Truth in Translation, and other reviews

The posting of book and other reviews are for information and instruction and do not constitute endorsement of the materials or reviews of materials that are linked (or the sites on which they appear).

• A brief review of BeDuhn’s “Truth in Translation” -- “BeDuhn seems to operate under the impression that he has avoided all bias in his analysis. At no point in the book does he reveal his own personal theological biases.”
• A Brief Review of Strict Baptist Periodicals (UK) -- “The following is a work in progress and is sure to have some gaps and errors (especially as it pertains to original publishing dates in light of periodicals with shared names and the length of time that has transpired since the magazines were first released).”
• A journey from religious radical to nothing new -- “Oden shows such a return to the ancient Christian witness is an essential journey for all of us fatigued by unfulfilling and agenda-driven theology.”
• Book Review: What If It’s Wonderful? by Nicole Zasowski -- “Zasowski writes like a therapist. She writes with a measured compassion that invites you in and holds space for safe exploration of one’s fears...”
• God’s Monsters, by Esther J. Hamori -- “Unfortunately, the book suffers from several weaknesses. First is the myopic way the work seeks to compartmentalize these monsters and horrors, isolating them from the greater narrative.”
• Presuppositional Analysis – The Received Text: A Field Guide -- “In The Received Text: A Field Guide, DeSoto presupposes that Scripture has always existed in a continuous form available to God’s people...”
• Review of Why I Preach from the Received Text -- “The book nearly equally provides a wealth of quotations from proponents of the Critical Text (CT) position, wherein their lack of faith and commitment to pragmatism is on clear display.”
• Review: ‘The Widening of God’s Mercy’ by Christopher and Richard Hays, by Rebecca McLaughlin -- “Richard Hays Thinks God Changed His Mind About Same-Sex Sex. Is He Right?”
• The Received Text: A Field Guide – Review -- “A vigorous defense of the Received Text tradition, distinguished by its confessional convictions and acute observations about modern text-critical uncertainty.”
• To Honour God: The Spirituality of Oliver Cromwell -- “To Honour God would be excellent for devotional reading. There are 30 short chapters, perfect for complementing daily Bible reading.”

Recommended, with reservations

Historic Churches of Texas: The Land and The People, Frank A. Driskill and Noel Grisham. Burnet, TX: Eakin Press, 1980

This is a book about churches in Texas, and their church buildings. I was excited when I found I could borrow this book at Archive.Org. The excitement quickly dissipated, and overall I was sadly disappointed. The work contains many mistakes, some perhaps of only a typographical nature, but others are errors in fact. For example:

• On page 1, Driskill and Grisham introduce the famous Baptist preacher Z. N. Morrel (sic). When they refer to him again on page 3, he becomes J. N. Morrell. On the same page (3), the real Isaac Reed becomes “Isaac Read,” J. S. Milstead is “J. M. Milstead,” and M. Melton becomes “W. Melton.” If there are this many typographical errors in the first three pages, no doubt the book is filled with them. 
• The name Union Church is claimed to be so because the house was used by Baptists, Methodists, and Primitive Baptists (a sort of “union,” I suppose). On the other hand, the house itself already had name – Liberty School House – and there is no evidence of any Methodists or Primitive Baptists meeting there in 1838 when the Union Baptist Church was formed. Union is the name of the church – the congregation – not the building.
• The constitution of this church, the first of its kind in East Texas, was a “union” of Baptist believers in covenant, organized by a presbytery of ordained Baptist ministers. It took that name at its very beginning, in the conference conducted after the church was constituted – “Church met for business – chose bro. Green moderator, -- named the church Union…” The church, not the building. No other explanation need be devised.
• At the bottom of page 3 we “learn” that the “earlier migrant Pilgrim Baptist Church was organized near Nacogdoches in 1824.” Actually the “migrant Pilgrim Baptist Church” was organized in Illinois in 1833, and moved as a congregation to Texas, arriving in January 1834.

I have some questions about which churches were chosen, and which were left out, and why, but I suppose that is a matter of an author’s purpose and perspective. There is some interesting stuff in this book, all collected in one place. Nevertheless, the reader should be keenly aware that, because of the nature of some of the mistakes, that details must be verified by more reliable sources. Read with caution, and check the work.

The Church that John the Baptist Prepared

The Church that John the Baptist Prepared: A Study of the Life, Ministry, and Theology of the Messiah’s Forerunner (2nd Edition, Revised) Joel R. Grassi, Cromwell, CT: Bible Baptist Theological Press, 2021.

