Read With Me: ‘Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers’

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Having not read the book but the review, it bothers me that Rev. Myers, who I believe is RPCNA, calls CT translations “Satan’s Bible.” Is this a widespread belief among CB advocates, as opposed to being “inferior”? It would seem that pastors who believe CT promoters are promoting the devil’s work should be bringing the CT users up on church disciplinary charges for corrupting the Word of God. If it’s not worth this, they should stop using such incendiary (slanderous?) language.

Perhaps you should read the article instead of just the review (which is obviously very much against the book/conclusions) before coming to such conclusions. Mr. Ward has an axe to grind, and if you read the book you will find that Mr. Myers doesn't call translations "Satan's Bible". He does say that they are based on Satan's Bible.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps you should read the article instead of just the review (which is obviously very much against the book/conclusions) before coming to such conclusions. Mr. Ward has an axe to grind, and if you read the book you will find that Mr. Myers doesn't call translations "Satan's Bible". He does say that they are based on Satan's Bible.
What’s the effective difference?
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
One is the CT and one regards translations. Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…. Further, read the article not just the contrary position review of it…
This is from the book right, or is there an article to this effect? (I looked up Myers name and “Satan’s Bible” but only came to reviews of this book)

That still prompts the question if people are using translations of “Satan’s Bible” is this not a heresy that should be prosecuted? Does this not bring into question the salvation of its promoters? If indeed the CT is a satanic Bible.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
This is from the book right, or is there an article to this effect? (I looked up Myers name and “Satan’s Bible” but only came to reviews of this book)

That still prompts the question if people are using translations of “Satan’s Bible” is this not a heresy that should be prosecuted? Does this not bring into question the salvation of its promoters? If indeed the CT is a satanic Bible.
It’s a chapter in the book. I’m calling you to go read the book instead of reading reviews of a book where clearly the man has an axe to grind. And then commenting on it and calling for action…

It could call into question their salvation, or it could call into question their discernment, or it could be said that they have been deceived. Of the last, I can see how on many topics in the church I have been deceived by Satan’s device throughout the years. I’m sure you could too. There are many possibilities. If someone is attacking your view, the best thing to do is to examine your heart, the Scriptures, etc. not get offended as if someone is questioning one's salvation.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Ward's review is odd. His review seems entirely against the KJV and does not really consider the text family argument that the men bring up (I have only skimmed through the book, but even I have seen textual arguments in the book). So, I am unsure if his is a fair review of the book, or an expression of his distaste of the KJV being used in public ministry.
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
@RamistThomist, you seem to be on to something.

For you TR gentlemen, is there anyone who isn’t misrepresenting your position? Anyone who isn’t attacking a straw-man? Anyone who doesn’t have an axe to grind? Anyone who actually understands your position well enough to critique it? Is there even a reasonable critique that your are willing to admit?

EDIT: I want to know so I can see the best of either side.
 
Last edited:

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
For you TR gentlemen, is there anyone who isn’t misrepresenting your position? Anyone who isn’t attacking a straw-man? Anyone who doesn’t have an axe to grind? Anyone who actually understands your position well enough to critique it? Is there even a reasonable critique that your are willing to admit?
What is our position? I am not sure that has been described by a non-TR person in this thread...for it to possibly be misrepresented. No one here has made an argument really against the TR to be possibly a strawman. We are minimally interacting with a book that supports why men preach from the KJV. You sir may have an axe to grind, but I'm not sure others do necessarily even of yourself it is difficult to tell. If a reasonable critique of the TR were offered it must be considered and examined. In this thread a critique really hasn't been offered, I assume mostly because we are dealing with a book again about why men preach from the KJV. I'm not really sure what the point of your questions are, this has all been asked and answered before. Should I ask the same of you? Perhaps pose your own questions back to yourself concerning your view...
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
What is our position? I am not sure that has been described by a non-TR person in this thread...for it to possibly be misrepresented. No one here has made an argument really against the TR to be possibly a strawman. We are minimally interacting with a book that supports why men preach from the KJV. You sir may have an axe to grind, but I'm not sure others do necessarily even of yourself it is difficult to tell. If a reasonable critique of the TR were offered it must be considered and examined. In this thread a critique really hasn't been offered, I assume mostly because we are dealing with a book again about why men preach from the KJV. I'm not really sure what the point of your questions are, this has all been asked and answered before. Should I ask the same of you? Perhaps pose your own questions back to yourself concerning your view...
I’m asking more generally, not in the context of what’s been offered in this thread.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
I’m asking more generally, not in the context of what’s been offered in this thread.
I have found many people who have and have not misrepresented our position, created strawmen and didn't, etc. Are you now asking that I reproduce them all? LOL Again what's the purpose of these questions?
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
I have found many people who have and have not misrepresented our position, created strawmen and didn't, etc. Are you now asking that I reproduce them all? LOL Again what's the purpose of these questions?

