History of KJV and TR

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew,

Okay, we differ as to the first part of my statement, but what about the second:

Are you aware of the differences between the translations? Or more accurately, the Greek texts underlying them? Either the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are authentic, or they are not. Either 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "God was manifest in the flesh," or not, as per the modern versions (save those based on the Traditional Text). One version is superior (that is, correct) over the other. Are you aware of the issues and the arguments?​

Ivan is right when he says there are threads here devoted to these questions, and which cover them quite thoroughly.

Is it solely Dr. White's testimony on which you are basing your certitude?

Steve

To answer your questions: No Dr. White's testimony isn't the only one i listen to, there are others like Dr. John MacArthur. Here's what he says about the last verses Mark:

The external evidence stronly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark's gospel. While the majority of Greek manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also existed, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older greek manuscripts, while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was considered spurious. The fourth-century fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9-20.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David,

I won’t be dismissed so easily. It pays to look closely at the texts we are discussing.

Your quote of Metzger says what I have also said: “In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript.”

It was in fact part of a, the MSS Tischendorf first rescued from the flames, and he went back for the remainder (the value of which the monks now discerned), eventually with success.

What have I said (or Burgon, for that matter) that is at odds with Metzger’s own account?

Another thing: in post #56 you opined, “Jesus and the New Testament writers quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint…” Would you kindly show me, David, where the Lord Jesus quotes from the Greek Old Testament (the LXX), thus speaking the Greek language in His discussions with either His opponents or His disciples? Unless you are saying He quoted the LXX but translated it back into Hebrew or Aramaic, the which I would also be interested in seeing an example of.

Steve

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich,

I want to answer some of the things you have raised good questions about. I am only previewing it here in this post, as I have also to prepare two sermons for this weekend, plus help my wife do some yard-work. These are the areas I will set myself to answer, as briefly but cogently as I can:

"I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?"​

--------

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​

--------

“I just have a hard time understanding how the Word of God existed for people who only had Mss. that were "imperfect" until the AV translators pulled them all together to produce it.

Were the Monks who read Sinaticus all those years able to trust that what they were reading was the Word of God?”​

These are all good questions, and as I have a different approach to defending the AV/1894 TR than Rev. Winzer, I will address them.

In Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform, they posit an important axiom:

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)​

It is this orientation I always seek to operate in, and thus it is important (to my way of thinking) to give a clear understanding of textual history, knowing, of course, that a good part of it will be conjecture, as there are periods where we do not have sufficient data to arrive at conclusions based on facts, and thus we interpret the data we have. In the end (and beginning, truth be told) it is our presuppositions that guide how we interpret the data, some according to the dogma of a “neutral science,” and others according to the dogma of a providential preservation.

If you will be patient, I will seek to give good answers to your questions.

Steve

 

[etexas]

They showed what they thought of Sinaiticus when they threw it in the waste paper basket.

Blessings, Rich. You are a good brother.

 

[Barnpreacher]

One thing I know -- both you and DTK have as little hope of proving that the Bible is the Word of God from crumbly old mss. as I do. That is why I insist that it should not even be attempted. I know both whence I came and whither I am going. The Bible tells me so!

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Originally Posted by DTK
I have no desire to get into this argument, but the statement above is one of the most ignorant remarks I have ever seen. You owe it to yourself to correct it, winky eye or not.


Yes, it is a discussion board that trafficks in holy things, and indeed there is often a place for light remarks. But in the context of rebuking a man as though his faith in Holy Scripture rests in the hands of men with nothing but his own personal bias, and then offer an ignorant remark about the discovery of Sinaiticus is incongruent.


I've never been inclined to listen to front seat drivers, especially when they don't know where they're going, or in this case, where they've been.

And your remarks are also some of the most ignorant and classless remarks I've read on here in a long time. Just because you don't agree with Rev. Winzer's stance gives you no right to jump in the thread and start making false claims about him. Rev. Winzer has just stated his position and answered questions. Don't blame him because you can't handle the answers!

 

[etexas]

I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich you said,

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.​

Yes, this is so.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?​

Yes, that is accurate.

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?​

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, said he found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​

* Owen’s Divine Original online: http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p5.htm. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever. And a very strong case could be made for that position also.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books, although hard to get (I would suggest a good seminary library – or your local library’s Inter-Library Loan System), are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer existent autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from the bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.

I know I have wandered from the strict path of discussing the TR, Rich, but these thoughts are related.

To be continued.