The author, Joel R. Grassi, is pastor of Commonwealth Community Baptist Church in Bronx, New York. The book The Church that John the Baptist Prepared is a revised edition of Joel Grassi’s doctoral thesis at Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary in Newington, Connecticut.

In the “Foreword,” Thomas Strouse explains “The organization of the book follows the words of Mt. 3:1-2a made into Four Sections: I. ‘In Those Days;’ II. ‘Came John the Baptist;’ III. ‘Preaching in the Wilderness of Judaea;’ and IV. ‘And Saying.’ Within these Four Sections are twenty-three chapters with 841 pages and 1542 footnotes” (p. 12). In addition to the meat of the work, the book includes a Foreword, Preface, Overview, and Bibliography. No index is provided.

Grassi’s work accepts the high esteem that Jesus Christ places on John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11). This accepted, the author mines the Scriptures to develop the proper view of John’s baptism and theology in relation to New Testament theology and ecclesiology. “Christ’s church did not fall out of heaven to Him. Rather, the disciples of Christ were passed to Him via the hands of John the Baptist, who preached the Lamb of God unto them and immersed them upon seeing the fruits of their repentance” (p. 19). He is rightly convinced that the “Biblical record must be the final authority for assessing the significance of John the Baptist” (ibid).

I am uncertain whether there is any other in-depth development of the theology of John the Baptist as what is found in this work. Grassi looks at John’s bibliology, theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Most readers – even Baptists – will likely be forced to consider John in detail far beyond what they have previously considered.

A detailed review of a book this large would take more time than I have, and more words than my readers might read. Suffice it to say, for students interested in Bible study, ecclesiology, and Baptists, this will be an instructional and beneficial read that I recommend to you.

Other works by Grassi include

• A Critical Analysis of the English Standard Version of 2001

For more information, see also:

• New Bible Baptist Church Books
• Second Edition of John the Baptist Book is Now Available
• The Church that John the Baptist Prepared

Baptismal Anthem, by B. F. White

First published in The Sacred Harp, 1844

DeSoto’s detailed review of Ward’s “Authorized”

The following links are to Taylor A. DeSoto’s detailed review of Mark Ward’s book, Authorized.

• A Review of “Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible”: Introduction -- “Interestingly enough, Ward’s audience seems to be those that do not read the KJV rather than those that do.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 1: A Strange Start -- “In the first chapter of his book, Ward makes a compelling argument for the benefit of retaining the KJV, and highlights the damage that modern versions have had on unity in the church and Christian apologetics.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 2: Jokes & Anecdotes -- “Ward attempts to convince his reader, with anecdote, that the passage is impossible to understand in the KJV.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 3: Not so Difficult to Read -- “The reader should take notice of the conflicted messaging in Ward’s book exemplified by the quotations above, which is why I’ve decided to highlight the rhetoric so heavily.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 4: Learning Words is Difficult -- “Okay Mark Ward, you say that ‘people’ are the best gauge for determining readability, but when a person tells you that people living in jungles can understand it, you don’t believe him?”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 5: The KJV as a Second Language -- “He reveals most clearly what he has been getting at up to this point, that the KJV as it exists now should not be read any longer...the objective has become clear: to convince people not to read the KJV.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 6: Reading the KJV is Sinful -- “In opposition to how he views himself in the opening words of the chapter, he is being extremely quarrelsome, even divisive.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 7: Don’t Be a Berean! -- “See yet another example of Ward admitting he cannot understand an English passage (Psalm 16:6), despite claiming to read other languages fluently and being a ‘language nerd’.”
• Authorized Review – Textual Criticism and the Scholarly Guild -- “Ward demonstrates either a) that he does not know much about textual criticism or b) that he isn’t willing to give his reader an accurate picture of textual criticism.”
• Authorized Review – Does Authorized Need to Be Updated? -- “I could make a list of Ward’s use of uncharacteristically difficult words that he apparently understands better than the much simpler vocabulary of the KJV...If I were to take Ward’s vernacular argument and apply it to his book, there would be many places that I would recommend an update. ”
• Authorized Review – Mark Ward’s Compelling Response to Pastor Joel Beeke -- “It is common for opponents to address Pastor Beeke in their attacks on the King James Bible, because he is one of its most stalwart defenders.”
• Authorized Review – Decidedly Different: An Admission That Doctrine is Affected -- “It should not surprise anybody that this kind of thinking allows post-Barthian and higher critical scholars to heavily influence the field of textual scholarship. ”

Freely Give: a Book Review of The Dorean Principle

Conley Owens, The Dorean Principle: a Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity. Dublin, CA: FirstLove Publications, 2021. ISBN 9781953151155. 180 pages (xvi, 164). $0.00. This book is available in print from FirstLove Publications (an imprint of FirstLove Ministries) and electronically at The Dorean Principle web page.

