Category: Uncategorized

Seeking Unity Amongst the Brethren Amidst TR Disagreements

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Introduction

The average man in a Reformed Church is far more theologically astute than the average man in churches of other traditions. He is well read, devoted, and prayerful. He can tell you niche facts of church history, explain the doctrinal difference between infra and supralapsarianism, and successfully navigate high level debates with various theological heresies. In short, the average Reformed layperson and even pastor is quite powerful when compared to his peers in your average mega church or Bible church. This is largely due to the great emphasis the Reformed place on study. One area where his knowledge may be limited, however, is what I have been calling “The Textual Discussion” on this blog for many years now. The problem is not a lack of study, or a lack of concern. The problem is that it is unfortunately common for the apologists, seminaries, and popular authors to mischaracterize this debate in the academy, podcasts, blogs, and in popular writing. The mischaracterizations are such that it is easy for the average layperson, student, and pastor to walk away thinking themselves informed, while simultaneously missing a significant portion of the discussion. This is most likely due to the academic gatekeeping that exists on the topic. The current state of textual criticism is constantly shifting, and is often paywalled behind $200-300 books and difficult to access PhD work.

Another reason for this disparity in knowledge is due to the fact that many (not all) of the mainstream reformed writers today do not touch the topic, and when they do, they unfortunately characterize the argument incorrectly or incompletely (see above paragraph). If you have ever been a fly on the wall or even a participant in a “TR vs. Critical Text” discussion, you know what I mean. Most seminary level surveys of the topic do not cover much of the ongoing scholarship. I want to emphasize, this is not typically intentional. In a real discussion regarding the validity of the TR position, it is common to hear things like, “The KJV translators say in the letter to the reader that they expected more translations” and “The TR was its own type of Critical Text,” or “The Reformed were doing the same textual criticism as the scholars today,” or anything about the “Alexandrian Text Type.” You might even hear claims of Erasmus “rushing to print” or making a “rash wager” or any number of textual myths that have long been disproven. Such claims do not accurately represent the discussion as it exists beyond popular level apologetics. As is the case with most polemics, the arguments are designed to be rhetorically powerful, and not necessarily with the intention of attaining full understanding.

The point is, that the average Reformed believer, who is otherwise disproportionately informed compared to his peers, is understudied on this topic. What may be the case, is that he learned about textual scholarship in the seminary 20 years prior, which means much of what he learned may be out of date. Two decades ago the Coherence Based Genealogical Method was not invented, the roster of scholars was different, and the schools of thought were relatively stable. In other words, it is very easy to engage in a lopsided conversation with somebody if he is operating on old paradigms. One aspect of the conversation I haven’t discussed a lot on this blog is the importance of maintaining unity in the church despite this important difference in doctrine. I am venturing to write this article series to give my TR minded audience a tool to navigate the discussion as it exists in the real world, with all the grace and charity that is due to the well-meaning critical text advocate as a brother, not an enemy.

Navigating the Discussion Charitably and Graciously

In my blog, I often aim my arguments at the “Modern Critical Text Apologist.” It is easy to see a brother at church defending a talking point of the critical text and to categorize him as such. The reality is, most often, he is not an “apologist” of any kind, he just hasn’t been made aware of the entire discussion. In other words, he doesn’t see himself as an “apologist” of anything. Treating these brothers as apologists of the critical text is a mistake, and unleashing some of the arguments that I have made on this blog is like turning a firehose on somebody to cool them off in the summer heat. I’ll admit, I have done a poor job at making the distinction between apologist and the fellowship of the local church, which is the occasion for writing this article series. Many well-informed believers think that their modern critical text is only challenged by “Fundamentalists” and “KJV Onlyists”. He is not aware of the nuance of the discussion, and treating him as though he is would be a mistake, in my humble opinion. Even the brother who thinks himself informed, is often not as informed as he believes himself to be. I say this as a brother who once believed himself to be quite knowledgeable, when I wasn’t. The fact is, this conversation is steeped in specialized language, custom lexicons, and incredible amounts of nuance.

Even when I considered myself “informed,” I didn’t know terms like “Ausgangtext” or about the Coherence Based Genealogical Method. I hadn’t been familiarized with Peter Gurry, Elijah Hixson, Dirk Jongkind, Eldon J. Epp, Tommy Wasserman, Jim Royce, D.C. Parker, Jennifer Knust, or Jan Krans. I didn’t know what Dan Wallace believed regarding the idea of finding the original text when he says, “We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Gurry, Hixson. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii). This atom bomb of a quote by Wallace is enough to get the layperson paying attention, but what does he mean by that when he says it?

As much to say, if a brother’s only knowledge of textual scholarship comes from The Dividing Line, or from Seminary decades ago, he will be massively underinformed. The text-critical scene has evolved from even a decade ago, and if you haven’t been keeping up to date (which is quite the task), you are missing a significant portion of the discussion. Not only that, but popular level apologists such as James White and even textbook authors such as Andrew Nasseli frame the discussion in ways that are unhelpful. An example of this is when they place everybody that does not read a modern Bible, even majority text advocates, into a category of “King James Onlyist.” This leads many well-meaning Christians to believe the entire debate is over “perfect” translations instead of textual methodology and scholarship.

If a brother responds to a claim regarding the TR with some line about the KJV translators not being KJV Onlyists, that is a clear indicator that somebody has misrepresented the discussion to him. Those familiar with the discussion know that there are two entirely separate debates over text and translation. A Bible can be translated from the incorrect text, but be an excellent translation of that incorrect text (and vis-versa). Being adversarial to this brother can only be unfruitful. There are many “tag lines” that a brother can say that can tell you how informed he is on the discussion – this is one of them. An unfortunate side effect of channels like “The Dividing Line” is that it is easy to think oneself “informed” after watching hours of content on the topic. As somebody who has watched much of James White’s catalog, I can assure my reader, I was once one of these men. I even parroted the line, “I would never want to hear John 7:53-8:11 preached.” I can speak to this issue specifically because I was once one of these brothers. It has taken me nearly half a decade of dedicated study to realize just how muddied this conversation actually is in the real world, away from the internet debate space. Most Christians have never heard of James Snapp’s equitable eclecticism, or any number of the majority text views. They don’t know the difference between John Burgon’s methods and Beza. The debate is much wider than many are led to believe.

