Home » Posts tagged 'King James Version' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: King James Version

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 5)

May 28, 2024 / Leave a comment

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four

1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.

THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROMISES OF AND FROM SCRIPTURE

God’s Word is truth. It provides the expectations for Christians, not feelings or experience. People can count on what God says. True believers go to scripture to get their views for things.

The Lord in His Word gives the expectations regarding the future of scripture. What would God do? If God says He will do it, then He will do it, and believers will believe that He did.

The presuppositions, principles, and promises of and from scripture provide a model, paradigm, or template for knowing what God’s Words are. The true view will follow a biblical model.

Epistemology

What I’m writing in this series considers how people know or can know what they know, what’s called “epistemology.” The critical text and its modern versions are different than the received or traditional text and the King James Version. They can’t both be right. Of the two, how do we know which one is right?

Knowledge starts with God’s Word. Faith in what God says is the primary way of knowing what people ought to know. Someone can open to Genesis 1:1 and know what it says occurred based on God saying it.

Only one text and version position fits the principles, presuppositions, and promises of scripture. The above six true principles lead one to the received text or textus receptus. Only the received text, the underlying text of the King James Version, corresponds to what God said would occur.

Which Textus Receptus?

Opponents or critics of the received text position, critical text proponents, very often ask, “Which Textus Receptus (TR)?” I saw someone recently mock the TR by calling it the “Texti Recepti.” The idea of this criticism is that there is more than one edition of the TR, so which one is it?

The textus receptus is a very homogenous text. All the varied editions are very close and essentially the same. However, the differences would contradict perfect, every word preservation and a settled text. This criticism becomes a major presupposition for a critical text position. It says, “No one knows what the text is, so everyone continues with textual criticism.”

Following the presuppositions, principles, and promises of scripture, one witnesses settlement on the text of scripture. Even though each of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were considered scripture immediately, its aggregation or collation into one book took one or two hundred years. This occurred through the agreement of God’s people and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, termed “canonicity.”

History of the Received Text

Through church history, God’s people continued to ascertain and identify scripture in the keeping process. Churches kept agreeing on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. They also received the words of the New Testament, the text of the New Testament. Churches had already been receiving the same text of scripture in the manuscript or hand-written era. A few years ago, I wrote the following.

Kurt Aland

The TR never meant one printed edition. Even Kurt and Barbara Aland the famed textual critics, the “A” in “NA” (Nestles-Aland), wrote (“The Text of the Church?” in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987, p.131):

[I]t is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’

He also wrote in his The Text of the New Testament (p. 11):

We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

Barbara Aland

His wife Barbara writes in her book, The Text of the New Testament (pp. 6-7):

[T]he Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical. . . . Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the “revealed text.” This idea of verbal inspiration (i. e., of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) which the orthodoxy of both Protestant traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus.

I say all that, because Aland accurately does not refer to an edition of the TR, neither does he speak of the TR like it is an edition. It isn’t. That is invented language used as a reverse engineering argument by critical text proponents, differing with the honest proposition of Aland, quoted above. They very often focus on Desiderius Erasmus and his first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. That’s not how believers viewed what the Van Kleecks call the Standard Sacred Text, others call the Ecclesiastical Text, and still others the Traditional Text.

Metzger

Neither does Bruce Metzger refer to an edition of the Textus Receptus; only to the Textus Receptus (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], pp. 106-251):

Having secured . . . preeminence, what came to be called the Textus Receptus of the New Testament resisted for 400 years all scholarly effort to displace it. . . . [The] “Textus Receptus,” or commonly received, standard text . . . makes the boast that “[the reader has] the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” . . . [This] form of Greek text . . . succeeded in establishing itself as “the only true text” of the New Testament and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881.

[T]he reverence accorded the Textus Receptus. . . [made] attempts to criticize or emend it . . . akin to sacrilege. . . . For almost two centuries . . . almost all of the editors of the New Testament during this period were content to reprint the time-honored . . . Textus Receptus. . . . In the early days of . . . determining textual groupings . . . the manuscript was collated against the Textus Receptus . . . . This procedure made sense to scholars, who understood the Textus Receptus as the original text of the New Testament, for then variations from it would be “agreements in error.”

The Textus Receptus does not refer to a single printed edition of the New Testament. The language of a received text proceeds from true believers in a time before the printing press in hand copies and then leading to the period of its printing.

Edward Freer Hills

Churches up to the printing press ‘received’ the “received text,” hence, “the received text” of the New Testament. This bore itself out in the printed edition era, as churches only printed editions of the received text. However, they didn’t permanently continue printing editions of the TR. They settled, as seen in the discontinuation of printing further editions after about a hundred years. This was a shorter period of time than the settlement or agreement on the twenty-seven books of scripture.

What I’m writing here corresponds to the now well-known position expressed by Edward Freer Hills in his book, The King James Version Defended. He wrote:

The King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. . . . But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other, God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

King James Version Translated from Something

Some critical text adherents want to make Hills statement a “gotcha” or “aha” moment. “Look, this is an English priority!” I say, “No, the King James translators were translators, so they translated from something.” From which they translated is represented by the writing and teaching in all the centuries after the last printed edition of the textus receptus and the acceptance of the King James Version.

The King James Version translators translated from available words. They relied on the printed editions of the textus receptus. Their text was its own independent variety, like Hills said. However, that text pre-existed the translation, even if it wasn’t in one printed edition. Again, scripture doesn’t argue for the preservation of an edition.

Those translations forerunning the King James Version also relied on the textus receptus. The necessity of a settled text, that particular presupposition, looks on which the vast majority of believers settled. The concluding certainty comes from faith in what God said He would do.