I’m asking these questions because instead of potentially wasting our time working through points that are dismissed out of hand by the TR position, I’d like to go straight to published, well-known men who have offered legitimate critiques.

So I’m asking first, are there any legitimate critiques?

Then, which men are doing the best at bringing those critiques?

I’m not asking you to produce an encyclopedia of everyone’s personal arguments.

@greenbaggins has mentioned Harry Sturz on this board. Does he offer a legitimate critique, in your opinion?
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
I’m asking these questions because instead of potentially wasting our time working through points that are dismissed out of hand by the TR position, I’d like to go straight to published, well-known men who have offered legitimate critiques.

So I’m asking first, are there any legitimate critiques?

Then, which men are doing the best at bringing those critiques?

I’m not asking you to produce an encyclopedia of everyone’s personal arguments.

@greenbaggins has mentioned Harry Sturz on this board. Does he offer a legitimate critique, in your opinion?

Never heard of Harry Sturz. I don't think anyone here is dismissing an argument against TR out of hand. That doesn't mean that a proponent of TR will just give up their position easily either.

I will bow out of this thread, we are apparently not discussing the book anymore. Have a blessed Lord's day.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
One is the CT and one regards translations. Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…. Further, read the article not just the contrary position review of it…

Ward did not misrepresent the author. He clearly quoted him.

For what it's worth, Ward has written quite a bit on this and textual topics and I find him to be extremely well-informed, fair, and irenic. He makes a lot of fair points in his critique that should balance out the praise.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Ward did not misrepresent the author. He clearly quoted him.

For what it's worth, Ward has written quite a bit on this and textual topics and I find him to be extremely well-informed, fair, and irenic. He makes a lot of fair points in his critique that should balance out the praise.

Riddle's response to Ward:

 
Last edited:

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Ward did not misrepresent the author. He clearly quoted him.

For what it's worth, Ward has written quite a bit on this and textual topics and I find him to be extremely well-informed, fair, and irenic. He makes a lot of fair points in his critique that should balance out the praise.

Surely, you can quote someone and still misrepresent them? See: Satan quoting Scripture.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
Surely, you can quote someone and still misrepresent them? See: Satan quoting Scripture.

Summary:
Mr. Ward has an axe to grind, and if you read the book you will find that Mr. Myers doesn't call translations "Satan's Bible". He does say that they are based on Satan's Bible.

Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…

Ward's quotes Myers: "Modern translations based on Satan’s Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others."

Ward continues: "Let me stop and register this again: according to Myers, this very day I carried, heard, and preached from translations based on Satan’s Bible."

Thus Ward did not misrepresent the author on this particular point, which is what I said. Ward never said that Myers called some translations "Satan's Bible" as claimed.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Dr Matthew Everhard's review is now available. I found the review very charitable. One point - I remain unconvinced that my Confessional Text brethren have put sufficient distance between their position and KJV onlyism. Dr Everhard agrees and argues this book is essentially a defense of Practical King James Onlyism.

 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
Dr Matthew Everhard's review is now available. I found the review very charitable. One point - I remain unconvinced that my Confessional Text brethren have put sufficient distance between their position and KJV onlyism. Dr Everhard agrees and argues this book is essentially a defense of Practical King James Onlyism.


Thanks for posting this. I had the chance to listen to it while working on other things.

I definitely appreciated the tone and the balance. He had positive things to say but also pointed out many of the same negatives Ward did.