Introduction.

The author of this work, Conley Owens, is a Reformed Baptist, a pastor at Silicon Valley Reformed Baptist Church in Sunnyvale, California. He holds an MDiv from The Log College & Seminary (formerly North American Reformed Seminary), and is also a software engineer for Google. He is a husband and father. With Andrew Case and Jon Here, he writes for the web site “Selling Jesus.” Owens states that “The goal of this brief book is to establish ‘the dorean principle,’ a biblical precept that distinguishes ethical ministry fundraising from unethical ministry fundraising” (p. 2). “The Dorean Principle: In the context of gospel proclamation, accepting support as anything other than an act of colabor compromises the sincerity of ministry.”[i] Owens wants us to learn how to discern when religious financial enterprise goes too far, and how to exercise biblical discernment that extends beyond just recognizing “the most egregious infractions” of ministry fundraising and solicitation (p. 1). The author attempts to show that the teaching of Jesus and his disciples impart this dorean principle, and that New Testament church practice accords with this biblical financial theology.

“Our methods matter” and in holy enterprises “the ends do not justify the means.” Biblical methods must rise from and accord with sound theology (“Foreword,” Joseph M. Jacowitz, p. xv). As one who has made some, albeit halting, attempt to “freely give,” to “make the gospel of Christ without charge,” and to teach that the methods we attach to our message really do matter, I find the purpose of this book compelling.

Overview of The Dorean Principle.

The presentation is divided into an introduction, fourteen chapters, and a conclusion – followed by three appendices, a bibliography, as well as both scripture and subject indices. The electronic version also includes an errata page.[ii] 

The first chapter establishes the difference between reciprocity and co-labor, using especially the statements of our Lord to his apostles as recorded in Matthew 10 (freely ye have received, freely give; the workman is worthy of his meat). This distinction may not be immediately apparent to many, but is foundational to understanding the dorean principle set forth by Owens. In brief, it is God the “employer” who “pays” those whom he calls and sends forth to minister to him. The minister does not charge those to whom he ministers the gospel. Ministry is not quid pro quo, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” pay me and I’ll preach the gospel to you.[iii] 

In chapter two, Owens moves from “The Command of Christ” to “The Policy of Paul.” He explains that Paul follows a pattern consistent with the mandate of his Master. He does not receive reciprocal support, but does accept “propempo” support – the support of his co-laborers in sending him forth to minister the gospel.[iv] Chapter three investigates several examples and figures of speech relaying mediated obligation (co-labor support). The meaning of the “burden” of support for Paul is the subject of chapter four. Chapter five suggests ministerial financial policy must fit the steward or servant aspect of the minister, which fits the dorean principle. Chapters six and seven contrast sincere ministry with the insincere ministry of false teachers. “What is the fruit of false teachers? Their greed. In more concrete demonstrations, it is the acceptance of reciprocity, their exchange of ministry for money” (p. 71). This is followed up in chapter eight by looking at Paul’s attitude toward other ministers in Corinth – both the true ministers of God and those “super-apostles” (false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ) who corrupt the word of God.

Chapters 1-8 deal with the “theory” (doctrinal teaching) and establishment of the dorean principle in the scriptures. Beginning at chapter nine, Owens begins to bring the teaching down to practice, walking the reader “through some of the more prominent [biblical] examples we see of colabor” (p. 84). In chapter ten, he pursues evidence of the practice of the principle in church history. If this is a biblical teaching, wouldn’t we expect it to find some Christians practicing this? The author shows up some places we find the dorean principle put into practice. Chapter eleven defines the boundaries of what is and is not gospel ministry. To whom and in what contexts does the dorean principle apply? Owens answers, “any activity that proclaims the gospel or directly attends to its proclamation” (p. 105). The author takes aim at concrete matters of modern situations in chapters twelve and thirteen – parachurch ministries, seminaries, Bible conferences, and copyright law. Owens does not stand against parachurch ministry, rather simply offering suggestions of their support through co-labor rather than reciprocity. Concerning copyrights, the author supports providing Christian teaching freely in the public domain, particularly in our times through the use of “Creative Commons Zero.”[v] He continues in chapter fourteen looking specifically at issues touching Bibles, books, music, and software.[vi]  