Printed Editions of the TR

Almost one hundred percent of the words for the King James Version came from the printed editions of the textus receptus. Maybe two or three words total in the King James Version don’t appear in any printed edition of the textus receptus but had textual attestation elsewhere. A vast majority of true believers were not reading the Greek New Testament. They accepted or received the textus receptus by receiving the translation from the textus receptus. This helps explain the Hills statement of an “independent variety of the Textus Receptus.” It’s not unique though in a fair understanding of the word. It reflects what God’s people received as the text of the New Testament since its original writing.

In 1881, F. H. A. Scrivener took on the monumental project of printing the received text underlying the King James Version New Testament. For many decades the Trinitarian Bible Society has printed this edition of the textus receptus. The printing of this as its own edition suggests the independent variety of the Textus Receptus underlying the New Testament of the King James Version.

The Ecclesiastical Text

Some call the textus receptus, “the ecclesiastical text.” I don’t mind that title. It acknowledges the testimony of the Holy Spirit toward His words through the church. God uses the church to attest to the words of God as a means of settling the text. Naturalistic and rationalistic modern textual criticism does not settle the text. It uses naturalistic means as a basis for speculating the original text of the New Testament. It does not claim certainty or knowing what the text is. Because of its means or instrumentality, it doesn’t and can’t claim to know the original text. It also does not acknowledge the truth of the above principles, promises, and presuppositions.

I know I’m saved. Scripture assures me of my salvation. The Bible also assures me that I know what is the text of the New Testament. I know the New Testament text like I know the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

Acting in Faith

Faith acts. It will bite down on what God said and what He said He would do. You don’t believe if you sit back and taste without swallowing. Faith isn’t a sample-fest.

On this subject, some are reticent to say what is the text of the New Testament. They anticipate the attack coming, including mockery. Those mocking do not bite down. They instead adjust based upon their naturalistic presuppositions. They say something like “confidence” instead of “certainty.” That doesn’t follow what scripture says about itself. This should embarrass them. I think it does many of them, which is why the angry reaction and the resultant mockery.

The trail of faith on this issue ends with the underlying text behind the King James Version. The closest to that is all the words found in the printed edition. That sort of settles, but it leaves wiggle room. It’s a harder-to-defend position, based upon the plain scriptural presuppositions.

More to Come

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 4)

May 21, 2024 / 2 Comments on New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 4)

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Part One Part Two Part Three

1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.

Introduction to Point 6.

I hear many, what I would call, dishonest arguments. Those occur all the time from proponents of the critical text or multiple modern versions. Let me give you a couple, three, but with my focus on one in particular. One of these is the usage of the KJV translators for support of the critical text and modern versions. I agree the translators made room for improvements to their translation. They didn’t see the translation as the end of improvement in translation. They weren’t talking about improvements on the underlying text. That’s either incompetent or dishonest as an argument.

How can I be the dummy version of KJVO if I agree with the translators on the issue of improvement? I can’t be, yet this is what critical text or modern version people do all the time. Their posing as non-confrontational and with a cheery Christian spirit is nothing more than a ruse. They will treat you well if you budge to a significant degree toward their positions. That’s all. If you don’t, you get sent down the garbage disposal.

Pavlovian

There’s something Pavlovian to these modern version advocates. Young fundamentalists so want their favor, that they salivate to their positive reinforcement. This corresponds to turning on the light. The favor acts as a lure to behavior adjustment. Favored treatment is not an argument, yet is is the most convincing one in a feeling oriented world.

Can someone say the King James Version is inspired and support the 1769 update? I ask Ruckmanites this question all the time. Modern version advocates won’t acquiesce because they want to keep this second faux argument alive. If I approve a 1769 update, why would I not approve another one? Not doing an update is not the same as not approving of one. I’ve said often recently that King James Version advocates won’t update the King James Version under the pressure of modern version adherents, who don’t even use the King James. This really should be the end of this, but it won’t.

Latin Vulgate or Church Hierarchy Attack

The third bad argument from modern version proponents, the one on which I focus, has several layers. They say the King James is the Latin Vulgate to KJVO like the Latin Vulgate was to Catholics. This is to smear KJVO with Roman Catholicism. One of the layers is that it puts Roman Catholic-like power to the textual choices, putting the church over scripture. This is a category error.

Scripture, the authority, teaches that the Holy Spirit uses the church as the Urim and Thummim. God directs God’s people to the books and the words of the scripture using the church. The church is not taking preeminence over scripture by obeying scripture.

These false arguments remind me of the flailing of a losing boxer at the end of a match. Or, a basketball coach clearing the bench at the end of the game and the substitutes treating the final three minutes like they’ve won the game. No, they’re losing. These are not landing a single blow. They are what experts call “garbage time.” It’s just stat padding and not contributing toward winning at all.

6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.

Settled Word

Scripture is not amoebic. Its boundaries don’t shapeshift like the Stingray nebula. The Bible doesn’t ooze and alter like the Hagfish. God declares in His Word a settled text of scripture. The Bible is a rock, not shifting sand.

God describes His Word as forever settled (Psalm 119:8-9). Deuteronomy 4:2 says:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6 instructs: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” At its very end, the Bible says in Revelation 22:18-19:

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

One cannot take away or add a word to a text that isn’t settled. No possibility of guilt could come to a person for adding or taking away from something unsettled. These warnings assume the establishment of the words. All the principles, presuppositions, and promises from scripture relate to the settlement of the text of the New Testament.