I was surprised to hear from him that the book was primarily about the KJV and the Greek text is almost not mentioned. Perhaps Ward's review wasn't so far off base? However, that does highlight one of the concerns that I have with the TR position: at least from the Reformed side it truly does try to stress that it's all about the Greek text...but in the end it really does seem to be all about the KJV and defending whatever ended up in that English translation. TR advocates who think the NKJV is acceptable are about as rare as hen's teeth and apparently none of them contributed to this collection. It truly does seem sometimes like it ends up at practical KJVO position.

On the point that Turretin is quoted in the book as saying that "All the Greek copies have [1 John 5:7]:
It really does irk me when Turretin is brought up regarding this because it is either ignorant or dishonest scholarship. Turretin did say that (pg 115 of his Elenctic Theology), but he gives his source (Sixtus Sinensis) and quote:

"et in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta", Bibliotheca sancta, 1575.

So let's be honest: Turretin is NOT the authority you're talking about. You're really talking about the Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Sinensis who was defending the Comma in the Vulgate and made the lofty and pious-sounding claim that "It was in all the Greek copies from the time of the Apostles." That's the authority you're really appealing to, not Turretin. And personally I don't find that to be a reliable authority (or a documented claim) at all.

So if the actual quotation (from a Roman Catholic) is demonstrably false, what value do we gain from even quoting it? What could possibly be gleaned from it? It's demonstrably false: "all" the Greek copies do not in fact contain it. Do we assume it indicates that "most" of the Greek copies had it...but they must have been lost? That "some" of the Greek copies had it...but they must have been lost? There is nothing of value that we can get from this quotation except the appearance of authority (Turretin) to bolster the position...which ends up being an unsubstantiated Roman Catholic claim.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Junior
Thanks for posting this. I had the chance to listen to it while working on other things.

I definitely appreciated the tone and the balance. He had positive things to say but also pointed out many of the same negatives Ward did.

I was surprised to hear from him that the book was primarily about the KJV and the Greek text is almost not mentioned. Perhaps Ward's review wasn't so far off base? However, that does highlight one of the concerns that I have with the TR position: at least from the Reformed side it truly does try to stress that it's all about the Greek text...but in the end it really does seem to be all about the KJV and defending whatever ended up in that English translation. TR advocates who think the NKJV is acceptable are about as rare as hen's teeth and apparently none of them contributed to this collection. It truly does seem sometimes like it ends up at practical KJVO position.

On the point that Turretin is quoted in the book as saying that "All the Greek copies have [1 John 5:7]:
It really does irk me when Turretin is brought up regarding this because it is either ignorant or dishonest scholarship. Turretin did say that (pg 115 of his Elenctic Theology), but he gives his source (Sixtus Sinensis) and quote:

"et in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta", Bibliotheca sancta, 1575.

So let's be honest: Turretin is NOT the authority you're talking about. You're really talking about the Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Sinensis who was defending the Comma in the Vulgate and made the lofty and pious-sounding claim that "It was in all the Greek copies from the time of the Apostles." That's the authority you're really appealing to, not Turretin. And personally I don't find that to be a reliable authority (or a documented claim) at all.

So if the actual quotation (from a Roman Catholic) is demonstrably false, what value do we gain from even quoting it? What could possibly be gleaned from it? It's demonstrably false: "all" the Greek copies do not in fact contain it. Do we assume it indicates that "most" of the Greek copies had it...but they must have been lost? That "some" of the Greek copies had it...but they must have been lost? There is nothing of value that we can get from this quotation except the appearance of authority (Turretin) to bolster the position...which ends up being an unsubstantiated Roman Catholic claim.
I just got done listening to the review. I believe Dr. Everhard is right on the mark with his comments.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Can someone remind me and all that read this thread (now nearly 3,000 at this posting) what KJV onlyism is, what makes one a practical KJC onlyist, and what must a defender of the received text do to avoid getting labeled by either of these?
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Can someone remind me and all that read this thread (now nearly 3,000 at this posting) what KJV onlyism is, what makes one a practical KJC onlyist, and what must a defender of the received text do to avoid getting labeled by either of these?
Respectfully Chris, you just hit on it. You've mentioned KJV onlyism and defender of the received text in the same sentence. To some they are a packaged deal. To others they are not.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
Can someone remind me and all that read this thread (now nearly 3,000 at this posting) what KJV onlyism is, what makes one a practical KJC onlyist, and what must a defender of the received text do to avoid getting labeled by either of these?

