Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?
In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:
[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.
I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.
I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).
However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:
Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)
While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)
I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.
The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.
–TDR
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
Sing John 3:16 in Koine / New Testament Greek: Ιωαννην 3:16!
Would you like to learn how to sing John 3:16 in Greek? You can sing these words in the very speech in which the Lord Jesus Christ originally spoke this blessed promise to Nicodemus!
You can learn to sing the infallible words of John 3:16, the most famous verse of the Bible in the video below from Rumble, or watch it on YouTube, or see it at Faithsaves.net.
John 3:16 Song: Koine Greek New Testament Language
Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα ωδή εν γλώσση Ελληνικη
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on Rumble
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on YouTube
–TDR
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Evangelists / Missionaries For Unaffiliated Baptist Support
If you are a sound Bible-believing and practicing Baptist church, and you are looking to support sound evangelists or missionaries, let me encourage you to consider the following two.
1.) The Suttons in Jackson County, Oregon. I have personally known Brother David Sutton and his family for many years, ever since the time I was teaching at Bethel Christian Academy as a member of Bethel Baptist Church many years ago. He is a godly man, a great preacher, and a wonderful shepherd. As one small example of his shepherding, when Bethel Baptist Church was going to send him and his family up to Oregon, we had a going-away fellowship with some food and beverages. Brother Sutton did not have time to even get any because he was too busy talking to every church member, encouraging, exhorting, and being a blessing to every single person. (We had to save some for him.) If you want to be blessed and encouraged with Scripture, Brother Sutton is the man for you to talk to. His wife is also a godly and faithful servant of the Lord, and his children are all serving the Lord. They are missionaries well worth your support as they seek to establish Jackson County Baptist Church, a church that, if your church is sound, you would be glad to be a member of. He only has partial support for his evangelistic work there. Please feel free to reach out to them if your church would be interested in having him present his work or take them on for prayer or financial support. Also, if you live in that part of Oregon and are looking for a faithful church, you need look no more–visit and serve the Lord at Jackson County Baptist Church, starting this Lord’s Day.
2.) The Dvoracheks in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. I am thankful for Bro Dvorachek and his family and their fellowship in the gospel and the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have preached at their church, Victory Baptist in Oshkosh, WI, a number of times. I summarize something Bro Dvorachek wrote as his testimony of how the Lord brought him and his family to Victory Baptist Church in Oshkosh, WI:
I graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh in December of 1997 as an unsaved man. During my time in college, I worked at a Burger King in downtown Oshkosh. Right across the street from that Burger King was this Baptist church, that I at one time despised. Shortly after college, I got married to my lovely wife, Andrea, and we moved to another city. Shortly after that, in the spring of 2000, we both came to know the Lord! In August of 2006, both Andrea and I surrendered to the thought that if God would be pleased to place us in vocational ministry, we would be willing to follow His lead. Really, we were just saying, “Lord, whatever, you want us to do, that’s what we want to do.”
We had no idea what we were in for. The Lord has taken us on quite a journey since then. In June 2015, I was properly ordained by a council of eight independent Baptist pastors. In November of 2016, the Lord led us back to Oshkosh, and we became members of Victory Baptist Church (the Baptist church across from the Burger King). When we came to the church with our eight children, we more than doubled the attendance. The church was on life support at that time. We served there for two years as I helped the pastor with preaching, songleading, and evangelism. In December of 2018, he resigned somewhat abruptly, and I became interim pastor. For several months, Andrea and I consulted and thought and prayed over the matter, and in April of 2019, both we and church believed the Lord would have me to become officially the pastor. The Lord has been faithful, and (I think sometimes, though in spite of me), He has grown the church to around forty, with many new members. My wife, Andrea and I are blessed with eight children, some of whom are now adults: Jonathan (21), Levi (19), Grace (17), Stephen (15), Sara (14), Abilgail (11), Lydia (10), and Sophia (10). The children are a great blessing in the work.
My primary goal has been to “feed the flock.” I look to primarily preach expositional messages and am doing so through the Book of Romans every Sunday morning, while I have also seen the need to address certain topics as well in the other services. By the grace of God, we are seeing people grow spiritually! All along, I have been praying for the Lord to send laborers here, but in June, I began praying more fervently, and we are beginning to see some possibilities open up. If any man is looking for an opportunity to be used of the Lord and/or get good experience in the ministry, perhaps the Lord would lead him to Victory Baptist Church in Oshkosh.