Considering the Nature of God

What God says in scripture about scripture should make sense, considering the nature of God. In Malachi 3:6, God says: “For I am the LORD, I change not.” The immutability of God, one of His attributes, provides a basis for trusting Him. God communicates the trustworthy nature of His Words with relations to His preservation of them in Isaiah 59:21:

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Isaiah 40:8 says something similar: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Received Text Mindset

Modern version and critical text advocates know that printed editions of the received text of the New Testament in the 16th and 17th centuries have few and minor variations. When I say “few and minor,” I’m not making a point that those variants do not matter. They do. The attitude at the time sounded like what Richard Capel wrote:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .

As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

The variation did not yield an unsettled nature. No, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.” They knew errors could come into a hand copy or even a printed edition. However, that did not preclude the doctrine of preservation and a settled text. God would have us live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

More to Come

Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible

May 17, 2024 / 10 Comments on Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible

Does it matter if one adopts a belief in “Q” and rejects the historic belief that the synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–are independent accounts? What happens if one rejects this historic belief for the theory, invented by theological liberalism and modernism but adopted by many modern evangelicals, that Mark was the first gospel (instead of Matthew), and Matthew and Luke depended on and altered Mark, using a (lost) source called “Q” that just happens to have left no archaeological or historical evidence for its existence? What happens if we adopt source, tradition, and redaction criticism? Let me illustrate with the comment on Matthew 25:46 in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1034–1037. Nolland is discussing how to go behind the text of Matthew’s Gospel to what the historical Jesus said (which he assumes is different); he is discussing what Matthew added and changed from what Christ originally said, which, supposedly, was handed down in little bits of tradition here and there, and which Matthew used, along with his dependence upon Mark and Q. I have added a few comments in brackets within Nolland’s commentary.

While the account has a totally comprehensible sense in its Matthean use, various unevennesses and tensions suggest a complicated history. At various points there seem to be Matthean accents and even quite Matthean features. [In other words, Matthew added and changed what the Son of God said.] … On the basis of the tensions and difficulties [which are not really there] in the account many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together [what a nice description] out of traditional fragments and OT resources. Others would be prepared to identify a remnant of a parable in vv. 32c–33 and a significant fragment of tradition in vv. 35–36. But perhaps even this is too pessimistic. [Perhaps? We aren’t sure?]

We have had cause to notice that the king in various of Jesus’ parables was originally God, but he has become Jesus himself in secondary use of the parable. [The Watchtower Society and the Unitarians would be delighted.] This is likely to be true of all three of the immediately preceding parables. In the other cases the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change.

Without vv. 31–32a, ‘by my Father’ in v. 34, and ‘my brothers and sisters’ in v. 40, the account could be focussed on God and not on Jesus. [Note how he is willing to cut out portions of the Word.] With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account. With the loss of vv. 31–32a the account will be of the eschatological judgment of Israel rather than of all nations. So we can now make sense of the unquestioning recognition of the status of the king by those on the left and the assumption that they would have served him if it had been visible to them that that was what was involved. Both those on the left and the right are Israelites who in principle recognised God as their ultimate king. … Various other Matthean features noted above may also betray his intervention, [of course, all of what he is saying is speculative.] but these do not disturb the basic functioning of the narrative. … Matthew has bundled a lot of cross referencing into his account [in other words, he assumes Christ did not refer back to His earlier teaching, but Matthew changed it so that it referenced back to earlier passages] in a manner reminiscent of his development of 9:27–31. It remains an open question whether the fourfold repetition of the list is a pre-Matthean feature. It is reminiscent of the repetition involved in the inclusion of 25:16–18, which was judged above to be pre-Matthean but not original. [“Not original” means Christ did not actually say it.]

The pre-Matthean account that emerges is still not a parable, only an account of the judgment that makes use of a comparison (if this is not Matthean) and speaks of God as ‘the king’. But could there be a genuine parable further behind this? A lot depends on the missing beginning. But the other places where the narrative world of a parable about a king is broken are vv. 34, 41, and 46, and we would have to give up ‘your brothers and sisters’ suggested above for the pre-Matthean account. A possible beginning sentence for a parable might be something like ‘There was a king who entered into judgment with his people’ (all the future tenses of the account would need then to become past tenses). If in v. 34 ‘Come, you blessed ones’ was followed by something more appropriate to the narrative world, and similar adjustments were made to v. 41, then the narrative world of a parable would be complete (while v. 46 completes the narrative logic, it is not strictly necessary, but it could be adjusted in a corresponding manner).

There is one important proviso here to describing both the Matthean and, behind that, the immediately pre-Matthean account as ‘an account of the judgment’. We have already noted the tension between 24:31 and 13:41, where the angels respectively gather the elect and take off the wicked to punishment. Mt. 25:31–46 offers a different picture again. Not the angels, but Jesus/God acting like a shepherd makes the division himself (perhaps the angels might be used for the initial gathering), and the two groups are arranged on either side of him. … The further along this track behind the Matthean material we go, the more our account of it becomes necessarily speculative. [My note: No kidding!] But there appears to be no insurmountable barrier to tracing the origins of the Matthean account back to the historical Jesus. And the original that we might attribute to the historical Jesus offers the same challenge about the importance for judgment day of God’s profound self-identification with his people.

Nolland-who is considered “conservative,” not a liberal, by many, and his commentary in the NIGTC series representative of a broadly “evangelical” commentary series–makes the common and unreasonable assumptions that Matthew, who would have been there to here Christ teach and who was controlled by the Holy Spirit, needed to depend upon tiny fragments of tradition passed down here and passed down there by who knows who, and also borrow from Mark (who was not there, like Matthew was). Through this whole process what Christ actually said got changed, and so we need to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus Christ actually said by going behind Matthew’s Gospel to the hypothetical, reconstructed words of the historical Jesus.