At least according to Everhard's recounting of this book, the contributors of the book would rightly decry KJV Onlyism as a cult and say instead that their own stance is about the TR.

However, practically speaking, the contributors all focused on the KJV, discounted any other version as acceptable, and never discussed any differences the KJV has with the various TR editions.

I guess it's kind of like someone vigorously denying they are a vegan, but refuses to eat anything but vegetables and tells everyone else they should only eat vegetables too.

Personally, I'd avoid the label.
 
Last edited:

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
However, practically speaking, the contributors all focused on the KJV, discounted any other version as acceptable, and never discussed any differences the KJV has with the various TR editions.
Agreed. I believe if they had said the NKJV is a very good translation of the Received Text, they would have been able to demonstrate they indeed distance themselves from KJV Onlyism.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
At least according to Everhard's recounting of this book, the contributors of the book would rightly decry KJV Onlyism as a cult and say instead that their own stance is about the TR.

However, practically speaking, the contributors all focused on the KJV, discounted any other version as acceptable, and never discussed any differences the KJV has with the various TR editions.

I guess it's kind of like someone vigorously denying they are a vegan, but refuses to eat anything but vegetables and tells everyone else they should only eat vegetables too. In theory a translation based on the TR would be acceptable, but if in practice it seems none could exist because of all the qualifying criteria, then is it practical KJVO, even if not for the same theological reasons?

Personally, I'd avoid the label.
KJVO = The English is inspired. "If the KJV English was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me."
TR = The Greek, based on the "best guess" of the choices made by the KJV translators *is* the Greek text (epigraph=autograph=inspired)

You could create another "non-Vegan" text but it's going to be in the shape of a KJV vegetable.
 
Last edited:

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
KJVO = The English is inspired. "If the KJV English was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me."
TR = The Greek, based on the "best guess" of the choices made by the KJV translators *is* the Greek text (epigraph=autograph=inspired)

You could create another "non-Vegan" text but it's going to be in the shape of a KJV vegetable.

In this debate which I'm finishing, I think the TR folks and the KJVO only folks were similar to what you describe.
The most telling difference was that the KJVO would translate to other languages from the KJV instead of Scrivener's TR. I've found most TR advocates on this forum are much better than the ones in that debate, thankfully.

That said, some TR advocates including Robert Truelove are willing to accept variants within the editions of the TR (or more practically, within Erasmus' 3rd edition on; excluding the versions without the Comma). I haven't read this book so I don't know how it would be approached by the contributors.
 
Last edited:

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Agreed. I believe if they had said the NKJV is a very good translation of the Received Text, they would have been able to demonstrate they indeed distance themselves from KJV Onlyism.
It seems many TR/Confessional Text advocates are redefining KJVO - “I’m not KJVO since I’m not a Ruckmanite and don’t believe the KJV corrects the Greek. I also don’t think people need to learn English to read the one Bible.” I don’t think many self proclaimed KJVO IFBs believe this either. It’s deflection.

I’ve always thought it made sense that if you think English speaking Christians should only use the KJV, and that all others(NKJV, MEV) are corrupt, you’re not just TRO but KJVO. All Ruckmanites are KJVO, but not all KJVOs (Cloud, Waite, TBS, many TR advocates) are Ruckmanite.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
So let's be honest: Turretin is NOT the authority you're talking about. You're really talking about the Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Sinensis who was defending the Comma in the Vulgate and made the lofty and pious-sounding claim that "It was in all the Greek copies from the time of the Apostles." That's the authority you're really appealing to, not Turretin. And personally I don't find that to be a reliable authority (or a documented claim) at all.

My curiosity got the better of me, so I did some poking around and discovered that Sinensis’ main arguments for the authenticity of the Comma were as follows :

[We may reject the claim of] the impious Anabaptists and Servetans who contend those words were added in the 5th chapter of 1 John, on the ground of the words of those undoubted to be a source of truth to the Catholics, and as were read in all the Greeks from the time of the Apostles themselves.​
There is no need to doubt anything concerning its perpetual integrity and authenticity, when in Pope Hyginus’ [d. c.142] first letter, writing against the heretics, used it as invincible proof and testimony of the Trinity. For thus he writes in his epistle to all the faithful of Christ, "and John the Evangelist himself, writing to the Parthians, says, ‘There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’"​
...Nor did Jerome indicate it was not anywhere in the Greek codices of the Catholic Church. In fact, in the Prologue of the Canons to Euphtochus, it is complained that these words were not translated into Latin by unbelieving and heretical translators when they were read in the Greek volumes.​
[Fr. Sixti senensis Ordinis Praedicatorum Bibliotheca Sancta criticis [etc.]..., (Naples: Ex Typographia Mutiana, 1742), 2:1027]​