The Dvoracheks are also missionaries worth your consideration for prayer and financial support. They have no supporting churches and Bro Dvorachek has to work a secular job, pastor a growing church, and take care of his wife and eight children. If you live near their part of Wisconsin, and you are looking for a sound church where you can serve the Lord, you need look no more. Start serving there this Lord’s Day!
You can hear some of Bro Dvorachek’s preaching on their website. Bro Sutton’s sermons at his congregation should be coming soon; you can hear some of his older messages at the BethelElSobrante YouTube channel.
I am sure that there are many other godly families that are well worthy of support by the Lord’s churches. The evangelists or missionaries above are just two that I know personally. I would encourage you to contact our church and other sound churches if you are seeking prayer and financial support. Contacting sound churches directly would be better than reaching out to me. Let me also mention that I have taken the initiative to tell blog readers about these two godly men and their families. Please pray for them, encourage them in whatever way you can, and support them in whatever way your churches lead. Let me also mention that I chose to write this–they did not initiate my writing this post.
–TDR
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Is Love a Feeling? The Holy Bible on the Nature of Love
Is love a feeling?
What do you think?
__ Yes, love is a feeling.
__ No, love is not a feeling.
The Correct Answer Is …
“Yes”!
The correct answer is “yes” to both the question “Is love a feeling?” and the question “Is love not a feeling?” Love involves the feelings and affections, so in that sense love is a feeling. However, love is not merely a feeling, but it involves the will and the actions.
Love Involves Self-Sacrificial and Willful Action
Many in the world assume that love is just a sappy sentimental feeling, or that love is a teenage boy having his heart flutter when a pretty girl looks at him. This is a very Biblically insufficient definition of love. How does God love?
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
God’s love does not just involve sappy sentimentalism. The Father’s love led Him to give to rebellious sinners what was most valuable to Him–His own Son. His love involved self-sacrificial action. Believers must show this same kind of self-sacrificial, acting, willing, giving love:
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
This sort of love is required in other relationships as well:
Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Clearly, love is not just an emotional high, but it involves self-sacrifice, action, giving oneself to the loved one at tremendous cost.
Love Also Includes the Feelings or Affections
At the same time, love is not the self-sacrifice of a drone or robot that follows a computer program to blow itself up and save someone else. Love includes the feelings and affections. We do not love as robots, but as people who have affections and passions. God wants us to love Him with all that we are–that includes our minds and wills, but it also includes our affections or feelings.
God’s love for His people involves His affections in whatever sense He has passions or affections:
Hos. 11:8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.
Hos. 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.Zeph. 3:17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
Human love between spouses involves the affections or passions. In the Song of Solomon the husband and wife–who are to be patterns for marital relationships–are madly in love with each other and passions and affections are coming out all over the place.
Our love for what is of God also involves our passions or affections. Paul said: “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22). “Delight” is a feeling or affection. The Messiah said, as a pattern for all the godly: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:8).
We could multiple examples for all other sorts of love that are dealt with in Scripture.
So is love a feeling? Yes, it is–God did not make us robots. Is love merely a feeling, or only a feeling, or primarily a feeling? No–it is much more than that, but it involves self-sacrificial action.
So in all your relationships–most importantly with God and secondarily with others–love like God does. Give yourself self-sacrificially to the Lord and to others. That is the most important thing–but don’t be a robot either. God wants you to love with all that you are, and that includes your feelings or affections.
–TDR
James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review 6: LXX & Latin Vulgate
It was a blessing to debate James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text. The debate when well. I have been continuing to add additional debate review videos. Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely against their own translation and in favor of modern versions based on the minority Greek text. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #6, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and what it claims about the LXX and the Latin Vulgate. What the KJV translators say is exactly what I argued for in the debate with Dr. White, and exactly the opposite of what James White argued. His claim about the KJV translators is invalid, and painfully so.
You can watch debate review video #6 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
Creationism & KJV: James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 5
Should creationists, advocates of young-earth creationism, use the King James Version? Dr. Henry Morris certainly thought so. When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been “completely” on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text and their own translation. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #5, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader,” where evidence is provided that the KJV translators were young earth creationists–something that a very high percentage of modern Bible version translators are not, and something that positively impacts the translation of the King James Bible.
You can watch debate review video #5 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Recent Comments