This anti-inspiration nonsense affects evangelical apologetics. When I debated Shabir Ally he could not believe that I denied that there was a “Q” document and that the gospels were dependent on each other. Other Christians that Shabir debated accepted that these lies were true.

This sort of anti-inspiration and anti-historical nonsense about Q, sources, and redaction is all over evangelicalism and just about completely controls theological liberalism. It even infects portions of those who call themselves fundamentalist, chiefly among those who deny the perfect preservation of Scripture and so are not King James Only. Beware of “evangelical” commentaries on the Gospels and “evangelical” leaders who adopt critical methods and deny the Biblically faithful and historically accurate view that the synoptic gospels are independent accounts and give us eyewitness testimony.

–TDR

New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text

May 13, 2024 / 1 Comment on New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Sixty-Six Books

Many evangelicals claim maximum certainty on sixty-six books of the Bible. “Are you certain there are sixty-six books of the BIble?” “Yes.” “What verse in the Bible says to expect sixty-six books?” “None.” “So what is your basis for sixty-six books of the Bible?” Many of their reasons would match what I would give for certainty on the text of the Bible, certainty on what the exact words are.

The reasons for certainty on both the books and the words relate to biblical principles for canonicity. Nothing in the Bible states how many books one should expect though. And yet these evangelicals still declare maximum certainty about “sixty-six.” Sixty-six came from God. No verse saying that, but they still rely on scripture for their certainty. They don’t have mere confidence for sixty-six books. They have certainty.

Very often the same evangelicals’ direct inquiries to me about where the Bible says God would preserve the textus receptus, those particular Latin words. In addition they ask for a verse with the exact words, “King James Version” in a scriptural promise somewhere. They consider these to be “arguments.”

The question arises, “How do we know, for instance, the epistle of James is in the Bible or Galatians or any other single book?” What gives the certainty for inclusion of particular books? How do we know when we’re reading Hebrews that it is in fact the Word of God, more than a mere ancient, naturalistic book?

The Preservation of Words

On the other hand, does God promise to preserve His Words perfectly in a single printed edition of the New Testament? This gets to the crux of the “which TR” question. Scripture teaches perfect preservation of scripture, but how do we know what the words are? How do we know what the books are? The answer is the same to those last two questions. In fact, scripture talks about words and not about books. It’s easier to prove the preservation of words from scripture than it is books.

The Bible doesn’t provide naturalistic rules for deciding on the words of the Bible, ones like shorter or more difficult reading and older manuscript. Men made up those rules and with them, they added, “You can’t be certain.” God’s Word though says you can and should be certain. You expect certainty based upon scripture. The Bible also provides criteria not in the nature of rules, but in presuppositions, promises, and principles. Scripture provides a template, paradigm, or model for what to expect from God and His preservation of scripture.

I want to review the right presuppositions again. Again. I’ve done this a lot, but here we go again, because based on information from my critics, no one answers this. [Not liking the answer does not qualify as not answering.]

I’m going to give a list, because obviously lists are greater click bait. And if I don’t have a list, I shouldn’t say “list” in my click bait title.

1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.

Not Just the Gist

Someone named Eugene Peterson did a paraphrase of the Bible, called The Message. That’s very often how people want to deal with scripture. It’s a message and so the very words don’t matter so much, as long as you get “The Message.” What’s God saying to you? Here’s the gist of it, that’s all that matters. And part of the gist, of course, comes from Eugene Peterson’s brain.

I say, get the gist of scripture. It’s important. But that’s not all that matters. God gave words. Every one of them matter. You don’t get the gist without words and God said this in many different passages. I’m not going to review those with you on this point, but it is true.

Some people miss the gist, and that’s too bad. They need to and should get that too, but God first gave words. Christians have believed that every word matters. God gave specific, exact ones. He delivered them to His institution. They received them (think Textus Receptus here).

All of Them

I added, “and all of them,” because God’s Word, the Bible, or scripture is not 50 percent of the exact words or even 95 percent. It is all of them. I’m happy to have 10 percent of them, but He gave 100 percent. I should expect 100 percent. God even uses the word, “all.” He gave each Word and then all of them.

God inspired only one Bible. There are not two. People don’t have options as to what the Bible is. It isn’t a multiple choice. The question, “Which Bible do you use?” does not reflect what the Bible says about itself. This kind of idea, which is prevalent now in evangelicalism, is destructive and it comes from unbiblical presuppositions about the Bible.

2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.

Expectations

One can and should expect this second point in the list because God said He would do it. He promised it. Evangelicals or modern version proponents very often say God didn’t say “how” he would do it. But He also did say how he would preserve His Words. Believers should have those scriptural expectations. This is part of living by faith.

Preservation of scripture means God keeping each of the words and all of them that He gave. Keeping them then means their being available to every generation of believers.

The preservation of scripture means what the Bible says that preservation of scripture means. It does not mean keeping every word in one particular physical handwritten copy that makes its way unblemished down through the following decades, centuries, and millennia or the annals of history. Every word and all of them would remain available for God’s people. There isn’t a peep about variants and manuscript evidence.

Not Naturalistic

Before someone goes anywhere else in answering questions about manuscripts, printed editions, and translations, he must settle on the first two points of this list. He should start with what the Bible says. He should not begin with an observation of history, “external evidences,” and naturalistic occurrences to which to conform his belief. The Bible explains its own inspiration and preservation in a very clear way. It’s not hard to understand. Everyone will get the text and version issue wrong if he does not get these first two points of this list right.

