Home » Posts tagged 'textus receptus' (Page 8)

Tag Archives: textus receptus

If the Perfectly Preserved Greek New Testament Is the Textus Receptus, Which TR Edition Is It? Pt. 1

July 18, 2022 / 15 Comments on If the Perfectly Preserved Greek New Testament Is the Textus Receptus, Which TR Edition Is It? Pt. 1

The Bible claims that God wrote it word for word. God also promised to preserve it word for word in the same languages in which He wrote it. Through history, Christians believed this, even with the reality of copyist errors, what men now call textual variants. Professing Christian leaders today challenge the assertion of the perfect preservation of scripture.

Kevin Bauder wrote, Only One Bible?, the answer to which is, “Yes.” Of course there is only one Bible. His assumption though is, “No, there is more than one.” To Bauder and those like him, the answer to the title of the book is obvious “No.” In their world, within a certain percentage of variation between them, several Bibles can and do exist. Bauder wrote:

If they are willing to accept a manuscript or a text that might omit any words (even a single word) from the originals, or that might add any words (even a single word) to the originals, then their whole position is falsified. . . . If preservation does not really have to include every word, then the whole controversy is no more than a debate over percentages.

The “Which TR?” question also deals with Bauder’s point. Are any of the editions of the TR without error? If so, which one? When you say “Scrivener’s” to Bauder and others, you are admitting a type of English trajectory to the perfect Greek text. When you say, “One of the TR editions is very, very close, but not perfect,” then you surrender on the issue of perfection. That’s why they ask the question.

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.

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.

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. Belief in perfection of the preservation of scripture comes from promises of God in His Word. The Critical Text advocate responds: “Yes, but we see variations between hand written copies and even the printed editions.” What do they mean by this response?

Critical Text advocates are saying that in light of textual variants, those preservation passages must mean something other than perfect, divine preservation of scripture. They say that they can’t be used to teach perfect preservation of scripture anymore, like historically true Christians have taught them, because textual variants show that teaching can’t be true. What divinely inspired or supernatural scripture says is then not the truth, but apparent natural evidence is the truth. When they talk about the truth, they aren’t talking about scripture. They are talking about the speculation of textual criticism by textual critics, mostly unbelieving.

Bruce Metzger wrote in The Text of the New Testament (the one quoted above and here in p. 219 and p. 340): “Textual criticism is not a branch of mathematics, nor indeed an exact science at all. . . . We must acknowledge that we simply do not know what the author originally wrote.” He and Bart Ehrman say much more like that quotation, but this is why I called modern textual criticism, “speculation.” Critical text advocates should not call their speculation, “truth.”

You might ask, “So are you going to answer the question in the title of this post?” Yes. God preserved the New Testament perfectly in the Textus Receptus, not in one printed edition. This has always been my position. Here is how I (and others, like Thomas Ross) would describe this.

First, Scripture promises that God will forever preserve every one of His written words, which are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ones (Ps 12:6-7, 33:11, 119:152, 160; Is 30:8, 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Mt 5:18, 24:35). God promised the preservation of words, not ink, paper, or particular printed editions. They were specific words, and not a generalized word.

Second, Scripture promises the general availability of every one of His Words to every generation of believers (Dt 29:29; 30:11-14; Is 34:16, 59:21; Mt 4:4; 5:18-19; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 17). Yes, the Words are in heaven, but they are also on earth, available to believers. This does not guarantee His Words to unbelievers, just to believers. If the words were not available, those were not His Words. The Words He preserved could not be unavailable for at least several hundred years, like those in the critical text.

Third, Scripture promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, and that the Word, all of His words, are truth (Jn 16:13, 17:8, 17). True churches of Christ would receive and guard these words (Mt 28:19-20; Jn 17:8; Acts 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Tim 3:15). Believers called the New Testament Greek text, the textus receptus, because the churches received it and then kept it. Churches of truly converted people with a true gospel and the indwelling Holy Spirit bore testimony to this text as perfect. Many, many quotes evince this doctrine, including this one by John Owen from His Works:

But my present considerations being not to be extended beyond the concernment of the truth which in the foregoing discourse I have pleaded for, I shall first propose a brief abstract thereof, as to that part of it which seems to be especially concerned, and then lay down what to me appears in its prejudice in the volumes now under debate, not doubting but a fuller account of the whole will by some or other be speedily tendered unto the learned and impartial readers of them. The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority.

This reflects the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the later London Baptist Confession. Professor E. D. Morris for decades taught the Westminster Confession at Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio. Philip Schaff consulted with him for his Creeds of Christendom. In 1893, Morris wrote for The Evangelist:

As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would dare to risk his reputation on the statement that the Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of the Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.

Richard Capel represents the position well (Capel’s Remains, London, 1658, pp. 19-43):

[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.

