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

[Jeri Tanner]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

 

[Jake]

@Jeri

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

 

[Brian R.]

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

 

[iainduguid]

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[Brian R.]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

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

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

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

Dr. Fiercest:

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

Brakel:

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

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

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

The ball is in the CB court.

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

 

[MarrowMan]

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

Well, clearly…

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

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

Well done, Lane!

 

[Knight]

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

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread reopened.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

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

 

[Logan]

Looks like Riddle has taken notice of you Lane:

 

[greenbaggins]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

Let's try a logical experiment

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

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

Looks like Riddle has taken notice of you Lane:

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

 

[Knight]

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

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

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

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

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

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