What I’ve witnessed for decades now exclusively with modern version and critical text adherents is the absence of a biblical presupposition about the preservation of scripture. They don’t want to touch that. If that is their basis for how they approach their outcome, they know it will contradict what they’re saying. What I’ve seen instead is that they start with a criticism or refutation of what has already been published and propagated on the doctrine of preservation through church history.

Presuppositions

Instead of starting with a scriptural position themselves, modern textual criticism proponents begin with naturalistic presuppositions like modernists of the 19th century did. Based on those, they saw we can’t believe perfect preservation, because it didn’t happen. They know it didn’t happen because variants exist between manuscripts. It’s far worse than that even. Their position starts with tests normally applied to secular literature, which have no promise of preservation because they’re solely of human origin.

Some critical text and modern version proponents straight out deny preservation. Others don’t have a theology of no preservation of scripture. They’d be too embarrassed to say that. Instead they leave their audience with ambiguity, leaving their listeners confused on the subject, playing a shell game. God’s Word doesn’t teach that. Anything they call their biblical position arises to criticize someone who starts with a biblical doctrine with the purpose of either denying it, confusing it, or muddling it.

The elimination of a biblical doctrine of preservation affects the authority of scripture. Critical text and modern version proponents are eradicating the doctrine or preservation ironically to preserve their preference. In so doing, they cause people to take the Bible less seriously. When people are not sure whether those are the actual words of God, they are less likely to believe and then keep what they say.

More to Come

Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

May 10, 2024 / 25 Comments on Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley

I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)

Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:

1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:

This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.

Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.

This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.

2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.

3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.

4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.

5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!

6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)

7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.

Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.

2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).

You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.

3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.

–TDR

Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.

X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation

Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.

Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

May 6, 2024 / 13 Comments on Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross

Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross: “I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that Is Super Intelligent”

Thomas Ross debated James White last year with White arguing in the affirmative the proposition that a new translation, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), was superior to the King James Version (KJV). Ross took the opposition. Since White was in the affirmative, Ross refuted White’s arguments for that proposition. The above quote from Ward comes from an introduction to the first of three videos he is producing to answer ones Thomas Ross made after the White debate.

Answering Thomas Ross gets far more traffic for Ward at his site. I don’t want to make it easier for him, so I’m not linking to his series. You can find it on your own, if you want to see it. He also mentions me in the video.

An Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind?

So why does Ward say Thomas is “an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind”? He gives no reasons. None. The definition of ad hominem is this: “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” Like James White himself, Ward attacks Thomas Ross as a person and not his position. He does not explain. I’m saying this is appalling slander of Ross by Ward.

What does Ward mean, “extremist”? The definition of “extremist” itself is derogatory. Collins Dictionary defines extremist:

1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical. adjective. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.

And then Ward says Ross is “of a particularly dangerous kind.” So Thomas Ross is not just “dangerous,” but “particularly dangerous.” Those words themselves are extreme. Their very mention of another person, a truly saved person as Thomas Ross, requires explanation. Ward gives none. He just makes the claim.

What Ross Does

Thomas Ross is careful first to come from scripture. He exposes or exegetes scripture very carefully for his positions. Second, he backs his positions with historical doctrine. He shows how that others in the past take the position, so his doctrine is not new or innovative.

In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point. White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives. He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible. Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence. Instead of answering, which he couldn’t, White insulted Thomas Ross as a person, just like Ward is doing. This shouldn’t help White or Ward. It should warn off their listeners.

Ward Poisons the Well

Ward is free to go ahead and make statements like he did about Thomas Ross. He can do that, but anyone reading should take note of what he is doing. His statement should discredit him. It is a classic, informal logical fallacy called, “poisoning the well,” which means the following:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

Ward and his audience very often attack the persons of their opposition. Ross offered a face-to-face discussion or debate with Ward and Ward refused. He says it is because Ross is an extremist and dangerous, and then he proceeds to treat Ross as though his arguments were legitimate, needing addressing. Do you see the obvious contradiction there? Ward contradicts his own fallacious reasoning.

Any Reasons for Ad Hominem Attack by Ward? None

The only possible reason one could ascertain for why Ward poisons the well and uses the ad hominem against Ross is because Thomas Ross is “super intelligent.” Why would intelligence and even super intelligence be a negative for someone on a subject matter? Ross doesn’t claim super intelligence for himself. Ward made that claim for Ross and gave it as the only reason for Ross’s extremism and danger.

Mark Ward explained that when Ross offered him an in person debate, his counsellors told him that it was not worthy of Ward’s own personal gifts and the purposes of his work. And yet Ward has plenty of time to produce three videos dealing with “super intelligent” Ross, where Ross cannot answer him in person. What evaluation could someone make of such a dodge of Ross by Ward?

Think of Wards accusations if it were a court of law, where the accused “extremist” and “particularly dangerous” individual cannot answer his accuser. Only the prosecution speaks. Ward sits alone and makes slanderous declarations against Ross with no cross examination. This is unjust treatment of unbiblical and sinful manner.

Injustice toward Ross

Psalm 89:14 says:

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Proverbs 21:3 says:

To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

It is not just to make a false, slanderous accusation against a godly Christian man like Thomas Ross, no explanation or reasons, and not give him a face to face opportunity to answer his accusation. This is not due process. It is not justice. Mark Ward treats Thomas Ross in a manner of contempt like Jesus warned against in Matthew 5:21-26, akin to murdering someone in his heart. A man claiming to be a Christian like Ward should not treat another man, whether Christian or not, with contempt. Ward treats a believer like Ross with contempt.