Perfect preservation admitted scribal errors, but because of providential preservation, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.” Critical text advocates conflate this to textual criticism about which foremost historian Richard Muller wrote on p. 541 of the second volume of his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics:

All too much discussion of the Reformers’ methods has attempted to turn them into precursors of the modern critical method, when in fact, the developments of exegesis and hermeneutics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries both precede and, frequently conflict with (as well as occasionally adumbrate) the methods of the modern era.

Muller wrote on p. 433:

By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa.

These biblical presuppositions are true. For the New Testament, only the textus receptus fulfills those presuppositions. Those words were preserved in the language in which they were written, koine Greek. They were the only words available to the generations of believers from 1500 to 1881. They are also the only words that believers ever agreed, received, and testified were God’s preserved Words in the language in which they were written.

To Be Continued

The Uncertainty of the “Textual Confidence” View of Preservation of Scripture

July 12, 2022 / 1 Comment on The Uncertainty of the “Textual Confidence” View of Preservation of Scripture

For those reading, next week either Monday or Wednesday, I will provide as concise an answer as possible to the question, “Which TR?” I’ve answered this question before several times, but it’s usually just ignored, never answered. I’ve never had it answered. It’s asked as a gotcha question, then I give the answer, followed by silence. I’m going to try to do the best I’ve ever done at the answer.

**************************

A group of four men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective recorded seven podcasts for youtube. These men posted their first on Monday, July 11, 2022. The purpose of their gathering in Texas for these recordings was to persuade people of a new position on preservation of scripture. They call it “textual confidence.” They’ve given their own new position an enticing or attractive label, but it is still new.

Confidence sounds very good. Confidence in Collective parlance is akin to the word “trust.” I believe that’s what they mean by “confidence.” Placing confidence in someone or something is trusting it or trusting in it. In the scriptural use of the word “trust,” God does not call for confidence or trust in the uncertain. Uncertainty also does not bring biblical trust. Confidence relates to God, Who is always certain.

As a label, “Textual Confidence” definitely sounds superior to “Textual Doubt.” The four men testify they want to help Christians have confidence in the underlying text of their English translation of the Bible. They say it’s not a sure, settled text, and unlike their opponents, they’re honest. This admission of less than one hundred percent surety, they argue, engenders confidence. The text of scripture is something pure like Tide detergent, not 100%, but still good.

The Collective Confidence falls short of certainty. Three of the men replaced certainty with what they call confidence. The discovery of textual variants, that is, variations in hand copies, destroyed their certainty. This shows they do not stand on biblical presuppositions. They also listened to men who contradicted certainty. Now they are confident in the text without certainty about the words. They reject certainty and also want to push their uncertainty on others, bringing every church in the world to the same position, what they call “unity.”

The Collective also says they’re just telling the truth in contrast to people with differing positions, deceived or lying. Those who take their view — according to them — are very nice, super balanced, great with their rhetorical tone compared to the others. Part of this, they say about themselves, is their focus on Jesus and the gospel rather than on the text of scripture. This implies that supporters of other positions than theirs elevate the Bible above Jesus in an unbalanced and perverted way. The latter is an example of their tone.

Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). Delivering the teaching of scripture is truth. What the Bible says about itself is true. The existence of textual variants does not change the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture.

Many people have suffered for believing something different than they once did, including from family. No one will invite me to the same functions as Mark Ward. Certain doors close depending on what you believe. If you believe an error, the same thing will occur. I don’t condone a kind of mean or vicious form of separation that just cuts people off. I don’t practice that kind of separation either. Many evangelicals practice like this, even though they don’t even believe in biblical separation. Facing exclusion though doesn’t make a position right.

Two of the Collective testified to suffering from parents and siblings for changing positions on the Bible. I don’t think someone should hang on to a false position because they don’t want to lose their family. The Collective, however, treats this suffering as proof their new position is true and right. It doesn’t prove either position. No one should come to a conclusion for what’s right by comparing who suffers the most. This is common, however, among modern version proponents.

The Collective distinguishes their view from what they present as two false extremes, “textual skepticism” and “textual absolutism.” The men used Bart Ehrman as an example of the former. They weren’t clear who was the former, but I’m confident they’re talking about a wide range of King James Version and textus receptus advocates, anyone who is certain about the text of scripture.

A strong statement of the first podcast is that skepticism and absolutism come from the same place or are closer than what the audience may expect. The Collective says that an absolutist perspective turns people into skeptics more than skeptics do because of their defense of “every iota across the board.” I’m skeptical about this point, because the certainty that brings trust in scripture comes from what the Bible says about itself. Jesus defended every iota across the board.

Should people belief in the words of scripture as absolute, what someone might say is without variableness or shadow of turning? In other words, does the Word of God reflect the nature of God and its immutability? That is what scripture says about itself and it is what our spiritual forefathers passed down to us.

