’s direct Word to Adam to herself, but her words, in fact, altered what God had said. She should have responded, as our Savior did when he was tempted in the wilderness, with a direct quotation (cf. Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). Eve proceeded to add to Scripture when she spoke of the
forbidden fruit, saying, “neither shall ye touch it...” (Genesis 3:3). God had said no such thing. Perhaps she said it innocently enough (i.e., simply emphasizing how off-limits the fruit was), but this was an addition to what God had said. She should not have responded with her own speculation and emendation. Finally, Eve deleted part of Scripture, saying, “lest ye die” (Genesis 3:3). God had, in fact, said more than that. He spoke with more dreadful severity, saying, “thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Eve’s omission served to soften the intensity of the divine threat.
Why focus on this single event that occurred thousands of years ago? It proves two things. First, it exposes Satan’s subtle strategy for the destruction of souls. He seeks to destroy our faith by casting doubt over God’s Word. Second, it demonstrates how susceptible we are to Satan’s wiles.
God has raised up men in every generation since the fall and given them the courage needed to rebuke the devil and his servants. There was, in fact, none braver than the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who rebuked the devil with the words, “Get thee behind me, Satan!” (Luke 4:8). Strangely enough, even that saying, found in the Received Text, no longer appears in many modern translations of this verse in the Gospel of Luke, such as the NIV and ESV. This is only one of many examples of places where the modern critics have assumed textual corruption, and then arrogated to themselves the role of being “correctors” of holy writ. Even those who might initially profess to believe the scriptures were originally inspired by God, too often then proceed to deny that God has also preserved that same inspired Word in its transmission.
Modern academic textual criticism rejects divine preservation, and therefore proceeds to pursue reconstruction of the text based on human reasoning. This view of the text of Scripture stands in stark contrast to the Bibliology of the men of the Reformation and post-Reformation (Protestant orthodox) eras. Those godly men maintained that the Lord had not only immediately inspired the Scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek, but that he had also kept them pure in all ages (cf. WCF and LBCF, 1.8, the most cited confessional passage in this anthology!). This led them to affirm the classic Protestant printed editions of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament as the standard text of the Christian Bible. This tradi- tional or Received Text of Scripture provided a faithful touchstone for Protestant, Bible-believing scholars, ministers, churchmen, and congregations as they conducted their ministries. This text was the basis for scholarly study, preaching, and translation of the Bible amongst the Protestant churches. In the nineteenth century an especially concerted effort was made to undermine the authority of the traditional text and to replace it with the modern critical text. This effort extended into the twentieth century and included the replacement of classic Protestant translations of the Bible in various languages with new translations based on the modern critical text. Admittedly, this movement has been quite successful even among many conservative, evangelical, and Reformed men.
Not all, however, have jumped on the modern critical text band- wagon. Some have raised questions about the faithfulness and the wisdom of abandoning the Protestant touchstone of the traditional biblical text in favor of an ever-shifting modern critical text. They have maintained that we should hold fast to the old text and to the classic Protestant translations based upon it. This anthology provides a sampling of the reasoning which has led such men to this conviction.
We are thankful to the twenty-five men who contributed essays to this work. In seeking contributors to this project, we invited men who were actively serving as officers in local churches. We wanted men who were gladly laboring in the trenches of local church mini- stry. The authors include Pastors, Teachers, Elders, and one Deacon, coming from Reformed, Presbyterian, and Baptist traditions. These men hail from places across the English-speaking world, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Some of the writers have served for decades in pastoral ministry, while others are young men just beginning their service.
We gave each contributor the same topic to consider, “Why I Preach from the Received Text.” In reading these essays it will become clear that all the contributors have high respect for the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible in English, as many make mention of this venerable translation in their respective essays. The reader should not, however, be confused about this book’s primary focus. Critics of the traditional text, in fact, often confuse our position, whether intentionally or unintentionally, with “King James Version-Onlyism,” a position which is inconsistent with WCF and LBCF 1.8. We did not ask our authors to address, “Why I Preach from the King James Version,” but “Why I Preach from the Received Text.” The primary purpose of this book is a defense of the traditional original Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible.
As editors, we are pleased with the diversity and strength of these contributions. Some of the essays are personal and autobiographical, while others are more historical and doctrinal, but all reflect the conviction contained in our Protestant Reformed Confessions: God has kept his Word pure in all ages. These essays, offered in alphabetical order by the names of the authors, are written in a popular and easily accessible style. Rather than footnotes, simple and abbreviated references to any works cited appear within the text itself. We hope this will aid the reader who wants to seek out any such references. Since most of the authors are regularly en- gaged in preaching, many of the essays are written in a homiletical style. Spelling and punctuation have been conformed to the general standards of American English. At the end of the book there is an Appendix titled “Steps Toward Change in Your Church” offering pastoral advice on addressing text in a local congregation. Finally, there is a select annotated bibliography providing resources for the further study of the traditional text.
It is our hope that each reader’s confidence in the integrity of Scripture will be increased as he moves through the pages of this book. We particularly desire that those ministers and their congregations who have stood fast in their use of the traditional text, even when it seemed they had few allies and many adversaries, will be encouraged by this work, knowing that they do not stand alone and that this position is neither unreasonable nor obscurantist. It is also our hope that a new generation of young believers and young men called to ministry might be prompted by this work to give careful consideration regarding the text of the Bible they choose to embrace.
We close this introduction with an anecdote from the Puritan author Henry Scougal (1650-1678). In his collected works one finds a series of personal reflections drawn from his private diary (cf. The Works of Henry Scougal, 256-257). First, there is a note recorded on November 1, 1668 titled, “On the Sad Report of the Death of a Pious and Learned Friend.” As the title indicates, Scougal’s note expressed his grief on receiving the news that a dear friend had expired. Scougal movingly wrote: “The purest crystal is soon cracked, while courser metal can endure a stroke. The brittle cage was much too narrow and long to enclose a bird whose soaring wing required a larger volary.”
The next note, however, was recorded over a week later and had this title, “On the Sight of the Foresaid Person Whom I Had Concluded to be Dead, November 10, When I Had Occasion to Visit Him at His House.” Scougal began this note, “Oh, happy disap- pointment, to see him yet alive, whom some days ago I had buried in my apprehensions!”
This anecdote calls to mind the quip attributed to Mark Twain, “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” This collection
of essays similarly declares that reports of the death of the traditional text of Holy Scripture in the use of faithful churches and among their ministers has been greatly exaggerated. Though it may appear to some that the traditional text has suffered the fate of the traveler on the road to Jericho who “fell among thieves” and was left “half dead” (Luke 10:30), it is, in fact, very much alive. As Gamaliel said of the ministry of the Apostles, “But if it be of God, ye cannot over- throw it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39). May the Lord use this book as an instrument to stimulate, revive, confirm, and defend intelligent and effective usage of the traditional text of the Word of God.