Doubling Down on Appalling Slander of Ross

Someone in the comment section dealt with Ward’s appalling slander of Ross, when he wrote:

It seems interesting that you would make the claim that Ross is a “extremist of a particularly dangerous kind” because he is “super intelligent”. When the same could, and probably should, be said about you. Btw. This comment meets your comment requirements because it is no more of an ad hominem attack than you yourself made.

To that, Ward answered: “I stand by what I said. Every word.” He had a great opportunity to retract, and he didn’t. Instead, he doubled down on his appalling slander of a Christian gentleman and scholar.

Ross wasn’t even dealing with Ward in the videos to which Ward refers. He was elaborating on the arguments of the White debate.

Ross Not Extreme or Dangerous

What makes anyone an extremist and dangerous and then on this issue of the intelligibility of the KJV? Ross takes the position that God preserved all of the words of God in their original language for every generation of believer. Is that really an extreme and dangerous position now? It is the biblical and historical position of the church.

Ross answers arguments against the intelligibility of the KJV made by White in the debate. Truly saved people all over the United States still use the KJV in their churches. It is still the most commonly used version of the Bible in conservative Bible believing churches in the United States. It’s not extreme to do so. And it is not extreme to defend the intelligibility of the KJV. There are good arguments for its continuation, which is why so many people still do use the King James.

Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray Recently on the KJV

I was listening to Jordan Peterson in an interview with British conservative journalist Douglas Murray. Peterson asked Murray:

I have a friend who is extremely erudite and literate and charismatic and maybe Canada’s most remarkable journalist. . . . He has the knowledge a vast corpus of poetry and its evident in the manner in which he speaks, because he has that lilt and cadence and rhythm that’s part and parcel. And you’re very very well spoken.

And Peterson asks Murray to what he attributes that quality of his. Murray answers:

In my case it is the great good fortune of having been brought up with the King James Bible, . . . . which if you have [that] in your head and you recite [it] every Sunday, gives you a pretty good idea of how to cadence the English language.

Murray characterized this as ‘furnishing his mental furniture and having to furnish it well.’ Murray didn’t see the King James Bible as extreme and dangerous to his public usage of language and understanding how to speak to a modern culture. No, it was a great help, the greatest help to his speaking ability, communicating to a contemporary people.

It is not good at all to slander your Christian opponents as a strategy to discredit them with ad hominem attacks. This is what Ward and White do and very often from which I’ve seen and read. I call on Ward to cease, desist, and retract such appalling slander about Thomas Ross and others.

Books By David Cloud Read Aloud: Can You Help Truth Get Out?

March 1, 2024 / Leave a comment

Way of Life Literature, run by Bro David Cloud, has many excellent resources. David Cloud has also written many excellent books, as well as useful videos one can find on his website. While not infallible, of course, they are well-researched, sound in doctrine, and something I could recommend highly to almost any Christian. I am very thankful for David Cloud’s works. His books, along with those published by Bible Baptist Church Publications, helped me to become a Baptist separatist instead of a mushy evangelical after I was converted by the grace of God.

Today, sadly, many people do not read. Brother Cloud has given me permission to have at least some of his books read aloud and then made available on fora such as YouTube, Rumble, and Audible.

If you would be interested in reading aloud some David Cloud books, such as his works on Biblical preservation, Bible texts and versions:

Faith vs. The Modern Versions

For Love of the Bible

The Glorious History of the English Bible

Bible Version Question and Answer Database

The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame

Why We Hold to the King James Bible

or some of Cloud’s other books, such as:

Dressing for the Lord

The Future According to the Bible

History and Heritage of Fundamentalism and Fundamental Baptists

and you have a good reading voice–speaking clearly, with expression, and not one that will put people to sleep–and enough commitment to finish something once you have started it, please contact me and let me know.

Thank you.

Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated

February 2, 2024 / Leave a comment

Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is the most famous verse of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible for Jews. The Hebrew text has a complex system of accent marks that provide exegetically significant information; in addition to the accents providing one of four levels of disjunction in the text (that is, providing pauses that divide words with four levels of strength), or emphasizing conjunction (that words are to be read together). The Lord Jesus affirmed that God would preserve the Hebrew vowels and accent marks until heaven and earth pass away-the words of the Old Testament themselves, not merely the consonants, are inspired:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)

Historically, the inspiration of the vowels has been affirmed, and receiving the Biblical testimony to the inspiration of the words, not the consonants only, of the Old Testament is apologetically and intellectually defensible.

So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks? You can hear the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in a synagogue, but if you do not want to go to one, and want to hear the following passage of the Torah chanted:

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Then please watch or listen to the following brief video:

or watch the video on Rumble by clicking here or on YouTube by clicking here.

Whether or not one learns to fluently sing or chant, students of the Hebrew Bible should learn to identify the Hebrew accent marks, just like they can identify English periods, commas, and semicolons. Courses in Hebrew should teach the people of the God of Israel and those who trust in Israel’s Messiah the accents, rather than ignoring them and teaching only the consonants and vowels.

This blog has pointed out in the past that the Authorized, King James Version does a good job representing the Hebrew accents in English (although the punctuation system in English is different and simpler than that of Hebrew).

You might be able to have more doors open in witnessing to Jews if you memorize at least the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4, in Hebrew. If Then share with them the truth in the “Truth from the Torah” pamphlet. If you have one of the Jewish evangelistic shirts here, by memorizing the Shema you will be able to chant the Hebrew text on the front of your shirt.