What my reader must understand is that the average Confessionally Reformed man believes the default Reformed position is the modern critical text, and if popularity is our guide, he is correct. Yet, to my Confessionally minded TR advocates, you know that our argument is that it is actually the Reformed position to advocate for the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text as the text that has been “kept pure in all ages.” What many don’t know is that the modern scholars mostly agree that th eTR was the text of the Reformation. ““Historically speaking, the Textus Receptus was the Greek New Testament of the Reformation” (Jan Krans. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/10/why-textus-receptus-cannot-be-accepted.html. October 22, 2020.) Reformed Scholars such as Muller agree that this in fact was the “default” position of the Reformation and beyond. We believe the default Reformed position is the TR position, despite what popularity has to say about it. So you can see, the conversation is difficult at the start because both sides believe that their respective position is the “Truly Reformed” position. The reason for this, in many cases, is that both sides have had the argument presented to them at the level of polemics.

Most of these men haven’t had an opportunity to engage with the full set of opinions or facts because they have never interacted with a Reformed TR advocate. These men have only heard the “meme arguments” online. Further, it is incredibly difficult to know where to start fact checking claims in this discussion. An example of this would be fact checking the claim that “Beza was doing the same thing as textual scholars today” would require you to buy a $256 book by Jan Krans. You would have to, in the first place, know about Jan Krans, and secondly, be willing to dish out nearly $300 on a book that has sections of untranslated Latin and Greek. The conversation is hugely gatekept behind academic paywalls and popular level apologists spouting dubious claims.

The Idea of the “Default Position” Discussed

Most of the time, disagreements in this discussion reduce down to the fact that a seminary trained man has never heard an honest presentation defending the TR. He has only heard James White’s, Mark Ward, Richard Brash, or Andrew Naselli’s counter presentation (or something adjacent to it). The default position of the seminary is the critical text position, and everything downstream of the seminaries like the local church has followed after the institutions. Most of the time, seminarians are not taught that only two manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20, just that the “earliest and best” manuscripts do. This was the text-critical fact that sent me down the proverbial rabbit hole. There are many such facts that have this effect. The seminaries do not often teach that the textual scholars cannot find the original text, nor are they even trying to (See Dan Wallace above). The goal of modern textual scholarship is to reconstruct the “initial text” (ausgangtext). This is the text-critical fact that pushed me over the edge. Most seminaries do not teach that Beza included in his methodology the “kind consideration of the church.” This is what made me realize that modern critical apologists were willing to reduce any nuance out of the discussion. The idea that Beza was not doing what modern scholars are doing today would shock the well-informed Reformed believer.

My point is this – that the Critical Text position is the default position in the fact that it is really the only position taught in most seminaries. It is assumed correct by the academy, therefore it is assumed correct at every level downstream from the academy. Most Reformed men are not even aware that Owen and Turretin comment extensively on all of the major textual variants we discuss today because popular level apologists say things like, “They didn’t know any better. They would be Critical Text if they were alive today.” The problem is that most people get their text-critical information from out of date, or inaccurate sources who are otherwise trustworthy on other issues. This makes the conversation nearly impossible to have in a church setting without it becoming contentious. Therefore, I see it worthwhile to develop a guide on how to have this conversation with patience, charity, and grace. We must begin with the assumption of Christian fellowship, not polemics.

The Idea of the Charitable Discussion

In this blog space, I have engaged polemically with the modern critical text, with the intent to interact with the scholarly and apologetic space. I have failed to present my case for the context of the church setting, where you have to fellowship with these brothers the day after. If there is interest in a new series, I would love to write on the topic of finding unity amongst the brethren amidst disagreements on the text. I prayerfully look forward to writing more on this topic.

Modern Scholarship, Textual Variation, and the Received Text

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Dr. Peter Gurry published a short article entitled Cole on Preservation and the Westminster Divines’ Sermons back in January of this year. This is an addendum to his academic article posted in the Midwestern Journal of Theology called “Textual Criticism in the Reformation.” This is a part of the continued effort to support the claim that modern textual scholars are doing the same thing as the Reformed during the Reformation and post-Reformation era, “These arguments are the all-important context for understanding the practice of textual criticism in the Reformation” (pg. 20). He notes correctly that this is not a term the Reformers used, which is of course true because the concept of critical studies was yet to be born. He also does a great job of pulling from Milne, Muller, and Turretin to give appropriate context, which many of his colleagues avoid. He cites Muller, saying that the Reformed did not “seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as the prop for textual infallibility” (pg. 27). He rightly notices that the Reformed considered the copies of Scripture to be authentic as the originals.

Here is where, I think, the modern textual scholars get the argument confused. The tendency seems to be to anachronistically apply the term, “Textual Criticism” to the efforts of the Reformed and post-Reformed. Where many popular level apologists go wrong is to make the claim that the giants of our tradition were ignorant of textual variation in the manuscript tradition. Gurry does not make this error as his peers often do. He says, “None of this means that scholars and theologians in this period were unaware of variants within Greek manuscripts. One can find discussion of them in Erasmus and Beza, of course, and in plenty of other scholars’ too” (pg. 29). This of course is true, and these discussions continue all the way through Turretin, Owen, Gill, and more. Dr. Gurry even invokes Jan Krans correctly in his analysis of Erasmus, noting that Erasmus was engaging in some proto-genealogical method. An important addition is to remember that this actually distinguishes Erasmus from Beza, who was far too theologically motivated for Krans’ liking.

One important observation here is that Dr. Gurry invokes one of Turretin’s questions, “Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics?” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, 106). He correctly characterizes the Reformed position via Turretin, which is to answer, “no.” This is where Dr. Gurry gets off the Reformed boat. He points out that modern evidence makes such claims such as the inspiration of the vowel points, “impossible to make” (pg. 33). He uses this as a starting point to argue that the Reformed could not have had a complete theology because they did not have a complete set of evidence.