Modern textual criticism does not and has not increased trust in the inerrancy and authority of the Word of God. Since I’ve been alive, as the prominence of textual criticism grows, trust in scripture diminishes. Scriptural presuppositions on the other hand provide increasing spiritual strength through believing what God said, trusting in the Word of God as absolute authority. Greater faith proceeds from certainty, not uncertainty.

Editions of the King James Version and the Criticism of Not Updating It

March 16, 2022 / 7 Comments on Editions of the King James Version and the Criticism of Not Updating It

I’m sure someone has made this argument, even though I haven’t heard it. Someone might call the five previous editions of the King James Version an argument for another update. Four editions followed the original 1611. Why no sixth edition? Why did we stop at 1769, the date of the last edition, what is called the Blayney Edition?Benjamin Blayney, English Hebraist, updated the King James Version. Dot Wordsworth in The Spectator wrote (based on his reading of Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version):

Dr Blayney made thousands of changes to the text of 1611. In vocabulary he incorporated amendments from another version from 1743, for example, fourscore changed to eightieth, neesed to sneezed, and the archaic crudled to curdled. In grammar he changed, among other things, number, so that ‘the names of other gods’ became ‘the name of other gods’; and tenses, so ‘he calleth unto him the twelve and began’ changed to ‘he called unto him the twelve, and began’. There were changes in spelling, in punctuation, and in the choice of words to italicise (which had been intended to indicate words not literally present in the original languages).

A highly documented paragraph in the Wikipedia entry on the King James Version says the following:

By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years’ work by Francis Sawyer Parris, who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 and in John Baskerville’s fine folio edition of 1763. This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney, though with comparatively few changes from Parris’s edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings. Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of “supplied” words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. . . . Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney’s 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.

With all of the above in mind, why hasn’t the KJV been updated like some call for? It might seem to follow along a pattern already set for the King James Version. Some today criticize King James Version and Textus Receptus proponents for not giving the King James Version an update to eliminate obsolete or archaic words.The changes occurring in the past updates or editions of the original King James Version did not retranslate the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament or the Textus Receptus of the New Testament. They are still the King James Translation. The Wikipedia article provided a comparison between the 1611 and the 1769 for 1 Corinthians 13:1-3:

[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Reading that, you can see how Blayney made 24,000 spelling or punctuation changes. Changing from “feede” to “feed” counts as one of them. 1769 also does not read at all like a retranslation. Compare that to a different translation of those same verses, the NASV with the above 1769 KJV.

[NASV] 1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

None of the four editions proceeding from the 1611 King James Versions read like a new translation or an update in the translation. They didn’t do that. The updates or editions of the King James Version are not a new translation. They don’t look anything like a new translation.Would another update of obsolete or archaic words in the 1769 Blayney edition represent the spirit of the previous editions of King James Version? My honest assessment is that it wouldn’t. Critics, who don’t prefer the KJV, want something more than a new edition.I have not read an official explanation for why no continued updates to the King James Version. No authorized figure said, “This is our last update.” I think that they stopped in 1769 because they were done. They had done enough. No one was motivated to update again, because the 1769 Blayney edition accomplished what people wanted at the time. It hasn’t been done again, because no one agreed it was significant to do.Men like Mark Ward and others criticize people such as myself and Thomas Ross for not endeavoring to update the King James Version. They see our lack of support for an update as a sign that we really, actually believe the preservation of scripture occurred in the English translation. If I did, however, I would advocate for foreign translations from the English King James Version. I don’t. I support foreign translations from the Hebrew and Greek original language text. That doesn’t sound like someone who believes preservation of scripture in the English translation.Previous to the King James Version, men made several translations of the English Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek Testaments. The momentum for translation changed after the completion of the KJV. Churches accepted the King James Version. Updates didn’t continue after 1769. Churches were satisfied with the updates.The King James Version was changed after 1611. The concept of an update is not foreign to the King James Version. Changes occurred. Why not further updates to the King James Version? To be an update, what would need to happen? The answer to this second question also explains why it hasn’t happened and probably won’t.

WHY NOT FURTHER UPDATES TO THE KING JAMES VERSION?

1. The 1769 Blayney Edition Is Good

Despite the “false friends” of Mark Ward, the existence of words obsolete and archaic to today’s English reader, the Blayney Edition of the King James Version is good. It is a good translation of the preserved original language text. True churches accepted it. It has had a supernatural impact over the centuries. It is still causes a great effect on the souls of men. The Blayney Edition of the KJV is proven.Most people still read the King James Version after all these years. Almost three times the people read the King James Version than read any other single version of the English Bible according to Statista. A study published in 2014 by The Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University and Purdue University found that 55% of Americans read the King James Version. Next was the NIV at 19%.

2. Change Is Worse Than Possible Improvements

Think of the concept of changing the Bible. Consider how much people already change the Bible. Think about everything that is changing in the world. The left wants to change everything and the meaning of everything.The Bible stands over men. When men say, “I want to change the Bible,” then they are in a sense standing over the Bible. Yes, updates were made, but it is very serious to change.Once men were settled on the Blayney edition, they didn’t keep updating. The Bible should be very difficult to change or update. It should at least be more difficult than changing the United States constitution.Changing the Bible requires a certain amount of ego. True scholars translate the Bible. Someone else comes along and says that they didn’t know enough, so they change it. Later others say they’re even smarter, so they change it. John MacArthur recently led in another translation of the Bible. He’s studied the issues of text and translation, while preaching in his church, and he has the power and resources to create his own translation that favors most or all of his desires for a Bible. He’s got his own Bible now that he reports is the best ever.Once another edition of the critical text arises and further collation of newly found manuscripts occurs, what will stop changing of MacArthur’s Legacy Standard Bible? These never ending changes take away from the perception of the authority of the Bible. That is more dangerous by far than anything else.The constant changing of the Bible looks like a bigger problem than updating obsolete and archaic words. People who can’t explain those words have bigger problems than those words. Updating those will not take away those problems.

3. King James Version Churches Don’t Want the Update

I hear non-KJV people crying for a change. I don’t hear King James Version churches doing that. Men like Mark Ward won’t motivate KJV churches to change to a different Bible. He won’t impel men like Thomas Ross and I, who know original languages, to set in motion another update. No one on my side of this issue talks about updating the King James Version.Mark Ward and men like him incite churches that are already changing. He’s provided some cover for pushing forward changes. Rick Warren wants changes too. He’s kindled changes to many churches looking for numerical growth.

4. An Update Is Far From a Priority

Updating the King James Version pales next to other issues and problems for churches. Before another English translation, churches could work on the first translation into other languages from the preserved text of the Old and New Testaments to get the Bible to millions others.Churches are declining everywhere. It’s not because of the King James Version. Even among churches that use the KJV, they deny the necessity of repentance for salvation. Their people are more worldly. They are colder toward evangelism. They are more pragmatic.An update should arise from some movement toward the truth. It should accompany desire for God and His Word. It should proceed from a rise of repentance toward biblical belief and practice.

TO BE AN UPDATE, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

1. King James Version Churches Would Want an Update

A successful update of the KJV would arise from more than a desire of one church. A large majority of the King James Version churches would want it. If 75% of those churches called for it, they might accomplish it. A poll of those churches, I’m guessing, would receive less than 10% desire for an update.The Holy Spirit works equally in all true believers. Faith is “like precious faith” (2 Peter 1:1). That same Spirit and that same faith will show up in more than one church. Scripture would give common basis for necessary change.

2. King James Version Churches Would Unify For an Update

Update would so motivate KJV churches that they unify to do so.

3. King James Version Churches Would Provide the Good, Qualified Men from their Midst, Who Could Work Together to Accomplish an Update

If the KJV churches want an update, they would gather the men who could accomplish this task. Those men would stop whatever else they were doing because this was more important. With me it would take attention off evangelism, discipleship, the gospel, preaching, apostasy, sanctification, and the church itself. I’m sure that’s the same for other men. They don’t want that.

4. King James Version Churches Would Approve of the Update

After finishing the update, the churches would still need to show approval. They would want the updated translation. Maybe that would occur if the first three on this list occurred. We’re not close to those and so many other things are more important, I don’t see those happening. Most KJV churches would likely say that on the translation issue, the departure from the KJV is a bigger and more serious priority than the updating of the KJV.

5. The Updated King James Version Would Become the King James Version for King James Version Churches

KJV churches do not want or use the new translations completed by individual churches and men from the same text as the KJV. They find very little acceptance. Why? KJV churches don’t want them. They don’t like them.If KJV churches represent New Testament Christianity, and they don’t want an update of the KJV or a new translation of the underlying text, then New Testament Christianity doesn’t want that. If they are not New Testament Christianity, then that’s the bigger issue. I believe that among the KJV churches is New Testament Christianity. Only among those is belief in biblical doctrine of preservation of scripture.

1st Year New Testament Greek for Distance Students

January 21, 2022 / Leave a comment

Lord willing, I will be starting a 1^st semester introductory Greek class which can be taken by distance students in the near future. If you are interested, please click here to contact me.

2 Timothy 4:2 in Greek--preach the Word!

What Will I Learn in Introductory NT Greek?

We will be learning introductory matters such as the Greek alphabet, and then the entire Koine Greek noun system, after which we will get in to verbs in the indicative mood. A second semester to follow should cover the rest of the fundamentals of Greek grammar. At the end of the course, you will be well prepared to begin reading the New Testament on your own. You also will, I trust, have grown closer to the Lord through your growth in understanding and application of His Word, will have grown in your ability to read, understand, teach, and preach the Bible (if you are a man; women are welcome to take the class as well, as they should know God’s Word for themselves and their families and teach other women and children), and will be prepared to learn Greek syntax and dive deeper into exegesis and more advanced Greek study in second year Greek. You will learn the basics of New Testament Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary, preparing you to translate, interpret and apply Scripture. Recognizing the importance of using the original languages for the interpretation of the New Testament, you will acquire a thorough foundation in biblical Greek. You will learn the essentials of grammar and acquire an adequate vocabulary.

The course should be taught in such a way that a committed high school student can understand and do well in the content (think of an “AP” or Advanced Placement class), while the material covered is complete enough to qualify for a college or a seminary level class. There is no need to be intimidated by Greek because it is an ancient language. Someone who can learn Spanish can learn NT Greek. Indeed, if you speak English and can read this, you have already learned a language—modern English—that is considerably more difficult than the Greek of the New Testament. Little children in Christ’s day were able to learn Koiné Greek, and little children in Greece today learn modern Greek. If they can learn Greek, you can as well, especially in light of principles such as: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13).

The immense practical benefits of knowing Greek and plenty of edifying teaching will be included. The class should not be a dry learning of an ancient language, but an interesting, spiritually encouraging, and practical study of the language in which God has given His final revelation. It will help you in everything from preaching and teaching in Christ’s church to answering people’s objections in evangelism house to house to understanding God’s Word better in your personal and family time with the Lord.

What Textbooks Will I Use in Introductory NT Greek?

Required class textbooks are:

1.) Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Society), the Greek NT underneath the Authorized, King James Version:

alternatively, the Greek New Testament Textus Receptus and Hebrew Old Testament bound together (Trinitarian Bible Society):

2.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) (Later editions of Mounce are also fine, but please do not use the first or second edition.)

3rd edition of Mounce: <iframe style="width: 120px; height: 240px;" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=mttrkjb1611-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0310287685&asins=0310287685&linkId=5bc53bf260dfa0c55114597b8243b615&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no">

4th edition:

3.) William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Workbook), ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009)

4th edition:

4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, Speak Koine Greek: A Conversational Phrasebook (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2014)

4.) T. Michael W. Halcomb, 800 Words and Images: A New Testament Greek Vocabulary Builder (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2013)

Recommended texts include:

5.) Danker, Frederick William (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000

6.) The Morphology of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1994

(Note: Links to Amazon are affiliate links. To save money on buying books on the Internet, please visit here.)

We are using Speak Koiné Greek as a supplement to Mounce because studies of how people learn languages indicate that the more senses one uses the better one learns a language. Speaking and thinking in Greek will help you learn to read the NT in Greek. We are using Halcomb’s 800 Words and Images because learning Greek vocabulary with pictures and drawings helps to retain words in your memory (think about how children learn words from picture books). Mounce is a very well-written and user-friendly textbook, and Halcomb’s works will make the material even more user-friendly.

What Qualifications Does the Professor Have to Teach Greek?

I have taught Greek from the introductory through the graduate and post-graduate levels for a significant number of years. I have read the New Testament from cover to cover in Greek numbers of times and continue to read my Greek NT through regularly. I can sight-read most of the New Testament. I am currently reading the Septuagint through as well. I have also read cover to cover and taught advanced Greek grammars. While having extensive knowledge of Koine Greek, students of mine have also thought my teaching was accessible and comprehensible. More about my background is online here.

My doctrinal position is that of an independent Baptist separatist, for that is what is taught in Scripture. Because Scripture teaches its own perfect inspiration and preservation, I also believe both doctrines, which necessarily leads to the belief that God has preserved His Word in the Greek Textus Receptus from which we get the English King James Version, rather than in the modern critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies).

What Do I Need to Get Started?

You will need a computer or other electronic device over which you can communicate. We can help you set up Zoom on your computer in case you need assistance with that.

The class should begin in early February and end around the beginning of June. The class will count as a 4 credit college course. Taking the class for credit is $175 per credit hour. The class can be audited for $100 per credit hour. Auditors will not take tests or be able to interact with the class. Taking it for credit is, therefore, likely preferable for the large majority of people. When signing up, please include something written from your pastor stating the church of which you are a member and his approval for your taking the class. Students with clear needs who live outside of North America and Europe in less well-developed countries in Africa or Asia (for example) may qualify for a discount on the course price. One or two students located in any part of the world who are able and willing to help with video editing also would qualify for a course discount.

For any further questions, please use the contact form here.

Lord willing, I will be starting a 1^st year Hebrew class for distance students soon as well. Please also let me know if you are interested in taking that.

–TDR

Objections to Christians Learning Greek and Hebrew (6/7)

January 13, 2022 / Leave a comment

The first five blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages and explained that the languages are not too difficult to learn–indeed, Biblical Greek and Hebrew are easier languages to learn than modern English. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable and attainable. But people have objections.

1.) “Greek letters look different from English ones! Hebrew letters, even more so! Greek and Hebrew must be hard languages!”

While some people who begin to learn Greek and Hebrew do not finish what they started, there is just about nobody that cannot learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabet. If toddlers can learn the alphabet in Israel and in Greece, adults can learn the same alphabet in English-speaking countries.

2.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew is dangerous: such knowledge makes the person who knows the languages proud.”

There is no reason why learning God’s Word in Greek or Hebrew would contribute to pride rather than to humility, any more than learning God’s Word in English would contribute to pride rather than to humility.

3.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew is too hard.”

This objection was already examined in the part four of this seven part series. However, even if learning the languages was very hard, it would not be as hard as being crucified. But all Christians are called to daily cross-bearing, so they are all already called to something that is much harder than learning Greek or Hebrew.

4.) “Greek and Hebrew can be abused.”

Yes, the Bible in Greek or in Hebrew can be abused, as can the Bible in English. Should we refrain from learning the English language because innumerable cults and false religions abuse the English Bible? Because many preachers who warn about the dangers of Greek and Hebrew do not even know how to properly exposit the English text, should we avoid English?

5.) “I do not have time to learn Greek and Hebrew—I am too busy preparing for ministry or too busy, already serving in the ministry.”

Over the course of a lifetime of ministry, learning Greek and Hebrew actually saves tremendous amounts of time. Exegetical conclusions that are easily and quickly determined by an examination of the original language text are hard and time consuming to someone who does not know the Biblical languages.

The objections above to learning the Biblical languages are insufficient. They do not even come close to refuting the positive case for learning Greek and Hebrew summarized in the first five sections of this blog series or in the more comprehensive work Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, pages 52-57 of which are summarized here.

–TDR

Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (part two)

November 30, 2021 / 9 Comments on Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (part two)

Earlier this week, I wrote part one concerning two separate videos posted by Mark Ward. The second one I saw first, and since my name was mentioned, I answered. He cherry-picks quotes without context. Ward made what he thought was a good argument against the Textus Receptus.

In part one, I said “yes” to his assessment of IFB preaching. I didn’t agree, as he concluded, that a correction to preaching was the biggest step for IFB. A distorted gospel, I believe, is of greater import, something unmentioned by Ward.

NO

Bob Jones Seminary (BJU) invited Ward to teach on problems with the Textus Receptus (received text, TR), the Greek text behind the New Testament (NT) of the King James Version (KJV) and all the other Reformation Era English versions. It was also the basis for all the other language versions of the Bible. There is only one Bible, and subsequent to the invention of the printing press, we know the TR was the Bible of true believers for four centuries. Unless the Bible can change, it’s still the Bible.

Ward accepted the invitation from BJU, despite his own commitment against arguing textual criticism with anyone who disagrees with him. For him to debate, his opposition must agree with his innovative, non-historical or exegetical application of 1 Corinthians 14:9. It’s the only presupposition that I have heard Ward claim from scripture on this issue.

Critical text supporters, a new and totally different approach to the Bible in all of history, oppose scriptural presuppositions. They require sola scientia to determine the Bible. Modern textual criticism, what is all of textual criticism even though men like Ward attempt to reconstruct what believing men did from 1500 to 1800, arose with modernism. Everything must subject itself to human reason, including the Bible.

In his lecture, Ward used F. H. A. Scrivener to argue against Scrivener’s New Testament, giving the former an alias Henry Ambrose, his two middle names, to argue against Scrivener himself. It is an obvious sort of mockery of those who use the NT, assuming they don’t know history. The idea behind it is that Scrivener didn’t even like his Greek NT.

What did Scrivener do? He collated the Greek text behind the KJV NT from TR editions, and then printed the text underlying the NT of the KJV. It was an academic exercise for him, not one out of love for the TR. Scrivener was on the committee to produce the Revised Version.

The Greek Words of the New Testament

Did the words of that New Testament exist before Scrivener’s NT? Yes. Very often (and you can google it with my name to find out) I’ll say, “Men translated from something.” For centuries, they did.

The words of Scrivener were available in print before Scrivener. Scrivener knew this too, as the differences between the various TR editions are listed in the Scrivener’s Annotated New Testament, a leather bound one of which I own. Ward says there are massive numbers of differences between the TR editions. That’s not true.

Like Ward’s pitting Scrivener on Scrivener and the KJV translators against the KJV translation, claiming massive variants between TR editions is but a rhetorical device to propagandize listeners. The device entertains supporters, but I can’t see it persuading anyone new. It’s insulting.

When you compare Sinaiticus with Vaticanus, there you see massive differences, enough that Dean Burgon wrote, “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” There are over 3,000 variations between the two main critical manuscripts in the gospels alone. That is a massive amount. Moslem Koran apologists enjoy these critical text materials to attack the authority of the Bible. It is their favorite apologetic device, what I heard from every Moslem I confront at a door in evangelism.

There are 190 differences between Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s. Scrivener’s is essentially Beza 1598. Many of those variations are spelling, accents, and breathing marks. As a preemptive shot, I know that all those fit into an application of jots and tittles. We know that, but we also know where the text of the King James Version came from and we know that text was available for centuries. God preserved that text of the NT. Believers received it and used it.

Men Translated from Something

When you read John Owen, what Greek text was he reading? He had one. Ward says there wasn’t a text until Scrivener. Wrong. What text did John Gill use? What text did Jonathan Edwards use? They relied on an original language text. What text did John Flavel and Stephen Charnock use? They all used a Greek text of the New Testament.

16th through 19th century Bible preachers and scholars refer to their Greek New Testament. Matthew Henry when writing commentary on the New Testament refers to a printed Greek New Testament. He also writes concerning those leaving out 1 John 5:7: “Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon.”

The Greek words of the New Testament were available. Saints believed they had them and they were the TR. This reverse engineering, accusation of Ruckmanism, is disinformation by Ward and others.

The Assessment of Scrivener and the Which TR Question

Ward uses the assessment of Scrivener and the preface of the KJV translators as support for continued changes of the Greek text. This is disingenuous. The translators did not argue anywhere in the preface for an update of the underlying text. They said the translation, not the text, could be updated. That argument does not fit in a session on the Greek text, except to fool the ignorant.

Just because Scrivener collated the Greek words behind the KJV doesn’t mean that he becomes the authority on the doctrine of preservation any more than the translators of the KJV. It grasps at straws. I haven’t heard Scrivener used as a source of support for the Textus Receptus any time ever. I don’t quote him. If there is a critique, it should be on whether Scrivener’s text does represent the underlying text of the KJV, and if it does, it serves its purpose.

I have written on the “Which TR question” already many times, the most used argument by those in the debate for the critical text. It’s also a reason why we didn’t answer that question in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them. If we addressed it, that would have been all anyone talked about. We say, deal with the passages on preservation first. We get our position from scripture.

I digress for one moment. Ward talks and acts as if no one has heard, which TR, and no one has ever answered it. Not only has that question been answered many times, but Ward himself has been answered. He said only Peter Van Kleeck had answered, which he did with a paper available online. Vincent Krivda did also.

The position I and others take isn’t that God would preserve His Words in Scrivener’s. The position is that all the Words are preserved and available to every generation of Christian. That’s why we support the Textus Receptus.

Ward never explains why men point to Scrivener’s. I have answered that question many times, but he doesn’t state the answer. He stated only the position of Peter Van Kleeck, because he had a clever comeback concerning sanctification. But even that misrepresented what Van Kleeck wrote.

The position I take, which fits also the position of John Owen, I call the canonicity argument. I have a whole chapter in TSKT on that argument. I’ve written about it many times here, going back almost two decades.

If pinned to the wall, and I must answer which TR edition, I say Scrivener’s, but it doesn’t even relate to my belief on the doctrine. What I believe is that all of God’s Words in the language in which they were written have been available to every generation of believer. I don’t argue that they were all available in one manuscript (hand-written copy) that made its way down through history. The Bible doesn’t promise that.

Scriptural Presuppositions or Not?

The critical text position, that Ward takes, cannot be defended from scripture. The position that I take arises from what scripture teaches. It’s the same position as believed by the authors of the Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, and every other confession. That is accepted and promoted by those in his associations.

Ward doesn’t even believe the historical doctrine of preservation. Textual variations sunk that for him, much like it did Bart Ehrman. Ward changed his presupposition not based upon scripture, but based upon what he thought he could see. It isn’t by faith that he understands this issue.

Some news out of Ward’s speech is that he doesn’t believe that God preserved every word of the Bible. He says he believes the “preponderance of the manuscripts” view. I call it “the buried text view.” Supporters speculate the exact text exists somewhere, a major reason why Daniel Wallace continues looking. That is not preservation.

“The manuscripts” are an ambiguous, sort of chimera to their supporters. They don’t think they have them yet, so how could there be the preponderance of anything yet? That view, the one supported by two books by BJU authors, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man and God’s Word in Our Hands, they themselves do not believe. Ward walked it back during his speech too. They don’t really believe it. It’s a hypothetical to them. Men of the two above books don’t believe at least that they possess the Hebrew words of 1 Samuel 13:1 in any existing manuscript. At present, like a Ruckmanite, they correct the Hebrew text with a Greek translation.

In the comment section of the above first video, Ward counsels someone in the comment section to use a modern translation from the TR, such the NKJV. The NKJV, Ward knows, doesn’t come from the TR. There are variations from the TR used in the NKJV, a concession that Ward made in a post in his comment section after being shown 20-25 examples. He wrote this:

First the concession: I am compelled to acknowledge that the NKJV does not use “*precisely* the same Greek New Testament” text as the one underlying the KJV NT.

He could not find 2 John 1:7 of the NKJV in any TR edition. Does it matter? It does, especially a translation that calls itself the NEW King James Version. The translators did not use the same text as the KJV used, however Ward wants to represent that. I would happily debate him on the subject. I’m sure Thomas Ross would.

Mark Ward has committed not to debate on the text behind the KJV. He is committed now to taking shots from afar, leaving the safe shores of vernacular translation to hit on the text. Even though he says the variations do not affect the message of the Bible, he continues to argue against the text behind the King James Version.

The Shell Game Played With Words About the Bible

November 23, 2021 / 3 Comments on The Shell Game Played With Words About the Bible

You know right now the concern about the gender of pronouns used to address the sexes. The controversy revolves around calling a biological male, “him,” or a biological female, “her.” People change the meaning of the words and expect us to play along. You know it’s a man, but you call him, a her. You call he, a she.

Let’s say we’re talking about the words of scripture. Inspiration applies to words. God inspired words. And then someone says, I believe in the inerrancy of scripture in the context of words. We think he means, no errors in the words. I think he even knows that we think he means words. However, he doesn’t mean words. He’s not saying that there are no errors in the words.

Someone holds up a Bible and calls it the inerrant Word of God. He doesn’t mean words. He means something different. It’s hard to say what he means, but it’s probably the following. Inerrancy means that you can trust that the teachings of the Bible are without error. He doesn’t bring up inerrancy in the context of the teachings of the Bible. He brings it up in the context of words. He’s playing a shell game, moving those shells around very quickly. You thought he meant words, but he didn’t.

You think the bead is under the shell. That’s what someone wants you to think. The bead is words, but you see a shell. Words aren’t under the shell. It’s teachings, and even that is ambiguous, because even with that, he doesn’t mean teachings.

When someone says the teachings of scripture are inerrant, if that’s even what he means, because that can become very ambiguous, he doesn’t mean that you can’t find errors in the Bible. You can. However, all things considered, if you take all the combined passages of the Bible to come up with those teachings, all the right teachings are available in the Bible.

Men don’t even agree on what the Bible teaches, let alone on what’s right that it does teach. Two different men can say they believe in inerrancy and then disagree on ten different doctrines of scripture. It’s a hypothetical inerrancy. Let’s just say it. It isn’t inerrancy. I can agree to an ambiguous, hypothetical inerrancy, and then agree that the Bible is inerrant. I can hold up the Bible and say, this is the inerrant Word of God.

When I say the Bible is without error, I mean that it is without error. Every Word that God inspired has been preserved in the language in which it is written. Since inerrancy relates to what God inspired, if there are missing words, then it isn’t inerrant any more. I believe that and not in a hypothetical way. I’m not going to say that we both agree the Bible is inerrant, fully realizing that when you say “inerrant” you don’t even mean “inerrant.” You mean something that allows you to believe the Bible is inerrant without believing that it is inerrant. This is like calling him, her.

If the Bible is perfect, then it can’t be given extra perfection. There are those who do not believe it is perfect. They also don’t believe that scripture says that scripture is perfect. They believe that it is inerrant, but it isn’t perfect.

I would say, don’t call the Bible perfect if you don’t believe it. Also, don’t call it inerrant, if you don’t believe it is inerrant. Don’t make perfect and inerrant mean something different than what they obviously mean in light of what the Bible says about itself.

I can go through my Bible and show you a doctrine of its inerrancy and perfection. Then I ask, “Does the Bible teach that it is inerrant and perfect?” You say, “Yes.” So then I ask, “Okay, so which Bible is the inerrant and perfect one?” You say, “None are.” So is the teaching of the Bible inerrant and perfect?

I believe the Bible is perfect and inerrant because the Bible says so. Then you start peppering me with individual words, phrases, verses, and even larger passages. I explain every one of those texts based on the presupposition that I have. I can do it. Now let me get into your presuppositions, how you came to having them, or whether they are reverse engineered.

You say, I can see that there isn’t a perfect Bible. So now when you look at the passages that teach the Bible is perfect, they’ve got to mean something else. Where do those presuppositions come from? How did you get those presuppositions? How is that conservative?

I’m not playing a shell game when I say the Bible is inerrant and perfect. Many others are.

WHAT IS TRUTH