If you can at least read the Hebrew alphabet it should not be that hard to memorize this passage–the greatest commandment of all, according to the resurrected Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man, the Lord Jesus (Matthew 22:37-38). Just copy the audio of the video to your phone or other electronic device and get your device to play the Hebrew over and over again, and before you know it you will have the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5) memorized in Hebrew. Put these glorious words in your heart (Deuteronomy 6:6), where you can savor them, love them, and ever the more obey them.

–TDR

King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism

January 26, 2024 / 20 Comments on King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism

Peter Ruckman, King James Bible Only or King James Only extremist, denied (after a fashion) that the LXX or Greek Septuagint existed before the times of Jesus Christ. Ruckman wrote:

Finally we proved, by documented attestation from dozens of sources (pp. 40–68), that no such animal as a B.C. “Septuagint” (LXX) ever existed before the completion of the New Testament. We listed ALL of the LXX manuscripts, including the papyri (pp. 45, 48–51). There was not to be found ONE manuscript or ONE Old Testament Greek “Bible,” not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A.D. 150, that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted. Not ONE. And even the date A.D. 150 is “fudging,” for Aquila’s “Septuagint,” (supposedly written between A.D. 128 and 140), was not published by Origen till after A.D. 220. Aquila’s text (A.D. 128–150) is not extant; it has not been extant since A.D. 6.

No apostle quoted any part of Ryland’s papyrus 458 (150 B.C. supposedly). Not ONCE since our first book was published (Manuscript Evidence, 1970), has any Christian scholar in England, Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas (representing ANY University, College, Seminary, or Bible Institute—Christian or otherwise), ever produced ONE verse of ONE part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D. 220. (see above) that ANY New Testament writer quoted. This means that 5,000–6,000 lying jacklegs had been given twenty-seven years to produce ONE piece of evidence for the Greek Septuagint the New Testament writers were supposed to have been quoting. In twenty-seven years, the whole Scholars’ Union couldn’t come up with ONE verse. They “stressed out.” As a modern generation would say: “totally outta here!” (Peter Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint, pg. 6

Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. This is because a Ruckmanite denial of a pre-Christian LXX is historically indefensible. The King James translators certainly believed that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and who consequently believe in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, should reject Ruckman’s historically indefensible and confused argument. The KJVO movement should purge itself of Ruckmanite influences, including in this area.

Please note that–as is typical for Ruckman–his argument quoted above is confusing and incoherent. It seems that he is arguing that there is no such thing as a B. C. LXX, and that there is not “ONE manuscript … not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A. D. 150.” From Ruckman’s foul well, the idea that there is no pre-Christian LXX has spread to many quarters. But note Ruckman’s incredible qualification: “that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted.” Many readers will miss this astonishing qualification, for Ruckman, even in his radical anti-LXX book, indicates full awareness that there are papyrus fragments of the LXX that exist (e. g., Rylands papyrus 458) and that are pre-Christian. So now some KJVO advocates, through making the unwise decision to read Ruckman and then misreading him, are arguing that the LXX did not exist before the times of Origen, which is totally indefensible.

Rylands papyrus 458: Pre-Christian Evidence For the LXX

In addition to such small fragments, it is probable that we have an entire Greek scroll of the minor prophets from Nahal Hever that is pre-Christian. But even the small fragments above demonstrate the existence of the book from which the fragments come.

Nor is it wise to dismiss the documentary evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas. (Have you ever read it? You should, at least if you are going to comment on whether there was a pre-Christian Septuagint or not. At least it isn’t full of carnal language and racism like Ruckman’s works). If you actually read the Letter of Aristeas you will see that it not only speaks of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek centuries before the times of Christ, but it says that there were already multiple Greek versions extant before the LXX was made. Is the Letter to Aristeas infallible history, like Scripture? Of course not. Should we just dismiss everything it says and conclude there is no historical basis for any of it? No, we should not do that either. We would not have much world history left if we dismissed every source completely if we found any errors in it. Furthermore, Philo and Josephus discuss the Septuagint, as do many writers in early Christendom. It would be very strange for all of these sources to be discussing a translation that did not even exist yet. It is actually very much expected that the Jews would translate the Old Testament into Greek, since pre-Christian Judaism was an evangelistic, missionary religion that sought to spread the knowledge of the true God to the whole world.

Within a lot of confusion, carnality, and equivocation in Ruckman’s argument, there are certain elements of truth within his comments on the LXX. Others have made these points in a much more clear and much less confusing way, including in blog posts concerning the LXX on this What is Truth? blog. (See also here, here, and others.) What truths should KJVO people hold to in relation to the LXX?

1.) The LXX was never the final authority for the Lord Jesus and the Apostles; the final authority was always the Hebrew text (Matthew 5:18). They never quoted the LXX where it mistranslated the Hebrew. Indeed, since most scribes of the LXX were in the realm of Christendom, there is every reason to think that they would backtranslate NT quotations into the LXX text. Unlike the nutty idea that there was no pre-Christian LXX, the idea that scribes would move NT quotations back into Greek LXX manuscripts is well-supported and has been advocated widely, from people like John Owen in the past to the evangelical authors Jobes and Silva in their modern introduction to the LXX. (Please see my discussion and quotations of this matter in slides 155ff. from my King James Only debate with James White.) That the LXX was never the final authority does not mean that the NT writers never quoted or alluded to the LXX. Modern KJVO evangelists or missionaries to, say, China may quote the Chinese Bible where it is an accurate translation, but not where it differs from the preserved Greek text accurately translated in the KJV. There is no reason to say that, where the LXX accurately translates the preserved Hebrew text, the NT does not quote or allude to it. There is reason to say that this does not happen where the LXX is inaccurate.