Steve

 

[MW]

"Which Bible tells you so?"

The AV, of course.

 

[etexas]

The AV, of course.

 

[MW]

Likewise, Roger Nicole has observed, “When the New Testament authors appealed to Scripture as the Word of God, it is not claimed that they viewed anything but the original communication as vested in full with divine inerrancy. Yet their willingness to make use of the LXX, in spite of its occasional defects, teaches the important lesson that the basic message which God purposed to deliver can be conveyed even through a translation, and that appeal can be made to a version insofar as it agrees with the original" (p. 143). See his ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament,’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 143. Bruce Metzger (who was the leading authority in the field of textual criticism) has pointed out that:

I think if one is going to concede to the "professional monopoly" of modern scholarship then they should be aware that modern scholarship barely believes there was any such thing as the LXX. Why are we at liberty to discard what they say about the Greek mss. of the OT, while we are bound hand and foot to their judgements on the Greek mss. of the NT?

 

[MW]

I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.

 

[etexas]

I believe it! Glad you dig the train o' thought.

 

[MW]

Apparently, according to your view, God has only preserved his word pure for the English-speaking peoples of the world. Now, you certainly do not argue this, but it leaves no place, for example, for the Korean believer as noted above.

DTK, You were far more competent driving the car from the back seat. Now that you have taken the wheel, you have crashed and burned. If you knew whence you came and whither you were going you would know the argument for the AV only pertains to English speaking peoples and that AV preferred advocates insist that the BIble is to be translated into the vulgar tongue of each nation.

The German, Dutch, French, Italian, and other languages all have their standard reformation Bibles. The Trinitarian Bible Society is doing tremendous work in providing the equivalent of the AV in other languages that have not been blessed with quality translations.

 

[MW]

I would suggest that, in the end, your argument is similar to that of the Romanist, because he likewise argues for a uniformity of agreement, and that otherwise there can be certainty.

Besides the fact that this statement is posted under the wrong thread, I can only respond that, in the end, your argument severs your theology from the "christendom" in which the reformers' theology was forged. The alomost anything goes approach, under a wide and open providence, was not their worldview.

 

[etexas]

Besides the fact that this statement is posted under the wrong thread, I can only respond that, in the end, your argument severs your theology from the "christendom" in which the reformers' theology was forged. The alomost anything goes approach, under a wide and open providence, was not their worldview.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich,

Your next question:

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people use to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​

God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html.

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings. Westcott and Hort tried to invalidate this clear numerical superiority by a theory of an official church edition in the 4th century which resulted in this 90% agreement of mss, and for a while the “church intelligencia” bought into their theory, but increasingly it was proven to be groundless speculation, and today is entirely debunked, save for those who are “not up to speed” in text critical matters.

So the priority of the Majority (or Byzantine) text remains, at least for some.

But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.*

The AV folks hold that God, even though He had adequately (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of adequate preservation compared to preservation in the minutiae.

I refer to another post which discusses this in further detail: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=219226&postcount=39

* see Frederick Nolan’s classic, AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEK VULGATE OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry0.html.

I am trying to be concise, and so I may not answer all your questions, and would be glad to if you state them further. This also is why I give links to resources, and to other posts.

To be continued.

Steve

 

[Herald]

Which is more striking? AV users who do not come around to Calvinism, or Calvinists who choose non Calvinist versions of Scripture?

I've never heard of a non Calvinist version of scripture. I suppose if there is a version out there that omits Romans 9, Ephesians 1 & 2, 1 Peter 1 etc. then you it could be called a non Calvinist version of Scripture. But if that were the case I wouldn't call it scripture at all.

Let me see...yep...my NASB has all those chapters.

 

[Theoretical]

I've never heard of a non Calvinist version of scripture. I suppose if there is a version out there that omits Romans 9, Ephesians 1 & 2, 1 Peter 1 etc. then you it could be called a non Calvinist version of Scripture. But if that were the case I wouldn't call it scripture at all.

Let me see...yep...my NASB has all those chapters.

Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.

 

[MW]

Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.

Scott, that is right on target. How about this for a scenario? What if I told everyone I was looking for a new confession of faith, something more modern which speaks to the people of this generation in their own language. What's more, I would be happy if this confession of faith drew from the scholarship of all denominations -- liberal and conservative. How would everyone respond? Why should the response be so stern in relation to the confession of faith, the subordinate standard, buit not in relation to the translation of holy Scripture, the supreme standard. Blessings!

