Traditional Text Interaction between Christian McSchaffrey, Brett Mahlen, and James White

[Eyedoc84]

Side question, are TR advocates ok with the NKJV and Geneva Bible? Or, is it only the KJV?

I’m ok with them. My wife and kids use NKJV. I reference the Geneva and Tyndale but find the KJV to be superior in translation. I also make use of the NLT. I go to a church that uses NASB in preaching (although with the 2020 update they are looking for a switch).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jason,

I think it is well known here at PB that my view of preservation is nuanced. I.e., all the honest versions (the JW New World translation is not an honest one) are preserved in the main, and have great value – the Lord using them up through the ages, even into our own, to save souls and nurture unto maturity the churches. When I study the Bible (even as I'm studying Romans presently so as to preach it) I like a number of modern versions to consult. They are of value to me, in revealing different shades of meaning, even as consulting the Greek is (and, when applicable, the Hebrew).

So I don't know about passive aggression in this scholarly business. The issues of preservation in the main and in the minutiae are of significance to those who love God's word. I happen to be in the minority camp in this age, but can, by the Lord's help, defend what I believe.

About category errors, in my post 90 in this discussion I talk about the basis for my view of preservation in the minutiae. It is as solid a teaching as the deity of Christ, as far as I am concerned.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The issues of preservation in the main and in the minutiae are of significance to those who love God's word. I happen to be in the minority camp in this age, but can, by the Lord's help, defend what I believe.

Yes, all on this board love God's word and believe in preservation.

About category errors, in my post 90 in this discussion I talk about the basis for my view of preservation in the minutiae. It is as solid a teaching as the deity of Christ, as far as I am concerned.

The issue here is disagreement. I don't believe the TR only position is as solid as the deity of Christ (as I mentioned in post #120). Also, with Logan's responses, I would agree with him in how he answered the information.

Ultimately: I agree with @Logan, that the TR is the preserved word of God, above and beyond any correction by any Greek source whatsoever, is purely an opinion and is not a position that is demanded by either Scripture, Confessions, or necessary consequences.

 

[JH]

Everyone on this message board believes that God's word has been preserved. It's seems like there is a passive aggression message from most TR advocates though that if someone does not hold to TR only, then they don't actually believe in the preservation of God's word

Jason, in the judgment of charity I would not say someone rejects the doctrine of preservation simply because they hold to a CT position, or are ignorant of the matter. That's akin to saying Arminians do not truly trust in Christ alone for their salvation. I do believe they have inconsistencies, and do not see the logical conclusions of their beliefs, but I would say no such thing.

To add, if your experience with TR advocates has left a bad taste in your mouth, know there exists irenic resources to the position, such as Dr. Riddle.

 

[Polanus1561]

Do TR people accept the Masoretic text and deny the LXX can do anything to posit a better reading?

 

[retroGRAD3]

Jason, in the judgment of charity I would not say someone rejects the doctrine of preservation simply because they hold to a CT position, or are ignorant of the matter. That's akin to saying Arminians do not truly trust in Christ alone for their salvation. I do believe they have inconsistencies, and do not see the logical conclusions of their beliefs, but I would say no such thing.

To add, if your experience with TR advocates has left a bad taste in your mouth, know there exists irenic resources to the position, such as Dr. Riddle.

I have no issue debating the issue, but I don't think the allusions to someone not believing something as core as the preservation of God's word is helpful. Wrapping comments in pietistic language does not strengthen an argument either.

 

[JH]

Do TR people accept the Masoretic text and deny the LXX can do anything to posit a better reading?

John, "the LXX" (there are various LXX's) can be an aid to solidifying an interpretation or reading, but it cannot be our final authority in matters or controversy unlike the inspired texts in the biblical languages (WCF 1.8) - The modern notion that posits we can retrieve the authentic reading from a translation of the original text is quite ironically Reformed Ruckmanism. That would be correcting the original approved text with a translation of it.

 

[JH]

I have no issue debating the issue, but I don't think the allusions to someone not believing something as core as the preservation of God's word is helpful. Wrapping comments in pietistic language does not strengthen an argument either.

Okie

 

[iainduguid]

John, "the LXX" (there are various LXX's) can be an aid to solidifying an interpretation or reading, but it cannot be our final authority in matters or controversy unlike the inspired texts in the biblical languages (WCF 1.8) - The modern notion that posits we can retrieve the authentic reading from a translation of the original text is quite ironically Reformed Ruckmanism. That would be correcting the original approved text with a translation of it.

Well...like all these things it is a bit more complicated than that.
1) I know people like to say "there are various Septuagints", but I don't think you'll find many scholars saying that. Sure there are variants, but you can buy a critical edition of the Septuagint, and when I say in a scholarly footnote "The Septuagint says..." no one is normally likely to give me a hard time.
2) The Masoretic Text is not a single manuscript but a textual tradition. The tradition was collated in the early 16th century into the First Rabbinic Bible (1516-17), and shortly thereafter a corrected Second Rabbinic Bible (1524-25) appeared. The latter is what the translators of the KJV used primarily, though they were aware of an omission in Joshua that was present in the First Rabbinic Bible, and they included that. They also deviated from their source in Psalm 22:16 [Heb 17], where the MT has "like a lion" instead of "they pierced my feet". There were a few medieval manuscripts with the latter reading, which is what the Septuagint has, though it is not clear whether the translators of the KJV would have been aware of this manuscript evidence. Calvin was not averse to claiming the Jews had deliberately tampered with the Masoretic text here, which shows how far he was from a "Divinely Preserved Majority Text" position.
3) As far as I can tell, the translators of the KJV did not elsewhere favor a reading in the Septuagint over the Masoretic Text, though they used the Septuagint extensively to help them translate obscure words (sometimes with better success than others)
4) Modern translations generally use the Masoretic text preserved in the Leningrad Codex, which is older but was not available to the KJV translators. Some translations at points emend the text based on the Septuagint. The high point of this trend was the RSV, and the pendulum was swinging back to MT priority already by the first (1984) NIV.
5) It's not crazy to use a translation to do text criticism (assuming you believe such to be possible). There is an added layer of potential uncertainty in retroverting the translation into Hebrew, but the example of Ps 22:16 demonstrates that sometimes it is clear that the Septuagint is witness to a different Hebrew tradition, and the two alternatives are sufficiently different that the change in language doesn't matter. In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran have now revealed Hebrew originals that agree with the Septuagint in a number of places, over against the Masoretic tradition.

I think people should discuss the OT text preservation more than is typically done, if only to get away from rehashing the same problems over and over.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

With regard to the remarks of Logan and Jason concerning my presuppositional position, can it be you see it as a fault my living by faith in God's word? (I know this cannot be.) As though it were some strange cultish anomaly! Yes, you may disagree with my position, and my hermeneutic in understanding Scripture, but to live by faith in His word – as I seek to do – has clear Biblical warrant.

That I do not live by evidences? I am puzzled by what appear to be your arguments.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Let me lay it out a little more clearly then:

You today, with all the information you have at your fingertips, books, articles, online repositories of Greek manuscripts, have never done a complete analysis of all the Greek manuscripts. How then would you expect someone during that time period, where travel took months, there was no instantaneous communication, and no catalogues of manuscripts detailing exactly where they were or what was in each (let alone being able to actually look at them). What do you do? You rely on what people tell you. You are doing that yourself in this conversation when you talk about any of the Greek or Latin evidence: you are relying on what someone else said.

So what is more natural than that once something gets in print and is easily available, that you would assume the evidence supporting it is out there, somewhere? You literally cannot check it yourself but you assume it's correct, and if someone tells you it's correct, you believe it.

And as I highlighted earlier, Gill pointed to Beza saying that Stephanus had found 9 manuscripts that had the Comma (he said, he said, he said). But as was pointed out as early as 1580, the manuscripts referred to were all in Paris and still available and none of them had it and beyond doubt were the same ones Stephanus had examined. Beza's misunderstanding arose not from positive evidence (being told directly the manuscripts had them) but from negative evidence: from Stephanus failing to include marks around the passage: a typo (i.e., if there aren't marks saying this passage wasn't in those manuscripts, then they must contain it).

Turretin is flat out wrong, that's undeniable, he gives his source. It was not manuscripts he saw himself, but something he read about (he said, he said) from someone who said it was in all the Greek copies. But that's obviously untrue because well, just ask the Greeks: there is no evidence they had it even in some or most, and it clearly wasn't "all" because the 500 we do have don't have it. So Turretin is wrong, but it's also natural and easily understandable.

Let's turn this the other way, does it seem convincing that say, let's suppose for the sake of argument that half of the Greek manuscripts used to have 1 John 5:7 and half didn't. Of the ones that don't contain it, 500 survived, and of the ones that do contain it, ZERO survived, despite everyone looking for them? I have yet to find any person from that time period who said "yes, I saw the Greek manuscript and it contained it". They all rely on some source other than the actual manuscripts, and while that's natural, it's clearly not reliable in the two primary instances I just dissected.

As I said, I don't intend to continue debating this, but one final word from me. Your argument against the Comma can be summarised as follows:

1. You reject the Comma because it's not in the Greek.

2. The Reformers and Puritans never would have accepted the Comma on the basis of it's being in the Latin alone.

3. The Reformers and Puritans did in fact accept the Comma, but that was because they found it in the Greek.

4. Noting the inconsistency between 1 and 3, you clear this all up by claiming that the 16th and 17th century textual scholars who accepted the Comma never actually had access to the Greek, and they just accepted it on hearsay, and they were all wrong.

Logically it's an airtight position, but forgive me for not finding it at all convincing.

 

[Logan]

As I said, I don't intend to continue debating this, but one final word from me. Your argument against the Comma can be summarised as follows:

1. You reject the Comma because it's not in the Greek.

2. The Reformers and Puritans never would have accepted the Comma on the basis of it's being in the Latin alone.

3. The Reformers and Puritans did in fact accept the Comma, but that was because they found it in the Greek.

4. Noting the inconsistency between 1 and 3, you clear this all up by claiming that the 16th and 17th century textual scholars who accepted the Comma never actually had access to the Greek, and they just accepted it on hearsay, and they were all wrong.

Logically it's an airtight position, but forgive me for not finding it at all convincing.

That's mostly correct, but I would modify 3 to say because "they thought it was found in the Greek". As shown above, in the two foremost instances cited of Greek evidence, both were mistaken assumptions. So what evidence is left?

The alternative is that it was in the Greek, but amazingly all copies were lost, despite everyone looking for them, and despite 500 surviving without it, and despite the Greek church never using it in their controversies or readings---or the unconfessional position that it was lost to the Greeks centuries prior but was preserved in the Latin, something the Reformers never would have accepted.

We not only lack any pre-Erasmus copies containing it in the same form as in the TR, we also have no first-hand evidence of anyone who saw an actual manuscript containing it.

 

[retroGRAD3]

With regard to the remarks of Logan and Jason concerning my presuppositional position, can it be you see it as a fault my living by faith in God's word? (I know this cannot be.) As though it were some strange cultish anomaly! Yes, you may disagree with my position, and my hermeneutic in understanding Scripture, but to live by faith in His word – as I seek to do – has clear Biblical warrant.

That I do not live by evidences? I am puzzled by what appear to be your arguments.

The issue is not that you have faith or presuppositions. We both believe by faith that God has preserved his word. The difference is you believe something by faith that is no where explicitly taught by scripture and by that I mean that the TR specifically has been preserved. The only thing that I can see is explicitly taught by scripture is that God has preserved his word and always will. There is nothing about the TR or the KJV.

I guess that's where we have to let it lie for now.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jason, you said, "The issue is not that you have faith or presuppositions. We both believe by faith that God has preserved his word. The difference is you believe something by faith that is no where explicitly taught by scripture and by that I mean that the TR specifically has been preserved. The only thing that I can see is explicitly taught by scripture is that God has preserved his word and always will. There is nothing about the TR or the KJV." [emphasis added -SMR]

It is explicitly taught by Scripture that God would preserve His word in the minutiae (see my post 90) – and yes, you are certainly correct that the TR or KJV are not mentioned! (as they didn't exist then!). But surveying the field in retrospect in 2022 there is no other even close contender for the "fully preserved" title but the TR.

I will respond to your thoughts re 1 John 5:7, shortly, Logan.

 

[retroGRAD3]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1503333447191908353

Followup to my earlier post. It is amazing how much of a heretic this man has become (Andy Stanley). Outside of the argument here, you have mega church "pastors" who don't even think the Bible is the word of God. It is simple the writings of random superstitious men who had no access to modern science. The sad thing is, this is the majority report for people who identify as "christians". I know these are important discussions to have internally, but there are so many who don't even believe the bible is authoritative. Very sad.

 

[arapahoepark]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1503333447191908353

Followup to my earlier post. It is amazing how much of a heretic this man has become (Andy Stanley). Outside of the argument here, you have mega church "pastors" who don't even think the Bible is the word of God. It is simple the writings of random superstitious men who had no access to modern science. The sad thing is, this is the majority report for people who identify as "christians". I know these are important discussions to have internally, but there are so many who don't even believe the bible is authoritative. Very sad.

He aged rather poorly...Looks like a clown in addition to acting like one.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I said, in effect, in post #109: I am here in the second decade of the 21st century, in a different time, milieu, and situation than my Reformed forebears, and I must formulate the foundation of my epistemological understanding appropriate for my own time, milieu, and situation, regarding whatever I hold concerning the Faith – and in particular my understanding and knowledge of the LORD’s word.

Let me start by saying, for argument’s sake, that there is no extant witness for the CJ in the Greek prior to Erasmus (not saying that is conclusively so, but simply “for argument’s sake”). To further refine the argument, that it is not found in the exact form it is in the TR (though Priscillian’s mention of it in Latin and Greek in 380 would indeed show it was known very early in the church’s life). That would leave for me the testimony of the Latin manuscripts, and the general consensus of the Western church, and, notably, the African, and not including the Eastern / Byzantine church.

Given my view of its authenticity – in the face of legions of Greek critics and scholars – I can take comfort and heart that in Africa, which was relatively unmolested by the ravages of Diocletian and Galerius that stripped the Eastern churches of both many lives and many of their ancient Bibles.

Later, when Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to produce 50 Bibles for him to replenish the drastic loss of Bibles in major locations, Eusebius had the authority and opportunity to edit them according to his sense of prudence. He was certainly no Arian, though he shamefully prevaricated regarding the doctrine of Christ being of one substance with the Father at the Council of Nicaea, but rather he had a strong hatred for Sabellius and his doctrine of modalism, and likely removed the Comma Johanneum as it supported his views contra Sabellius, and the orthodox were loath to restore them to the text – even in their fight against the Arians – as it would appear to have them supporting the Sabellians, and the additional controversy would have hindered them from dealing with the Arians. They had other uncontested verses to support the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

Although, PB’s down under sage of yore, Rev. Matthew Winzer, said this about the Comma:

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, 1 John 5:7 is not original. How does one set about to prove the confessional statement that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons? Note, it does not merely say that there is one God. Rather, it specifically teaches the numerical and essential unity of the three persons of the Godhead. I quote from Thomas Boston (Works, 1:145) to show how this is explicitly established on the basis of 1 John 5:7; but remove this text from the canon of Scripture and it appears to me that it can only be proved that God is one and God is three, not that there are three persons in the unity of the Godhead. (Source)

“How express the text is, These three are one. When the apostle speaks of the unity of the earthly witnesses, ver. 8. he says, they “agree in one,” acting in unity of consent or agreement only. But the heavenly witnesses are one, viz. in nature or essence. They are not only of a like nature or substance, but one and the same substance; and if so, they are and must be equal in all essential perfections, as power and glory.”​

Back to the Western churches more distant from the persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which did not suffer the loss of their Bibles. In Africa, there was a Church Council in 485 AD at Carthage in northern Africa. Some 400 or so Bishops defended their Trinitarian faith, and stood against the Arian Vandal King Hunnerick, directly quoting 1st John 5:7 in their “Confession of Faith.”

After the African provinces had been over-run by the Vandals, Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of the church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 John 5:7 was thus generally received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning. (See, Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate.)

Back to the East again, where the church and its Bibles were ravaged in the Byzantine region. It is widely acknowledged that the last [persecution], under Diocletian, was by far the worst, and it lasted ten years, from 302 to 312. One of his edicts, along with the destruction of all churches, and the command that every suspected Christian in the vast Roman Empire should renounce Christ and offer those pagan sacrifices most Christians refused to do [on pain of death], was the order that all copies of holy writings and Bibles be destroyed. This order, along with the others, was carried out ruthlessly. There was even a special class of informers, called traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church, who sought out copies of the Scripture (and those who owned them), and turned them over to the authorities for reward. Even under such horrid persecution the church grew, although copies of the Scripture were scarce. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, by Philip Schaff (MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1910), page 69.) [emphasis added]

[cont.]

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

[cont.]

Logan, you said re the CJ, “the unconfessional position that it was lost to the Greeks centuries prior but was preserved in the Latin, something the Reformers never would have accepted” (post #132).

But what was “kept pure in all ages”? As I have elsewhere written:

So how, and what was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option.​

You quoted Calvin regarding this, “But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to received it as the true reading.” (post #105). [emphasis yours]. Whatever Old Latin copies he may have had, it is certain he had the Waldensian Italic version.

When the Reformation fathers, Calvin among them, considered these non-Greek versions among “the best and most approved copies”, what is that saying? Note, I am not arguing on the basis of disputed Greek mss or editions, but those of the Latin / African churches. It is understood that the Bible of the Waldenses, derived from either the Old Latin or earlier sources, was known in Geneva, and not only had a different text of Scripture than that of Rome, but it contained the “heavenly witnesses”, the Comma Johanneum.

You say it is an “unconfessional position”? When Beza and Stephanus included them in their Greekeditions – despite all the criticisms of Beza’s and Stephanus’ methods (such as Jan Krans has leveled) – they still, as a result, existed in the Greek Textus Receptus. The LORD was working, even through flawed men, His providential preservation. And what was it that convinced Calvin, Matthew Henry, and many other Reformation divines that this pericope warranted inclusion in the Greek?

It surely did not escape the historical awareness of these men that from around 330 to 380 AD the Greek Byzantine empire was ruled, with an iron fist – in both the state and church hierarchies – by fervent, passionate Arians.

In his book, A History of Heresy, David Christie-Murray gives us a sense of those times:

The following year [328] Eusebius of Nicomedia [a leader of the Arians] was not only recalled from exile but became Constantine’s trusted advisor. The Emperor completely reversed his position [and supported the Arians]…From 326 onwards a regular campaign against the [Biblically orthodox] Nicene bishops was conducted, some dozen being deposed. The culmination came in 335 when Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra were removed from office and driven from their sees…In 339 the Arian cause was strengthened by the accession of Eusebius of Nicomedia to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople…[So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes], in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…

…Constans (the orthodox son of Constantine) continued as Emperor of the Nicene west and Constantius [the Arian son] of the anti-Nicene east…Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire in 353…[and] anti-Nicene views were imposed on all his domains…

Hope for the Nicenes seemed to die when Constantius at last made up his mind and on New Year’s Day, 360, decided for the [Arian] Homoeism of Acacius as the official faith of the Empire, thus supporting historic Arianism against Catholic [i.e. universal, not “Roman”] orthodoxy and the Nicaean Creed. (A History of Heresy, by David Christie-Murray (Oxford; Oxford University Press 1991), pages 49, 50, 51.)

This terrible state of affairs for the believing Church ended around 380, when the new Emperor, Theodosius, “a convinced and energetic Nicene Christian,” imposed catholic orthodoxy throughout his empire, and replaced the Arian Bishop of Constantinople by the more orthodox Gregory Nazianzus. In 383 and 384 Theodosius issued imperial edicts which furthered the Nicene cause. (Ibid., pages 53, 54.)​

Imagine what would happen if the Jehovah’s Witnesses came into both ecclesiastical and governmental power in a small country (this is being written in the island country of Cyprus) and ruled over both the churches and the government for a period of 50 years. (Now the JWs forbid the holding of political office, so suppose a fervent JW sympathizer, yet not an official member of them.) Imagine what would happen to the Bibles of this land, and the decrees that could be issued against the Greek Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Protestant / Evangelicals. The police – or a newly formed government office with the “power of the sword” – controlling all religious affairs, including Bibles, for half a century, could exterminate most so-called heretical beliefs and documents. When the state controls the church, or the church the state, trouble always ensues; as the Lord Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The devil is “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4; John 14:30; 1 John 5:19) so far as the Most High allows, and at times he is allowed the power of the furnace, and the sword.

The real question, to me, is how did it come to pass that the Comma was excised from the text, not how it was alleged to have been added. It was widely known in the early centuries of the church age, but wicked hands, and at times fearful hands, either removed it or allowed it to stay removed without loud complaint.

I’ll add a separate – and brief – excerpt from Frederick Nolan on this shortly.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

From an early PB thread, “Verses ommited [sic] from the ESV”

To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:

Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate. [Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin, by Fredrick Nolan ((London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages xvii, xviii. Reprint available at Bible for Today ministry. Nolan’s complete book online (minus the Preface) : http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry0.html] [Emphasis added]​

In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, “It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.” [Emphasis added] [Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix]

_______


When I would teach on textual issues in the church, I always made sure not to tear down the faith in the Bibles of those who differed with me, as that would be cruel – that faith and their Bibles being their lifeline to the Lord. I would stick with the variants, a legit and non-threatening topic of disagreement. But with 1 John 5:7, it seems to be different in this age. The Comma is seen by some as the weak part of their opponents’ armor (like the dragon’s missing armored scale Frodo discovered), and almost obsessively seek to go in for the “kill”, collateral damage not a consideration.

I suppose that’s the price to be paid in this age when one holds to the Reformation view of God leaving us a preserved Bible in the minutiae to hold in hand. It is a price worth paying.

A late edit: to introduce Marty Shue's piece on 1 John 5:7:

 

[Grant]

like the dragon’s missing armored scale Frodo discovered)

If the TR position maintains Frodo was the one who discovered this, then we have a barrier keeping me from embracing the position. The original manuscripts of the story reveal Bilbo spotted the missing scale.You must have some erroneous Isengard papyrus that came centuries later and are known for errors as Frodo was not even been born yet at the time of the desolation of Smaug.

 

[Taylor]

If the TR position maintains Frodo was the one who discovered this, then we have a barrier keeping me from embracing the position. The original manuscripts of the story reveal Bilbo spotted the missing scale.You must have some erroneous Isengard papyrus that came centuries later and are known for errors as Frodo was not even been born yet at the time of the desolation of Smaug.

I think this post deserves one each of all ten possible reactions. It already has five.

 

[aaronsk]

I think this post deserves one each of all ten possible reactions. It already has five.

I adjusted my laugh to an edifying to do my part for the cause.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

If the TR position maintains Frodo was the one who discovered this, then we have a barrier keeping me from embracing the position. The original manuscripts of the story reveal Bilbo spotted the missing scale.You must have some erroneous Isengard papyrus that came centuries later and are known for errors as Frodo was not even been born yet at the time of the desolation of Smaug.

Hello Grant @Smeagol , you may very well be right, and I in error on this! My entire library, save a very few books I was able to pack and take with me to Cyprus, are back in the states! Now that I think about it, I know you are correct, as JRRT's The Hobbit was where that took place, and it was Bilbo who discovered the missing scale! Thanks for the correction! I sorely miss my library, and perhaps, less than a week from 80, even more my younger, more fine-tuned memory!

Taylor, I added a sad, as in suffering loss – of memory!

 

[ReformedCuban]

I think this post deserves one each of all ten possible reactions. It already has five.

All he needs is some prayer.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

That I need!

 

[Taylor]

Thank you, everyone. My plot has come to fruition. This may be the first and only post on Puritan Board with all ten reactions.

 

[Robert Truelove]

A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1

1. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1

Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church

www.sermonaudio.com

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2

2. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2

Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Taylor]

A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1

1. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1

Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church

www.sermonaudio.com

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2

2. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2

Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church

www.sermonaudio.com

Thanks for popping in, brother! It's been about a year since you last posted. Are you aware of the Kept Pure conference in Reedsburg?

 

[Robert Truelove]

Thanks for popping in, brother! It's been about a year since you last posted. Are you aware of the Kept Pure conference in Reedsburg?

Yes. I think they are trying to do that annually. At some point, Christ Reformed Church will likely be hosting another Text and Canon conference as well.

 

[Eyedoc84]

A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1

1. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1

Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church

www.sermonaudio.com

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2

2. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2

Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church

www.sermonaudio.com

Pastor Truelove, remind me, did you switch to a TR position from a Byzantine priority (Robinson-Pierpont) position? Including the CJ?