This is the crux of the difference between the evangelical textual scholars and the non-evangelical textual scholars – the evangelicals appreciate the work of the Reformed and take their words into consideration. However, at the end of the day, they ultimately conclude that modern evidence has discredited the Reformed conclusions. Yet the question remains as to whether or not the Reformed would have consented to the conclusions of modernity. The modern scholars obviously say, “yes, how could they not?” Those in the Confessional Text camp say, “I don’t think they would.”

Would the Reformed have valued the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as highly as modern scholars do? Would they likewise value Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as highly as modern scholars do? Dr. Gurry acknowledges that the Reformed were aware of textual variation, and yet they denied corruption, unlike modern textual scholars. The reason this is important, is because if the modern textual scholars are correct about the evidence discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, the first chapter of the Reformed confessions must be understood in a different light and even reformulated. The evangelical textual scholars understand this, as they have produced several treatises and statements on the doctrine of Scripture in the last several years (Jongkind, Wallace, Brash). If chapter 1 of the confessions were adequate in light of modern evidence, there would be no need to add to the formulations produced in the Reformation and Post-Reformation period.

The reality is, most modern Reformed have already adopted the conclusions of modern textual scholars regarding the vowel points, the textual evidence, and the doctrinal statements regarding Scripture. The question that I always ask myself is this, “Would the Reformed have understood this evidence differently than our modern scholars?” My answer of course is, “yes.” Ultimately, this work by Dr. Gurry indicates a shift in the modern textual argument from, “The Reformed agree with us” to “The Reformed laid the foundations, but were ultimately betrayed by their lack of evidence.”

I see this as a welcome update to the conversation, which has been difficult to navigate due to modern scholars claiming the Reformed as their own for the past several years. The impact of this debate proliferates down to the layman quickly. The Reformed believed that their translation of the Hebrew and Greek to be inspired, literally God’s Word. The moderns believe that every translation is imperfect, and the Hebrew and Greek must be consulted at every turn. The Reformed believed that there were no places of corruption, meaning that every jot and every tittle had been preserved and made available. The moderns believe that some passages and words have indeed fallen away, yet what we have is “good enough” to ascertain all important doctrines. The pastor who believes the modern conclusions will preach in a manner which aligns with the modern textual scholars. The layman who believes the conclusions will read their Bible in a manner which aligns with the modern textual scholars.

While it may be true that this is an “open handed issue” as it were, it nevertheless has a significant impact on the Reformed and non-Reformed churches in the world. It changes preaching, reading, and practice. For that reason, this remains an important debate. Every pastor preaching through the Bible verse by verse will eventually have to side one way or another on this issue. Every Christian reading through the Bible will eventually have to do the same. Unfortunately, that debate is not easily settled, as it more or less comes down to answering the question, “Does modern evidence disprove the conclusions of the Reformed?” Those that answer, “Yes” will adopt the methods of Dan Wallace, Andrew Nasselli, Mark Ward, and Dirk Jongkind in Bible reading and preaching. Those that answer, “No” will retain the translation of the Reformed, say “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh,” and so on. My point is this – whatever conclusion a believer lands on will impact the practice of their faith in a very noticeable way.

It is for this reason that this conversation continues to come up. You can be unaware of your brother’s doctrinal views on a number of issues, but not this one. It is inevitably going to come up, because it impacts the Bible translation you carry around, the words you use to pray, and the way a pastor preaches. It is unavoidable, and it is my hope that the modern day Reformed are at least more friendly to those of the Textus Receptus position than they have been in the past decade or so. It is my opinion that it is absolutely the position of the Reformed tradition, even if that tradition is considered wrong according to the modern perspective.

Book Now Available

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

Dear Reader,

I have published a book through Kept Pure Press entitled, The Received Text: A Field Guide. It can be found here. There is a discount available for readers of the Text & Translation blog.

The purpose of this book is not to be a deep dive into the topic, or an utter refutation of individual textual variants. I set out to detail as best as I could the scope of the conversation for newcomers and lay people. One of the issues I often see is lofty language and credentialism which are barriers to entry for the average person. So I put together a short book which outlines clearly the theological and methodological frameworks of the most commonly held positions. Once I establish the boundaries of the conversation, I offer a hefty critique to the methods and beliefs of the critical text establishment and provide a somewhat unique approach to defending the Received Text position.

God Bless,

Taylor

Addressing The Intelligibility Argument

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

There is an argument against the KJV which says that because the translation has archaic words, it is sinful to either read or tell people to read it. This argument is presented by Mark Ward in his book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. Many people who respect and enjoy Ward’s other work are not aware that he makes this claim. It is even the case that his fans will deny that he has made this claim when it is presented. In this article, I am going to demonstrate that Ward does make this argument, and why it is incorrect.

The Argument

I have addressed this argument before in the context of my chapter-by-chapter review of Authorized, but I wanted to give it some more attention here. Ward states that while the KJV is not unintelligible as a whole, it contains words which are archaic or “false friends” and therefore violates 1 Corinthians 14. This is likened to putting a “stumbling block in your own path in order to increase your resilience and skill” (Ward. Authorized. 120). He concludes that to hand somebody else a KJV is to “stand in their way” and to put a stumbling block in front of them (Rom. 14:13). Ward’s entire premise is that these “false friends” are landmines of sorts, and that the reader is not aware of an archaic word when he encounters it. In other words, when you read the KJV or convince another to read the KJV, you are causing them to stumble because it contains words which have evolved in meaning or are otherwise archaic.

Based on the verbiage and context of 1 Cor. 14, the argument is that the archaic words in the KJV are the same as somebody speaking an unknown tongue. This is a purely novel interpretation that has never been understood from the text by anybody other than Mark Ward. If you have been around in Christian circles for some time, you know that this passage is talking about spiritual gifts and their use (or lack thereof) for edification of the saints. In fact, this passage is used as a proof text for the cessationism debate frequently. It has never been used as a proof, until now, for the intelligibility of bible translations.

Let’s for a moment grant this is the interpretation of the passage. The key word here is that the language being used is so unintelligible that it is not useful for edification. Is it the case that any word in the KJV is unknown? Clearly the answer is “no.” Every single word and phrase found in the KJV can be adequately defined and understood by people today. There aren’t any words in the KJV that have been lost to us. Therefore, even if 1 Cor. 14 was in any way applicable to Bible translations, it wouldn’t even apply to the KJV.