 

[Herald]

Bill, I think the point being raised was on a difference in translation choices, since many modern translations have these broad and diverse committees of everything from the Reformed to Penecostal chewing on the Bible and building consensuses over texts that are compromising. Even though I'm still addressing the issues over the whole thing, I will admit that approach does bother me, since a Methodist and a Presbyterian may prefer radically different translations of individual words where multiple possibilities can exist. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, and if so, feel free to jump on me.

Scott - the two translations that I use most are the NASB and ESV. The translation committee of the ESV would pass Reformed scrutiny. I have to plead ignorance on the Lockman Foundation (NASB). I don't know the background of their scholars. This is more than a C.T. or T.R. issue. Lost in all the discussion are two important questions:

1. Can we trust the major scholary English transations that we have today (I am including the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, AV, RSV and the ASV. I am excluding the NIV)?

2. Is it possible to lose our focus on Christ while we center our attention on peeling back the layers of textual criticism on these translations I just mentioned?

I am not an expert on textual criticism. I am knowledgeable about the major positions, but I am not versed to the point of chapter and verse. I tend to look at the big picture and drill down when it becomes necessary. My anger starts to burn when I am told that my NASB/ESV is not a faithful translation, and thus not the word of God.

I am probably waaaay off topic here. I'll retreat back into my cave. I just felt compelled to weigh in.

 

[bookslover]

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings.

Here's the part I don't understand, Steve. Since, as you say, 90% of the extant 5,000+ manuscripts "represent the text form commonly used by the people of God," in other words, 90% of all the manuscripts we have say the same thing, then why do the KJV-only folks say that only those manuscripts from which the AV is derived are "the true text of the Bible"?

Why do they get to claim that only they have the Word of God? How come the ESV guys (like me) don't get to say the same?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Richard Z.,

These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian. There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper?

At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.

The ESV guys can say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.

The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.

For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s Modern King James Version.

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I had to know my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.

Hope this clarifies somewhat, Richard.

Steve

 

[CDM]

Richard Z.,

These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian. There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper?

At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.

The ESV guys can say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.

The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.

For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s Modern King James Version.

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I had to know my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.

Hope this clarifies somewhat, Richard.

Steve

Steve, I am especially looking forward to your input on the thread I just created here.

 

[bookslover]

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

I appreciate your humility here, but just remember that, ultimately, they don't have "better" hearts than you. In and of ourselves, we're all nothing more than filthy sinners. God chose you, and them, and me for exactly the same reason: out of His sovereign electing love; and for exactly the same purpose: glorifying Him and enjoying Him forever. If it weren't for the magnificent doctrines of grace, all of us would be rotting in Hell forever. Also, I don't think God uses some people more than others; I think it's better to say that God uses some people differently than others. We are all given our places to work in the Lord's vineyard but in the end, since it's all for His glory, it's ultimately not a matter of "more" or "better". We're all just bondservants.

We've all got the same goal, brother - and it's all of grace!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Richard,

That's a bit too egalitarian for my taste. You are right at setting the baseline for human behavior low: "we're all nothing more than filthy sinners". Yet how we respond to and use the grace given us varies: some produce fruit "an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty" (Matt 13:23). I do not think it depends on gifts, but on heart. The work of some will be found "wood, hay, stubble," and that due to motive, diligence, and love or lack thereof.

Paul tells us to "each esteem other better than themselves" (Phil 2:3), and I do not think he's just talking religious "fluff". I can see that my wife's character is better than my own in certain areas, and I try to yield to her at such times.

Are not some bondservants more faithful than others? I call "sovereignitis" that malaise which belittles human responsibility due to our knowledge of God's overriding sovereignty. An accurate assessment of human behavior discerns a full spectrum of diligence, proper motive, and self-sacrificing love.

Some hearts are better than others. It grieves me that mine is as bad as it is. That's not humility, but inescapable accuracy....and yet, I am loved notwithstanding. As Tim Keller is wont to say, "We are more wicked than we ever dared to think, and -- simultaneously -- more loved than we ever dared to hope." Such love is transforming.

Maybe, Richard, it's that you're around some really godly folks, and this influences your view. Or maybe this is what R.C. Sproul means with his expression, "judgment of charity."

Steve

 

[Mathetes]

I think if one follows a logical thread of Providence and Preservation the only conclusion is that the AV is the Word of God in English.

Except that you could use the same argument to conclude that the NASB or the ESV is the Word of God in English.