Both sources cited by Sinensis are deemed forgeries by many scholars, for understandable reasons.
…Serious doubts attend the authenticity of a document claimed as the most important early witnesses to the authenticity of the comma: the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles (incipit: Non ita ordo est apud Graecos) ascribed to Jerome (c. 340-420). The earliest extant source of this prologue is Codex Fuldensis (c.545). The author of the prologue complains that the lack of uniformity between the various Latin versions of Scripture led to confusion; the biggest single problem with these Latin versions, he contends, was the fact that they omitted the comma:​
[The relevant passage in the Prologue reads:] If the letters were also rendered faithfully by translators into Latin just as their authors composed them, they would not cause the reader confusion, nor would the differences between their wording give rise to contradictions, nor would the various phrases contradict each other, especially in that place where we read the clause about the unity of the Trinity in the first letter of John. Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.​
...This prologue would be compelling evidence that Jerome considered the comma to be genuine if the text of John’s Epistles in Codex Fuldensis also contained the comma—but it does not.​
[McDonald, G. R. (2011, February 15). Raising the ghost of Arius : Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/16486 ]​

In other words, the claim in the earliest copy of the Prologue is itself contradictory to the very Vulgate text it was attached to. Most references to the Prologue that I found attribute it to a pseudo-Jerome. As concerns Hyginus' supposed letter,

Another document forged to prove the authenticity of the comma is a decretal ascribed to Pope Hyginus (c. 138-140), which appears in the collection put together at Metz in the mid-ninth century by a group of scholars known as ‘Isidorus Mercator.’ Another of the forged decretals in the collection is the famous Donation of Constantine, exposed by Lorenzo Valla, which also contains an allusion to the comma, with two credal phrases tacked on the end. [Ibid.]​

The editors of the American edition of The Ante-Nicene Fathers series write of this collection :

The learned editors of the Edinburgh series have given us only a specimen of these frauds, which pretending to be a series of papal edicts from Clement and his successors during the ante-Nicene ages, are, in fact, the manufactured product of the ninth century—the most stupendous imposture of the world's history, the most successful and the most stubborn in its hold upon enlightened nations. [ANF, 1908, 8:601]​

A plethora of citations of historical citations denouncing the authenticity of the collection follow, including from several Roman Catholic scholars.

Still. probably my biggest takeaway in all this is one of surprise and disappointment that a theological giant like Turretin would be so uncritically accepting of a source like Sinensis…
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
Still. probably my biggest takeaway in all this is one of surprise and disappointment that a theological giant like Turretin would be so uncritically accepting of a source like Sinensis…

Thank you for looking further into this, this is very helpful information, I didn't know the bit about Jerome and the prologue, which I've often heard brought up when defending 1 John 5:7.

At the end of the day, we should all be lovers of the truth, even if the truth doesn't support our position. And Turretin's quote simply does not contribute to supporting this position.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I find two places where Turretin addresses 1 John 5:7, the briefer argument has Sinensis and in another place the longer argument doesn't and brings in Erasmus, the two older polyglotts, Arias Montanus, the ancient British codex, etc. Page 126. Page 295. Sinensis was not an uncommon source for Protestants. Turretin cites him several times on subjects in the volume referenced and authors I deal with like Durham and Gillespie cite him. As far as the spurious nature of some sources, it is also not uncommon for earlier authors (Durham, Gillespie, Bownd) before the cases were made or widely known against them, to cite what are now known as spurious or miss-attributed works as the basis of arguments. In other words, I wouldn't knock Turretin too hard on this, unless the case had been made and widely known by his time against Sinensis's sources.
Still. probably my biggest takeaway in all this is one of surprise and disappointment that a theological giant like Turretin would be so uncritically accepting of a source like Sinensis…
 
Last edited:
Top