Jeffrey T. Riddle Christian M. McShaffrey

----

Taken from https://www.thegreaterheritage.com/...eceived-Text-ed.-by-Riddle-and-McShaffrey.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 14, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> In fact, Paul said there is one mediator between God and man, the _man _Christ Jesus. Strictly speaking, Chalcedonian orthodoxy said the person of the union was divine, not human.



He is still a man though. Not a _mere_ man, but still a man.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> He is still a man though. Not a _mere_ man, but still a man.



You're missing the point. That verse was one a locus classicus in the Nestorian controversy. I was doing a thought experiment. The problem is that Chalcedon does not allow one to say that a human hypostasis was the subject of the Logos.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 14, 2022)

TylerRay said:


> It's worth noting that Dane Jóhannsson, Gavin Beers, and Rob McCurley have all disclaimed the "Satan's Bible" language, and I have yet to see any of the authors own it other than Chris Meyers, who wrote the piece in question.



From a video I saw awhile back when this first opened up, Riddle if not openly avowing such language, didn’t reject it either and defended Myers‘ decision to say it. Someone may have seen more where he disavows it but I’d quite frankly be surprised.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 14, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> From a video I saw awhile back when this first opened up, Riddle if not openly avowing such language, didn’t reject it either and defended Myers‘ decision to say it. Someone may have seen more where he disavows it but I’d quite frankly be surprised.


He's one of the editors. I noted that you could hold the editors responsible. Still, my point stands--don't assume someone subscribes to the "Satan's Bible" language just because he has a piece in the book.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## CovenantWord (Jan 1, 2023)

Some years ago, I lived in a town where the only congregation that gathered for evening public worship was a fundamentalist Baptist church. I arrived for one such service, toting my NKJV. The pastor glanced at it and growled that anything other than the KJV was "of the devil." In the subsequent service, during the reading of the Scripture passage, I noticed three words in my version that differed from the KJV he was reading publicly. Immediately after the reading, in introducing the sermon, he indicated these three words and explained them with the same English words used in my NKJV translation. A few weeks later, the advice "KJV-only" appeared on the church's marquee.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Wow 3


----------