2.) Speaking of the LXX does not mean that there was a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. Indeed, both the ancient sources such as the Letter of Aristeas and significant parts of modern scholarship on the LXX recognize that there were multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was no “THE” LXX in the sense of a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. The LXX did, however, exist in the sense that the Old Testament was translated into Greek, more than once, before the times of Christ.

3.) Instead of pretending that the Septuagint is a myth, King James Only advocates should reject the Ruckmanite fable that the LXX did not exist before the times of Christ and instead advocate the position held by pre-Ruckman defenders of the Received Text and of the KJV (and which has never been wholly abandoned by perfect preservationists for the Ruckmanite myth), namely, that the LXX is a valuable tool for understanding the linguistic and intellectual background of the New Testament, but it is never the final authority for the Old Testament–the Hebrew words perfectly preserved by God are always the final authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX, although He would have had a holy hatred for the mistranslations in it and been grieved at how in some books it is much less literal than in other texts (the Pentateuch is quite literal; some books of the Writings, not so much). The Son of Man, the best of all preachers as the incarnate Word, would have had perfect grasp of the Hebrew text and would also be aware of what the Greek Bible said. Recognizing that many of those to whom He would preach the gospel would not know Hebrew, and wanting to minister to them in the most effective way, he would have had a mastery of the Greek Old Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible. A missionary to Japan would read the Bible in Japanese so he could effectively minister to the Japanese. The Lord Jesus and those who followed His example among His Apostles and other disciples would have read the Bible in Greek so that they could minister to those who spoke only the world language-Greek. I would recommend that those who have gained fluency in New Testament Greek, and have read their Greek New Testament cover to cover, go on to read through the LXX as well, as it provides valuable background to the New Testament. They should, however, like their resurrected Lord, recognize that the LXX is never the final authority for the Old Testament. They should rejoice in the Greek Bible when it is accurate, grieve when it is inaccurate, and always make the perfectly preserved Hebrew text their final authority as they study, preach, teach, love and obey the Old Testament.

–TDR

My Daily Bible Reading: The KJV Bible Read Out Loud, Free

January 19, 2024 / Leave a comment

Do you listen to the Bible read out loud? I have listened through the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, read out loud, numbers of times. (Alexander Scourby is my favorite.) Someone whom we know, mainly as a matter for him to make sure that he is spending time in the Word each day, recorded himself reading the entire Bible aloud this last year on YouTube. He described his YouTube channel’s purpose as:

The goal of this channel is to provide daily accountability to read through the whole Bible and more in one year from January 1 to December 31! God’s Word is a Lamp to our feet and a Light to our path. May this channel help us get strength, encouragement, rebuke, doctrine, and guidance each and every day!

So if you would like a free, albeit non-professional, reading of the entire King James Bible through in one year, feel free to listen to the My Daily Bible Reading channel and prepare to be edified by the Spirit through the Word.

Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.

I personally spend a certain number of minutes each week reading the Authorized, King James Version and the Hebrew Old Testament Textus Receptus, as well as reading a certain number of verses in the Greek Textus Receptus. I also work on studying through an Old Testament book (I am currently in Proverbs, reading it with Bruce Waltke’s valuable commentary on Proverbs; before that I read Psalms through with Spurgeon’s excellent Treasury of David) and Matthew, reading through the book with a rather brief dispensational Moody Bible commentary, the New International Greek Testament Commentary on Matthew (useful exegetical insights, but generally dry as dust and anti-verbal inspiration because of source criticism and redaction criticism although “conservative”), and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew (helpful exegetical and devotional thoughts if the paedobaptist Calvinism can be set aside). I also spend a certain number of minutes reading the Septuagint or LXX (I am in Numbers and Psalms). Some days I will focus more on one of these and some days more on another, and at the end of the month I see how many minutes I spent on them all in comparison to how many I am supposed to spend; whatever I have spent less time on, I plan to spend more time on the next month, and whatever I have spent more time on, I can focus upon less.

If I listen to the Bible read out loud, I take the amount of time I spend listening and divide it in half, as I find it easier to get distracted when listening to the Bible then when reading it. We should be especially on guard against our flesh seeking to lead our minds to wander when we are engaged in a spiritual activity like reading God’s Word. I can say with Paul: “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Romans 7:21).

In any case, I am thankful for the hours I have been able to spend listening to the Bible read aloud. Perhaps the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube channel will help you to read and/or listen through God’s Word (at least) once this year, meditate upon what you read, and obey it in reverent love.

The books I referenced above that are linked to on Amazon are affiliate links. I would recommend comparing prices on books here and then clicking through a portal as described here if you are going to buy a book online.

–TDR

Tag Archives: King James Version

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROMISES OF AND FROM SCRIPTURE

Epistemology

Which Textus Receptus?

History of the Received Text

Kurt Aland

Barbara Aland

Metzger

Edward Freer Hills

King James Version Translated from Something

Printed Editions of the TR

The Ecclesiastical Text

Acting in Faith

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Introduction to Point 6.

Pavlovian

Latin Vulgate or Church Hierarchy Attack

6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.

Settled Word

Considering the Nature of God

Received Text Mindset

ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION

Sixty-Six Books

The Preservation of Words

1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.

Not Just the Gist

All of Them

2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.

Expectations

Not Naturalistic

Presuppositions

Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross: “I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that Is Super Intelligent”

An Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind?

What Ross Does

Ward Poisons the Well

Any Reasons for Ad Hominem Attack by Ward? None

Injustice toward Ross

Doubling Down on Appalling Slander of Ross

Ross Not Extreme or Dangerous

Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray Recently on the KJV

Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta