Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
This video podcast from Jeff Riddle (Word Magazine) came out on Friday. In it, Rob McCurley references what I can only assume to be Lane Keister's review of his paper in Why I Preach from the Received Text.
McCurley Responds to Keister
- Thread starter Parakaleo
- Start date
- Status
The video is quite long. Can you give a time mark for Pastor McCurley's reference? Or in keeping with general discussion decorum, summarize the remarks?
Knight
Puritan Board Freshman
The link already directs you to the relevant time stamp.
Looks like it is closer to 1:21 as far as Rob addressing or alluding to the text from the PB discussion someone sent him.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
So it's basically the same old story. Doubling down on the "Satan's Bible" statement. Claiming that WCF 1:8 (on the preservation of Scripture "excludes the critical and eclectic texts of Scripture and all translations based upon them (ESV etc) as they draw on manuscripts unavailable and unrecognized by the church for centuries. Utilizing such manuscripts appears to deny the principle that God has providentially preserved his Word; instead this implies that the Lord left his church without the pure Word over an extended period contrary to his infallible promise."
But think about the KJV's textual approach to the OT. In most places it rigorously follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (even when that text is difficult to make sense out of). Yet there is one key place where the KJV departs from the MT and goes with the Septuagint: Psalm 22:16. The vast majority of the Hebrew manuscripts do not match what is in the KJV (or more modern English translations). Calvin even believed that this vast predominance was due to Jewish tampering with the text (a quite different view of providential preservation than the one being advanced in the book)! But you can't claim that it is principially wrong to go against the vast majority of the text copies in use by the church, and then use a translation (the KJV) that has no qualms in doing that, even once. Once it is fair game to do that, the only question is how often the Septuagint preserves a better text than the MT.
Your doctrine of preservation has to work for the OT as well as the NT.
But think about the KJV's textual approach to the OT. In most places it rigorously follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (even when that text is difficult to make sense out of). Yet there is one key place where the KJV departs from the MT and goes with the Septuagint: Psalm 22:16. The vast majority of the Hebrew manuscripts do not match what is in the KJV (or more modern English translations). Calvin even believed that this vast predominance was due to Jewish tampering with the text (a quite different view of providential preservation than the one being advanced in the book)! But you can't claim that it is principially wrong to go against the vast majority of the text copies in use by the church, and then use a translation (the KJV) that has no qualms in doing that, even once. Once it is fair game to do that, the only question is how often the Septuagint preserves a better text than the MT.
Your doctrine of preservation has to work for the OT as well as the NT.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Also, he is responding to an outdated version of my review. He didn't mention the more central point of contention I had with him at all, which was the historical point regarding the Arian heresy.
I’m in the PRC. I’m a TR guy to the core. Honestly, the discussion in the video from the point forward in the video above does nothing for our side. Calling all critical text versions “Satan’s Bible” should be utterly condemned and not brushed off. There is such a thing as too harsh of language, and there is such a thing as a continuum of confidence or importance for different doctrines. Not every doctrine demands the same intensity of defense.
“I’m first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a paedobaptist and finally a Presbyterian.”
Mormonism is satanic, Lutherans have severe errors, Particular baptists are in sin, etc. I have concerns with some NAPARC brothers about things. But they are brothers. We need to treat our brothers, particularly brothers in our tradition, as such.
“I’m first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a paedobaptist and finally a Presbyterian.”
Mormonism is satanic, Lutherans have severe errors, Particular baptists are in sin, etc. I have concerns with some NAPARC brothers about things. But they are brothers. We need to treat our brothers, particularly brothers in our tradition, as such.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Did he? In the beginning of the discussion Riddle alludes to a chapter written by another pastor but Rob does not affirm or deny this claim. His chapter does cite Genesis 3:1 and he frames his chapter in light of the attacks on scripture that have arisen within and outside the church. But as he says this is uncontroversial and agreed upon by all parties.
I think his defense is rather mild in word and tone.
In particular, he makes a claim about decoupling the phrases "by singular care and providence" and "kept pure in all ages." It might be profitable to have someone interact with that statement. This occurs a few minutes before the link I posted above.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Nobody in this debate disagrees that the Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages by God's singular care and providence. But in the quote I gave he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors. Meanwhile, he misses the fact that the KJV does not measure up to his own criteria in its "critical" decision to depart from the majority text in at last one place in the OT.
Besides, why does he frame this debate as a Genesis 3:1 issue? To be sure Satan will and has attacked the Bible at every opportunity. But if he thinks this debate is a Satanic attack, then he is saying something specifically about those fellow Reformed pastors who disagree with him, not the wider world of critical scholarship. The ESV, which he explicitly mentions, was not the work of Westcott and Hort.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
One thing said on the video is that we know what the Westminster divines had in mind when saying, "by singular care and providence" and "kept pure in all ages," based on other writings of their's. The insinuation seems to be that they were implicating the exclusivity of the TR in this. But my understanding is that there is actually evidence to the contrary in some of their other writings. I've tried searching some past PB threads where I thought this had been discussed, but haven't found what I thought I had once read. Does someone know if this is accurate, and if so where this may be? Maybe @Logan ?
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
I was kind of hoping a thread wouldn't take off on this; and I don't think Pastor McCurley's intention was to respond to anyone's argument, as much as comment on one part of it, so I think the thread title simply should've been something different.
Removing Pastor as a personal factor in my life, and trying my best to remove all bias: what exactly is wrong, about the Satan's Bible comment? I really don't get it. As mentioned in the video, when anyone takes position in the TR or CT camp, it is to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The consistent CT tenants believe we are adding to the word, and the TR tenants believe they are taking away from. In both these positions, each one affirms that the opposing text has been corrupted, either by addition or subtraction, that is the logical conclusion when we take a position. When we affirm A, we deny B; and if we affirm B, we deny A. This doesn't stop anyone from holding A or B from having fellowship one with another.
Again, this attitude is manifested in the above comment: "his he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors." The logical conclusion of someone (if the position is affirmed) being inconsistent in their adherence to the Confession, would be that they are not adhering to it, either by ignorance, or choice. A comment about how many people are wrong ("vast majority of NAPARC pastors") is irrelevant to whether the position is true or not. I almost tremble to say it, but it seems to me many of you are desiring to be offended more than would warrant.
Edit: also, the KJV comments above are largely irrelevant to the interview given by these three men, when they stated explicitly that their commitment isn't as much to the KJV, as to the TR; Pastor Beers even said his use of the KJV is rather "accidental" (consequential, I presume) to desiring the best available translation of the TR.
Removing Pastor as a personal factor in my life, and trying my best to remove all bias: what exactly is wrong, about the Satan's Bible comment? I really don't get it. As mentioned in the video, when anyone takes position in the TR or CT camp, it is to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The consistent CT tenants believe we are adding to the word, and the TR tenants believe they are taking away from. In both these positions, each one affirms that the opposing text has been corrupted, either by addition or subtraction, that is the logical conclusion when we take a position. When we affirm A, we deny B; and if we affirm B, we deny A. This doesn't stop anyone from holding A or B from having fellowship one with another.
Again, this attitude is manifested in the above comment: "his he explicitly calls unconfessional anyone who disagrees with him and uses a Bible based on a "critical" text. Which is the vast majority of NAPARC pastors." The logical conclusion of someone (if the position is affirmed) being inconsistent in their adherence to the Confession, would be that they are not adhering to it, either by ignorance, or choice. A comment about how many people are wrong ("vast majority of NAPARC pastors") is irrelevant to whether the position is true or not. I almost tremble to say it, but it seems to me many of you are desiring to be offended more than would warrant.
Edit: also, the KJV comments above are largely irrelevant to the interview given by these three men, when they stated explicitly that their commitment isn't as much to the KJV, as to the TR; Pastor Beers even said his use of the KJV is rather "accidental" (consequential, I presume) to desiring the best available translation of the TR.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
Why is it CT only and not the Majority Text also placed in the opposition camp?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
What very few TR advocates seem to acknowledge is that CT/MT/Sturzian guys do NOT agree with this. We do NOT believe one set of manuscripts should be set over against another set of manuscripts. We do NOT believe that the TR is not the Word of God. Many of you make it a zero sum game, but fail to realize that Reformed CT guys typically don't. That's why we find the Satan's Bible comment offensive. There is usually little attempt to acknowledge what the Reformed CT guys actually say, and what is done instead is the sort of putting words in people's mouths that you just did. Speaking just for myself, I am on record recommending five translations in a published article on English translations. They are the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and CSB. Many, if not most Reformed CT/MT/Sturzians believe that the differences among the manuscripts are not great enough to justify the confessional bibliology movement's rhetoric.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Rev. Keister,
Thank you for your response. What we mean by whether something is "the word of God", misses the mark of what I originally mentioned; namely, that one of the two has been corrupted, either by adding or subtracting. Personally, I was saved reading an NIV, and if Faith cometh by hearing the word of God, then the NIV is at least in some sense the word of God. I could not logically say otherwise, at least in that sense.
Thank you for giving me insight into your position. There is no Pope for the CT, MT, sturzian, or TR positions as you well know. However, people can of course speak for themselves. But again, as I mentioned, if someone believes that the longer ending of Mark as an example, is illegitimate, then the TR adds to the word of God; and though some people may not wish to call it so in such an overt manner, that is corruption by definition. So again, something to bear in mind. That would then beg the question who is renowned for corrupting and casting doubt upon the word of God, and then the logical train follows. Me personally, speaking for myself, I believe there are many precious texts removed from the "Critical Text", many of which have to do with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity. So without desiring to sever the unity of the church, that personally keeps me from using anything but the Received Text. I do not think less of anyone who reads a CT/MT translation, though (without being tangential) I would argue the same, that it is inconsistent with the Confession.
Thank you for your response. What we mean by whether something is "the word of God", misses the mark of what I originally mentioned; namely, that one of the two has been corrupted, either by adding or subtracting. Personally, I was saved reading an NIV, and if Faith cometh by hearing the word of God, then the NIV is at least in some sense the word of God. I could not logically say otherwise, at least in that sense.
Thank you for giving me insight into your position. There is no Pope for the CT, MT, sturzian, or TR positions as you well know. However, people can of course speak for themselves. But again, as I mentioned, if someone believes that the longer ending of Mark as an example, is illegitimate, then the TR adds to the word of God; and though some people may not wish to call it so in such an overt manner, that is corruption by definition. So again, something to bear in mind. That would then beg the question who is renowned for corrupting and casting doubt upon the word of God, and then the logical train follows. Me personally, speaking for myself, I believe there are many precious texts removed from the "Critical Text", many of which have to do with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity. So without desiring to sever the unity of the church, that personally keeps me from using anything but the Received Text. I do not think less of anyone who reads a CT/MT translation, though (without being tangential) I would argue the same, that it is inconsistent with the Confession.
Last edited:
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I will only add that if anyone thinks that the Satan's Bible comment is well-calculated to make the TR position more attractive to those not currently holding it, then they are suffering from a severe mental delusion. The only thing it has done is completely polarized people. Therefore, it is a sectarian comment. One could wish that TR people like Mason and Steve, who recognize this, were the rule, rather than what appears to be the exception. Why anyone would defend that comment is beyond me. Would any of you TR folk not feel offended if I were to start calling the TR "Satan's Bible," and the KJV translated from it also "Satan's Bible?"
The word "corruption," as I have tried to demonstrate in other posts, is ambiguous, and should be discarded in the discussion. It implies intentionality where such intentionality is most often lacking. If a scribe makes a mistake, that is what it is: a mistake. The word "corruption" is way too emotionally fraught to be helpful in this discussion. In addition, your comment seems to imply that if corruption has happened that nixes the whole kit and kaboodle. This is something no CT/MT/Sturzian would even remotely accept.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Brother, if you could be charitable and consider your former posts in this matter about the semantics between "lie" and "untruth". I do not mean every person individually who has had a hand in the textual scholarship world had the intention of distorting the text. But rather that all corruptions of the text would be the desire and motive of none other than Satan himself (Genesis 3)
Post #15, last paragraph
I’m at a loss if the obvious problems of “Satan’s Bible” don’t come through. I’d wager that a good majority of us TR folks were converted and convinced of our position from a Bible translation of a CT Bible. One can have opinions. One can have strong opinions. One need not near anathematized those who differ because of the logical conclusion that holding ‘A’ excludes holding ‘not A’.
Let’s make this a bit more obvious. As far as I know, none of the US FCC guys hold to any form of mediatorial kingship. How would they feel if I died on that hill and made all sorts of railing accusations based on what I believe to be an incorrect view? Granted, that is not a confessional boundary, but not all confessional boundaries are to be defended with equal rigor.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Mason, thank you, I've enjoyed your contributions in the past.
Personally, as mentioned above, the Lord was pleased to begin his work in me while I was reading and NIV, and an NLT. None of the three men in the above interview were anathematizing, whatever implications that has. From the pastoral prayers in the pulpit, the PCA and OPC (as an example) are regularly prayed for.
The "rigor" you mentioned, I'm unsure what you mean. The example of Meditorial Kingship, if I'm not mistaken, the FCC allows for diversity on that view, though it is an affirmed distinctive of the RPCNA. Insofar as hills to die on, as you mentioned, it by no means for us is a term of communion, nor do we desire it to be; but it is a distinctive in our denomination, and I don't think that is a thing to be ashamed of.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
If one believed indeed in the threat of 'Satan's bible'. Should they not (I assume they do not, correct me if wrong), pray that God would simply remove all such bibles in the world? Does anyone here/or any other Reformed churches do that? There are some logical applications from this conviction.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not sure how my opinion about the word "corruption" is uncharitable. I simply don't find the word helpful. On the last sentence, are you implying that accidentally switching "Jesus Christ" to "Christ Jesus" is always and ever the desire and motive of Satan himself? Why can't it simply be an accidental mistake? Why would ALL mistakes be from Satan's hand and desire? I don't think I can go there.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Charitable insofar as giving the benefit of the doubt. When I employed the word corruption, I did not mean is it to be laid at the feet of all textual scholars' ill intent, or at least not entirely (the Lord alone knows the hearts of men)
I'm not sure what text you're referring to in regards to switching Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus, but no that wasn't what I was referring to, as much as the variants of John 1:18, John 3:13, 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 5:7, etc. That is what keeps me from using CT/MT/ST.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not a bad prayer to pray. Not aware of any ministers that pray so explicitly from the pulpit, no.
Edit: and to add, not much a different desire/prayer of those who wish we would move on from the TR/KJV.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Ok. But as I was only pointing out the ambiguity of the word, why would you assume I thought you meant the negative connotations? My point was that since a lot of folk use the term ambiguously, sometimes including intent, sometimes not, that therefore the term should be discarded.
There are hundreds of variants in the NT where "Jesus Christ" is switched to "Christ Jesus" and vice versa. You said all corruptions of the text were from the motive and desire of Satan. If you don't mean every last difference, but are only talking about the important ones, clarity here is helpful.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just the comment about the word being too "emotionally fraught" is all – which now I understand you meant in general, and not me particularly. I brought up the former posts you had in regards to "lie" and "untruth", because what really is needed above all is clarity. I don't think it's profitable to discard things simply because they can drive emotion, or be easily confused, that's a good pattern of postmodernism.
Rev. Keister, I simply gave a few examples, my examples are not representative of "all" corruptions, but rather some off the top of my head as I sit here in a recliner. Certainly there are more, and in all likelihood more than I am aware of.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
If I did (not sure where I worded it in that fashion exactly), I certainly think corruption of God's word is Satan's desire, and the desire of those who know not God. Certainly God himself would not corrupt his own word.
I have been so busy this year Lane. Can you lead me to where I can read this.
Wow, Sorry I wasn't up on this thread earlier. I am a TR guy. The Satan Bible stuff needs to stop. I don't like it here. I have no problem discussing corruption. That is surely a nature of man. We do need to worry about, "Hath God Said," but the devil isn't always behind everything here. Man still is man. The Satan;s Bible stuff needs to go. My Opinion. And I am right. Just ask my Mom. LOL
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
I can confirm this was definitely the case for me.
- Status
Similar threads