In order for this argument to be true, Ward would have to find a word that could not be defined in the KJV. Of course he won’t, because he’s already found all of the “false friends” and defined them for us. I have made this point before, but the thrust of Ward’s work disproves his primary thesis. That is to say, in order for his argument to work, the KJV would have to be unintelligible to the degree that 1 Cor. 14 describes. This is where the average layperson might be fooled by Ward’s apparent doublespeak. On one hand, Ward states that the KJV is not overall unintelligible (pg. 118), and on the other hand says that it is a totally different language (pg. 79). In order to understand Ward’s argument, we have to understand the soft language in which he couches a rather harsh argument.

A Harsh Argument Seated in a Soft Couch

On page 79 of Authorized, Ward articulates his argument in a list.

  1. We should read the Scripture in our own language
  2. The KJV is not in our language
  3. Therefore we should update the KJV to be in our language, or we should read vernacular translations

He concludes, “I therefore do not think the KJV is sufficiently readable to be relied upon as a person’s only or main translation, or as a church’s or Christian school’s only or main translation” (pg. 85). I want to make this clear for my reader, Ward’s argument is that people should not use the KJV as their main translation, and that it is a stumbling block for those that read it. This is an extremely harsh perspective. Yet, you will see people online claiming that “Mark Ward loves the KJV! You’re slandering him!” It may be true that Ward has an appreciation for the KJV. We can see this in chapter two of Authorized, where he makes note of the KJV heritage. The salient point here is understanding in which way Ward loves the KJV. We have already seen that he does not love the KJV as a translation that should be used. The entire thesis of his book is to discourage Christians from reading it, after all. What we see in Authorized is Ward’s apparent appreciation for the KJV’s place in church history, and that’s all.

This is where you will see a sort of bait and switch by people defending Ward. One will say, “Ward does not think reading the KJV is sinful, he loves the KJV!” Sure, we can grant that Ward loves the KJV as an artifact or a museum piece, but certainly not as a translation that should be used. This is where many people become confused. When somebody says, “I love my ESV,” they typically mean, “I love using my ESV.” So when people hear Ward say, “I love the KJV,” they assume he means, “I love using the KJV.” We know this is not true because he wrote an entire book explaining why the KJV should not be used. Mark Ward does not love using the KJV. This is confusing, because it allows him to couch a harsh argument in soft language. He is saying, “Yes, I love the KJV, but it is a different language and a stumbling block for those that use it.” Ward is advocating for absolute abstinence from the KJV. It’s like saying, “I love drinking alcohol, but you shouldn’t drink alcohol lest it become a stumbling block for you.” The strange part is, Ward is not arguing that the KJV is a stumbling block for some, he is arguing that it is a stumbling block for all.

Of course, Ward’s argument hinges on the established fact that the KJV is a different language which is unintelligible to the English Christian. This is the point of 1 Cor. 14. Even though he says that the KJV is not altogether unintelligible, his argument demands that it is. Let’s just say we were to take Ward’s novel interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 as true, it still would not apply to the KJV. Since these archaic words are not unknown, the simple answer is to learn what these words mean just like we learn words to read any book. This is why the argument is actually incredibly dumb or incredibly dishonest. The argument really just says, “We shouldn’t have to learn new words to read the Bible. We should be able to read the Bible with the words we already know.”

Reading Comprehension, or the KJV?

This is the spirit of nearly every single author on the topic today. They say the Bible should be comprehensible by the average reader. Now, I agree with this principle, but not in the way that these men mean it. What is meant by the average reader? Are we talking about the average adult? Ward has said that it is a sin to hand a child the KJV, so perhaps he means, the average child. What reading comprehension level are we saying is the standard for a translation in order for it to be intelligible? According to the Nation’s Report Card, the average reading level in the US is between 7th and 8th grade, with over 54% reading below a 6th grade level. Nationwide, 21% of adults in the US are illiterate. California boasts the lowest literacy rates in the country, with 23% of adults having little to no proficiency in reading skills. This means that over half of the US would find every translation except the Message unintelligible by Ward’s standards, and 21-23% of the US having zero valid translations available to them. I wonder if Ward would put his money where his mouth is and break ground on producing The Golden State Authorized Interlinear (GAI) for our neighbors in California.

This highlights a strange feature of this argument, that the KJV is a stumbling block because of lack of reading comprehension. But we see that over half of US adults read at below a 6th grade level, which means the ESV is equally a stumbling block by this logic. This means that Ward, presumably, would prescribe the same antidote to them for the ESV as we do for the KJV – learn the words. This idea that we should not learn to read the Bible because it has difficult words cannot be justified by any historical or biblical principle because it is essentially saying “People shouldn’t be competent readers.” I have said this before, but most public schools teach Shakespeare, which demands the same task. That is to say that American public schools demand more from the students then Ward would demand of Christians.

The American Church is not facing a KJV crisis, it is facing a reading comprehension crisis. Ward’s solution is to hand half of America The Message and ignore the 20% who simply cannot read at all. That is why Ward’s problem is one that could only be concocted in the ivory towers of the academy. He has taken on the opposite spirit of Tyndale, who said, “I defy the pope and all his laws…If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow, shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Tyndale believed the illiterate plowboy could learn to read for the sake of God and the Scriptures. Ward believes that the words of Tyndale cannot be understood, even by the most learned men of our society. He believes such things because he thinks you are stupid. Do not fooled by such silly arguments any longer, dear Christian, we have work to do.

Sola Scriptura Not Compatible with Modern Bibliology

The Young, Textless, and Reformed9 Comments

In recent years, I’m sure my reader has seen, like I have, a mass return to more traditional sects of Christianity such as Orthodoxy or Catholicism. One of the claims both of these churches make is the antiquity of their religion and the authority of their counsels. This is one of the counter-reformation arguments that still rings loud today. A church without centralized authority is subject to the whims of cultural decay and depravity. Now I can’t speak for evangelicals, but Protestants and other conservative independent denominations both hinge their arguments of authority on a doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. In other words, Scripture alone determines the authority of what the people of God believe and how they practice Christianity.

This doctrine is founded on 2 Timothy 3:16, which states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Modern bibliology, often called the doctrine of ” biblical inerrancy” is historically different than the doctrine of the protestants as defined in the 17th century confessions and catechisms (WCF 1.6-7). Both 2 Timothy and WCF 1.6 assume that “scripture” is a defined object. The protestant and post-reformation theologians also considered the original texts to include the copies or apographs. “By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (Francis Turretin. Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, 106.)

The Chicago Statement, and thus the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, does not assert that the scriptures available today are inspired. Only the autographs were inspired, and the material we have today is greatly accurate. “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original” (Chicago Statement, article X). In other words, the bibles that we have today are only considered scripture insofar as these texts can be ascertained from extant manuscripts.

At the time of writing the Chicago Statement, the authors deemed the process of textual criticism “greatly accurate.” If we take the standard definition of this phrase, it means “correct in all the details, exact.” There is not a single biblical or textual scholar alive today who would say that the text of scripture is “exact” or “correct in all the details.” In fact, the scholars say precisely the opposite. Let me list several examples for my reader.

“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry. Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii. Quote by Dan Wallace.)

“I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament.” (Dirk Jongkind. An Introduction to the Greek New Testament. 90.)

“The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover an original authorial text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms to the tradition, but because philology is not able to make a pronouncement as to whether or not there was such an authorial text” (DC Parker. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. 27.)

“We are trying to piece together a puzzle with only some of the pieces” (Peter Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method. 112.)

So we see clearly the evolution of modern bibliology. When the Chicago Statement was penned, there was a strong belief that textual criticism had produced a greatly accurate, or exact text. Yet the theological wording of the statement left the door open for this to change based on the effort of textual scholarship. As we can see above, it is not just one lone scholar who believes that scripture is not exact. Scholars who share this opinion are Dirk Jongkind, editor of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament and senior research fellow in New Testament Text and Language at Cambridge. I do not share these quotations to bash these men, but rather to highlight that this is the mainstream evangelical position and not some fringe ideology. The opinions of men like James White, Mark Ward, Dan Wallace, Richard Brash, and every person who advocates for the modern critical text are informed by these men and their cohorts. Nearly every seminary espouses this view of Scripture, and this is irrefutably taught in pulpits and classrooms everywhere.

The main concern with this view is that it is completely incompatible with the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura. In order for Christians to have authority in their doctrine without a pope or centralized church, there must be an infallible source of doctrinal truth. That is the premise for Sola Scriptura. The Reformers claimed that counsels and popes can fail, but God and His scripture cannot. Therefore, all matters of faith and practice should be founded on infallible scripture, not the authority of men. If it is the case that scripture cannot be accurately ascertained, then this doctrine crumbles. It is evident for all to see that the modern evangelical church has no authority. Churches teach whatever they want, ordain whoever they want, and organize however they want. There is no regulating principle around which evangelical churches organize, because there is no authority. There is no Sola Scriptura without scripture, and therefore churches that believe in modern bibliology are without authority.

In order to have authority as a post-Protestant church, that church needs to reject modern bibliology and embrace the sound doctrine of the Protestant Reformation or return to Rome. That is why I have come up with new terminology for those who believe in modern bibliology, post-Protestants. Post-Protestants, commonly called evangelicals, do not believe that the bibles we have today are completely inspired, and therefore have no authority. They believe that the ideas are inspired, but that is a post-Protestant doctrine found nowhere in scripture. In order for the churches to be healthy and authoritative again, post-Protestant bibliology must be rejected.

TurretinFan Attempts to Make an Argument

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

On Monday, anonymous blogster TurretinFan published an article titled The “Stable Text” King James Version Argument which can be found here. The point of the article is to say that the “misleadingly labeled” Confessional Bibliology position is the same position that the KJV translators had to respond to, and is essentially the position of the Roman Catholics. I want my reader to notice that this article is about 10 sentences worth of assertions, and the rest citations which he claims prove his point. TurretinFan hasn’t actually made an argument in this article, nor has he addressed the material I have written. Let’s break down his assertions and see if we have anything to engage with from the article.

Confessional Bibliology is Misleadingly Labeled

In the first sentence of the article, TurretinFan asserts that the label “Confessional Bibliology” is a misleading label. He does not explain why or how it is misleading. He continues to say that Confessional Bibliology “seems to recognize the authority of the original languages” but “seems to conform to whatever Greek or Hebrew was followed by the translators/revisers of the King James Version.”

Apparently it is news to TurretinFan that the King James Version translators used the base text which we now call the Textus Receptus to create the King James Version translation. Again, no argument provided by our anonymous poster, simply an assertion as to what “seems” to be the case. In other words, there is nothing we can reasonably engage with here.

The Stable Text Argument is a Roman Catholic Argument

TurretinFan’s major blunder here is a common error that Critical Text advocates make, which is to confuse an argument for the text with an argument for the authority of a translation. He references Clement VIII who is making an argument for the stability of the Latin manuscripts, which are translations. This is a common argument made by James White, and not original to TurretinFan. This is not the argument I am making, nor have I ever made. Perhaps if TurretinFan understood the moniker “Confessional Bibliology,” he would know that the position I defend is simply the position of chapter 1 of the 17th century confessions, which state, “The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which, at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto an interest in the scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore the are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).

TurretinFan ends by stating that my objective is to move from manuscripts to a single, stable text. This is arguably the strangest assertion he has made in the article, as this is simply what happened in time and space. Is he arguing that the church uses manuscripts today? Do Christians carry around various manuscripts to church? It is already the case that the form of the Bible has moved from manuscripts to printed texts and translations. This is true for both the Critical Text and TR position. The question is not whether we should migrate from manuscripts to printed texts, that has already occurred as a matter of history, not my opinion. The question is what those printed texts represent, and which of those printed texts and translations should be used by the people of God.

Interestingly enough, in his critique of me, TurretinFan has critiqued the nature of his preferred text. If my desire is a single, stable text, and this is the “wrong priority,” then he is really saying that the Critical Text is not a stable text, and “it is a mark of wisdom to revise when we discover errors.” TurretinFan has no basis for determining what an “error” is, however, because his preferred textual methodology cannot say what is an error. His methodology can only determine what is most likely the oldest reading, which is an evaluation that is agnostic to the idea of original or authentic. The concept of error requires the idea of verity or authenticity, which the Critical Text methodology does not claim to provide.

Turretin Vs TurretinFan

So if TurretinFan’s critique of my position is that I am wrong to desire a single, stable text, then it is clear that his position is the opposite. The only history repeating itself is for gainsayers such as TurretinFan to question the authenticity of Scripture, such as 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11. Ironically, Turretin himself agrees with me in my doctrine of Scripture.

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written down by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Volume 1. p. 106). In other words, Turretin rejects the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its autographs, but rather that it was kept pure in all ages via the copies or apographs.

Turretin continues by defining the difference between a textual variant and a corruption, “A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)” (Ibid., 111). In other words, Turretin does not agree with the modern critical text idea that there are variants which should be marked with a diamond, indicating corruption.

Turretin finishes by defending the passages that TurretinFan himself rejects, “There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senesis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles” (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanted in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (Ibid., 115).

Here is the most entertaining conclusion that we can arrive at by actually reading Turretin:

  1. Turretin lots TurretinFan in with the heretics in his rejection of 1 John 5:7
  2. Turretin was aware of the manuscripts TurretinFan prefers (Jerome’s referenced manuscripts)
  3. Turretin details how doctrines are impacted by the removal of passages as found in the Critical Text (the history of the resurrection of Christ)
  4. Turretin rejects the notion of corruption (indeterminate readings, which are found in the ECM)
  5. Turretin rejects the reframing of the WCF by Warfield and the Chicago Statement

In other words, Turretin disagrees with TurretinFan on nearly every point as it pertains to Scripture, both textually and theologically. It is interesting that TurretinFan accuses me of making a Roman Catholic argument. This is a little known fact, but the Textus Receptus was actually the text of the Protestant Reformation. It makes no sense that defending such a text would be considered…Roman Catholic. I suspect the reason for such shoddy and inept argumentation is due to the fact that this is simply a regurgitation of assertions made by James White. Let me remind my reader that assertions are not arguments, and you actually have to explain why a quote supports your argument. This is persuasive writing 101. What we have to recognize is that a community college English 101 professor would send this article by TurretinFan back for revision because he hasn’t made an argument, he’s simply made assertions in between citations.

Conclusion

The greatest condemnation of this article is not it’s poor structure and lack of persuasion, it is the fact that Turretin himself disagrees with TurretinFan so fundamentally that he should really consider changing his moniker. Perhaps he should consider Dr. SpyOptics, the bargain bin version of Dr. Oakley.

Future Plans

The Young, Textless, and Reformed6 Comments

Recently, I posted to gauge interest in starting up the blog again. Thank you all for the comments and support. Based on your feedback, I started writing a book. Now, I had already written a sizeable book on the topic, but it was poorly organized and I didn’t feel I had gotten it right. So I started from scratch, and wrote something new. The book is my attempt to “shotgun blast” the conversation to the average Christian. I frame the discussion into four categories: Theological, Text Critical, Concerning Translations, and Practical Application. I use these four categories to describe the nuances of The Textual Discussion and end the book with an argument in favor of the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus, in addition to the use of the King James Version. The book is also fairly polemic in nature as I deconstruct the claims of the Modern Critical Text to demonstrate how it is lacking as a legitimate Christian framework. I’m in the final edits now and have had two pastors review it already. That’s what I’ve been working on the last couple of weeks. I am still figuring out if I am going to self-publish or if anybody is willing to publish it, so it may be a while before you can get your hands on a copy. If publishing doesn’t work out, I will make the book available for free as a PDF.

As for the future of this blog, it is clear based on your comments that there are still topics that deserve coverage. I most likely will not cover all of them, as I prefer to stick to what I am knowledgeable on. A handful of these topics require a fair bit of reading and research, and I won’t be able to hard commit to covering those until I have more time. I have spent a lot of time and money getting my hands on and reading works produced by the Modern Critical Text camp, and it makes sense to publish more reviews of that material. A lot of the source material related to this topic is locked behind $100-400 books that I have access to, so I want to do more analysis on those for you. That is the goal as of now, but we will see if I have the appetite to dive into that. One thing that I learned from writing on this topic for so long is that these academic works are dark. The flippant nature with which these men write about the text of Holy Scripture is soul sucking.

That is where I am currently at right now. I have read all your comments and I will see if any of them fall into areas that I am comfortable talking about with some authority. If I do not cover your topic, it is most likely because I either cannot put the time into researching the topic, or that I feel the topic has already been covered better elsewhere. Once I finish final edits on my book and figure out the publishing situation, I plan to resume writing regularly again. There are pockets of revival all throughout the world right now, and I believe it is deeply important that believers have confidence in the Bible they read. That said, I appreciate your support and I’m looking forward to hearing from you all.

Update

The Young, Textless, and Reformed24 Comments

Dear Reader,

As you have noticed, I have posted significantly less in the last year. I have thought of starting the blog and YouTube channel up again, but I often think that most of the conversation has been discussed at length. If I were to re-launch, I would want to have an idea of what direction I want to take the content. That being said, I wanted to ask my audience what you all want to see. What questions or conversation topics would you like to see covered? If you have been following my blog since the beginning, you know that the main focus of my blog is the theological and philosophical approach rather than looking at individual variants, and I’d like to stay in that lane. That being said, feel free to comment on this post and let me know what you want to see, and if there’s enough demand, I may do a series on the blog and on YouTube.

Thank you all for your support over the years, I appreciate all of you. As always, may the Lord bless you, and keep you.

The Young, Textless, and Reformed

Death of Logic

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

Welcome to the new year, reader. In 2024, I fully expect that we will find ourselves debating the same arguments and talking points afresh. The reality is that many of the theological controversies prevalent today are already resolved. Consider topics such as soteriology and eschatology. These have been discussed at great length by men much more capable than anybody alive today, yet modern men exhaust themselves, thinking that they have come up with some clever argument. Despite this, Christians will descend upon internet forums to cast their thoughts into the void, regardless of outcome. Such is the nature of debate disconnected from the real world.

Many, if not all, of the popular debates can be resolved by logical rules as simple as the law of noncontradiction or excluded middle. In other words, two things that cannot be true at the same time or one of two things must be true, given the claim requires it. The entire textual discussion can, at the very least, be reframed by evaluating foundational claims by these two laws of thought. For example, if our primary claim is “Scripture exists”, then we can exclude any claim which posits that “Scripture does not exist.” By “exist” we mean here that the Scriptures exist in such a way that we can access and use it. Many modern views of Scripture attempt to redefine the term “exist” to mean that the words are out in the world, somewhere, we just don’t have access to them. Yet, this is an illogical claim, for this view also allows for the possibility that the words are not out there in the world. This is why textual scholars hedge their claims with words such as “possible” and “likely.” In short, if it is “possible” that a text is original, it is also possible that a text is not original. Using this type of language violates the law of noncontradiction if we are trying to defend something which is said to “exist.” Something cannot exist and “possibly exist” at the same time.

Herein lies the nuance which muddles the debate. If you are a Christian, your premise is that Scripture exists, not that it “possibly exists.” This is a requirement for all Scriptural truth claims. We do not say in evangelism that, “It is possible that God so loved the world..” and so on. When we present the Gospel, we do so assuming the premise that the words exist, and that the words we have in front of us are correct. There is not a scenario where a Christian can confidently present the free offer of salvation given that the words on the page could be inauthentic. Yet, if you inspect the average claim of the modern bibliology camp, this is how they argue for Scripture. In one context, they read their Bible, listen to sermons, and debate theology with absolute confidence in the words on the page, and in the text-critical context, they argue with varying degrees of “possibility.” We know that this is not logically valid.

If we investigate what it means for the Bible to “exist,” we find that this concept is captured within the doctrine of preservation. To the traditional camp, the Bible exists because we have always had it, despite attempts at corruption. To the modern camp, the Bible exists insofar as we have it today. The first group has, at the very least, logical consistency because the definition of “Bible” has not changed over the years. The second group has a serious problem because in order to make the claim that the Bible exists, they must change the form of the Bible to mean something different in every age. The Bible, in other words, is more of a concept than an object. This is the primary difference between the two groups, as far as I can tell.

The traditional group sees the Bible as an object with a defined number of words, whereas the modern group sees the Bible as an object with a defined number of ideas. This is the explanatory mechanism the moderns use to describe how the words can be added, removed, or changed, and the thing (Bible) still be the same. According to this model, so as long as the core ideas are preserved, the Bible is preserved. This is a clever formulation, but unfortunately it has no explanatory mechanism. It cannot be demonstrated to be true, which means it is purely conjectural. This is due to the fact that literary ideas are derived from words. A text cannot preserve an idea without words. So if it were the case that a text can change while the ideas remain constant, one would have to actually demonstrate that additions, subtractions, and substitutions do not alter the substance of the text. This of course cannot be demonstrated to be true because any addition, subtraction, or substitution must, by definition, alter the substance of a text. This is how words work. Unless a modernist is willing to make the claim that all omitted portions of text are void of meaning, or all substitutions are merely synonymic, this must be the case. Ultimately, this claim is evaluated true on the simple merit that it has been said out loud.

We see that the textual debate is really a matter of definitions. In order for the modernists to be correct, they must employ a functional definition of “Bible” and “exists” and “preserve” in a different sense than the traditionalists. This is how they use historical writings such as the Westminster Confession to defend their claims. “If by Scripture they mean this, and if by preserved they mean this, then the Scriptures are indeed preserved!” Yet we can all agree that simply changing the definition of words does not win an argument, it simply means that the argument itself is different. This is my main point, the modern position of bibliology is comprised of claims which are substantially different than that of the traditionalists. That is to say, when these two groups collide in debate, they are using different functional definitions of key terms such as “Bible” and “preserved.”

This is important to recognize the next time you engage in a debate over a text such as 1 John 5:7. The textual modernist views his Bible as a collection of concepts and ideas, not a defined collection of texts. That is why a primary argument against the importance of the Comma Johanneum is that “the idea is contained elsewhere.” What I want my reader to understand is that this is actually an argument in support of a different definition of “Bible.” Take time to notice when somebody argues that, “1 John 5:7 isn’t even about the Trinity” or “It wasn’t even quoted at Nicaea in defense of the Trinity.” They are arguing this because in their mind the Bible isn’t defined by the texts contained within it, but the ideas. Yet we have already established that in literature, ideas are derived from words. Thus, adding, removing, or altering the words necessarily adds, removes, or alters the ideas.

Herein lies the primary logical problem with the modernist position on Scripture. In order for the text to mean something in itself, the ideas must be derived from the text. If it is the case that the ideas themselves are preserved apart from the text, then it is the case that the ideas have another preserving mechanism. Let us return to the argument related to the Trinity and 1 John 5:7. One of the chief arguments presented by textual modernists such as James White is that the doctrine of the Trinity can be derived elsewhere. Note the framing demands that the doctrine exists, and it can be found in the text. The doctrine is assumed first, and collected from Scripture as it exists to the modernist. In other words, the doctrine is preserved apart from the text. In this view, the reader brings a fully built out doctrine of the Trinity into Scripture. This is the implied assumption of this argument against the Comma Johanneum.

So we see the foundational logical problems that exist in the current iteration of the textual discussion. The modern side must redefine historical terms in order to fit their view into the Protestant frame. That is why some textual scholars avoid referring to Scripture as “The Bible” and instead opt for “bibles.” This is because at the core of the Critical Text position, the assumption is that “bibles” exist, but “the Bible” hasn’t existed since the first or second century. This is obviously problematic for Christian bibliology. The answer the modernists give is that, “we don’t need the Bible, as long as the ideas are preserved in the bibles.” One of the main problems in the textual discussion is that when a textual modernist employs the term “Bible” or “Scriptures,” they mean, “the bibles.” This demonstrates one of the foundational disconnects in the debate, both sides are using different functional definitions.

This is why the debate will continue into 2024 the same as it has since I have been involved. There are two theologies of the text, two logical foundations, two sets of definitions. My prediction is that 2024 will continue to highlight the differences in the positions with each discovery and evolution of the textual scholars. Happy New year and may the Lord bless you and keep you, reader.

A Poor Attempt at Representing the Argument

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Every now and then, somebody discovers James White and feels the need to demonstrate their newfound intelligence. This week, a brave, anonymous person decided to completely dismantle the “KJV Only” position in a Textus Receptus forum. The poster presented his argument in the form of a question and answer. The question he posed was, “Where was the Bible prior to 1611?” He then proposes that there are only three possible answers, which are as follows:

  1. The Bible did exist with these exact words and in this exact order prior to the KJV being produced. This is essentially a conspiracy theory since we have zero evidence to suggest this and Erasmus (who’s work makes up the majority of the KJV) did textual work between manuscripts to arrive at his work.
  2. The Bible didn’t exist in a perfect state prior to 1611 and was restored by God in the KJV. This is a restorationist view and totally destroys the doctrine of preservation.
  3. Finally, you can argue that God did preserve his Word via the text history, which does require textual criticism to weigh different manuscripts to better determine which words are most likely to be original to the text.

In this article, I will address this argument for the edification of my reader. In the first place, I suspected that this poster received his textual education from James White, which he later confirmed in a comment exchange with Dr. Peter Van Kleek. This is the kind of argumentation you’re going to see out there, folks.

Point 1

The first argument demonstrates the lack of organization in the poster’s train of thought. He uses the terminology “KJV-Only position” in his introduction, yet fails to define what he means by it. According to James White and Dr. Andrew Naselli, “KJV Onlyism” ranges from more extreme than Ruckman all the way down to somebody who prefers the KJV. At the outset of the argument, we have no idea what the poster means by “KJV Only,” which makes his argument difficult to engage with in any meaningful way. We will see his definition come through in his argumentation, so I’ll do my best to pull that out for my reader. This is not all that problematic, however, considering that his argument is incoherent regardless of his definition of “KJV Only.”

In the first point, he claims that one of the three possible viewpoints is that the Bible existed in the exact wording and word order of the KJV (the assumption being I suppose that the KJV is preserved because of that). This is, as far as I’m concerned, not a position anybody holds. In the first place, Greek and English are not grammatically the same as it pertains to word order, so the very act of translating the KJV would violate this view. Further, it is well known that the KJV translators were not attempting to create a “word-for-word” translation. That means that anybody holding to this view could not simultaneously believe that the KJV was inspired and that it was created. The very creation of the KJV invalidates this viewpoint.

He then calls this idea a “conspiracy theory” (one of James White’s personal favorite attacks on the so-called “KJV Onlyists”) and then makes the strange claim that the KJV is primarily Erasmus’s work (another one of James White’s favorite things to say.) We conclude then, that one of the only three valid positions is not only illogical, it is impossible, and does not represent any current or historical perspective on the KJV. In other words, this is not a “possible” answer to the question at all.

Point 2

Interestingly enough, the second position is very similar to those in the Critical Text camp. According to the anonymous poster, the second of three choices is that the Bible did not exist until 1611, when the act of creating the KJV restored the text of Scripture. This is a position held by some, as I understand it. What is more important is the similarity of this position to the Critical Text position. The CT position states that the Bible existed in the originals, but was lost in transmission and must be restored. This process cannot ever be completed with certainty, however, because we do not have the originals nor do we have evidence that any extant manuscripts are directly related to an original. As the poster rightly points out, a restorationist view “totally destroys the doctrine of preservation.” The person that believes Scripture was restored in 1611 has a Bible, whereas the Critical Text camp does not. Both camps believe that the Bible needs to be restored, this position posits that it was actually done. What is quite entertaining is that the OP actually dismantles his own position in point 2.

Point 3

The third and final point is that God preserved his Word in the text in history, and therefore textual criticism must be applied to determine what is “most likely” the original. This is just the Critical Text position, which “KJV-Onlyists” reject. Feel free to browse this blog if you want a thorough analysis as to why this isn’t actually a view of preservation at all, unless we’re fine with redefining what “preservation” means. The anonymous poster concludes by suggesting that this is a view of “preservation held by all non-KJV Onlyists” and is a “valid view God used for the majority of history.” As I pointed out in my analysis of point 2, this view “totally destroys the doctrine of preservation,” to use OP’s words.

While we never get a definition of what “KJV-Onlyism” is from OP, his conclusion assumes that anybody who rejects the Critical Text model is a “KJV-Onlyist,” which supports my idea that this guy has been educated at the James White Academy for Text Criticism. Further, the modern critical text position isn’t even close to the historical view of the text, as the OP suggests. This is well documented in Jan Krans work, Beyond What is Written. Later in the thread, the poster reveals that he is not familiar with Pickering, Burgeon, or Letis. This suggests that the poster’s only exposure to the discussion is through James White. It has to be exhausting for my Majority Text friends to constantly be lumped in with those pesky “KJV-Onlyists.”

In Summary

Yet again we find ourselves faced with James White’s half-baked argumentation in the wild. According to him, you have to believe in conspiracy theories or the Critical Text. Not only did our anonymous poster regurgitate Dividing Line talking points, he failed to represent almost every other position that results in reading the KJV or a non-Critical Text Bible. He presented his reader with a false choice, and then smiled and hit “enter” on his keyboard. This is why I heavily discourage anybody interested in Textual Studies to get their information from James White, because I’m sure the anonymous poster thought he was accurately representing the discussion and had come up a clever argument.

The problem is that this argumentation wasn’t accurate, and therefore can’t possibly be clever. The poster never defines what he means by “KJV-Onlyist,” so we can only make assumptions based on his argumentation (our assumption being that OP believes there are KJV-Onlyists and Critical Text Onlyists demonstrated in his conclusion). The OP begins his argument with a fake KJVO position that not only isn’t believed, it cannot be believed. He continues his argument by presenting a restorationist KJV view, which in effect is just the Critical Text position with an end product. He concludes by presenting the CT position and determining that “You either believe point 1 and 2, or you believe point 3.”

In short, we see the argumentation of James White in the wild, and as expected, it’s nonsensical.