Though recognizing “Any restriction on the distribution and use of the Bible potentially harms the church,” the author (in what I feel is inconsistent with the dorean principle) cites Bible verses from (primarily) the English Standard Version and (secondarily) the New American Standard Bible – both Bibles which are copyrighted and whose use is restricted.[vii] It is not as if there are no other options. First and foremost, the King James translation is freely distributed in the United States without any restrictions. Even those who do not prefer the King James Bible have other options. For example, the World English Bible (WEB), though having a trademarked name, has a text that has been placed in the public domain, and may be freely copied both electronically and in print.[viii] Is the Sovereign God, who has preserved his words for millennia, now in modern times dependent on human institutions and legal copyrights to preserve his words? God forbid! To continue to contribute to Big Ĕrus[ix] is to continue down the road we have been far too long traveling.

The “Conclusion” (pp. 139-140) offers a brief “final word about the gospel.” The author believes (correctly, in my opinion) that “The modern church has unintentionally gone astray, blindly following the model of the world.” Clearly Conley Owens believes the dorean principle effectively resolves some apparent difficulties in the Bible’s teaching on ministerial support.[x] He challenges his readers to believe, accept, and apply the dorean principle in modern ministry context. He recognizes that in some areas this will only require smoothing some rough edges, while in others “demands radical transformation.”

The three appendices offer some points for further study (A) and more details about copyright and copyright law (B & C).

Some miscellaneous comments and quibbles.

As to length and writing style, it is a fairly easy read. On the other hand, it is full of depth and requires concentration on the principle and teaching set forth. Properly considered, the book highlights the shocking amount of biblical instruction that is rushed past by those who commercialize Christianity.

I like the book. I like the author’s opposition to the commercialization of Christianity. I do not claim to agree with Conley Owens in every point he makes. I am not sure I understand every point he makes. I intend to further consider and meditate on the texts of scripture from which he derives the dorean principle. Nevertheless, before even reading the book, I held the orthopraxy of a general principle of making the gospel “without charge,” which predisposed me to view it sympathetically. Some reviewers seem to start with a prejudice against this idea.

Were I writing the book, I think I would have come down harder on seminaries and Bible publishers than the author seemed to, bearing down harder in favor of local church ministry. Owens’s use of “colabor” vs. “co-labor” is explained on page 8, in footnote 4. Nevertheless, I found its use distracting. Colabor, to me, just consistently looked like it was and ought to be a different word, no matter how many times I saw it. No doubt this was a personal issue of my literalism, and likely, the young probably do not experience the same level of discomfort!

Consistent with the dorean principle, the book is not copyrighted, and is distributed freely in print and electronic media. Conley Owens exhibits a sincere desire to make what he believes is the truth available “without charge” to all people. He follows through. He practices what he preaches (or in this case, writes).

Recommendation.

The Dorean Principle is well-endorsed by a number of individuals in conspicuous Christian ministry. See the front matter for 17 such recommendations. With these and others, I recommend that you read The Dorean Principle, and, as a “Berean,” search the scriptures whether these things are so. 

Owens has offered his attempt toward recapturing “a biblical ethic of ministry fundraising.” According to the grace of God which is given unto us, let us labor together to inspect, improve, and build on this foundation.

Transparency and Conclusion.

I received a free copy of The Dorean Principle, but not in exchange for anything. All copies are freely distributed. It was not sent for review when I ordered it, neither did I intend to review it when I ordered it. I write the review as a “labourer together with God” because, after reading the book, I believe it offers both timely introspection and needed condemnation of our modern commercial quagmire in Christianity, and that it promotes valid suggestions and resolutions to the problem. Let us not merely bemoan the commercialization of Christianity. Offering Christian material freely puts that material in the hands of those who most often need it freely offered. Offering Christian ministry freely makes the gospel “without charge.” May the Lord help us do so. And more.

Endnotes.

---

[i] From the Greek δωρεάν (dorean), freely, without payment.
[ii] Owens’s more complete MDiv thesis is also available at the site, though not as obviously so.
[iii] Some of the difficulty of understanding may come from the fact that, on a practical level, the “reciprocal” support of the ministry and “colabor” support of the ministry may look basically the same, requiring some understanding of the motivation of a person’s support – obligation to the minister versus obligation to God (pp. 8-9).
[iv] From the Greek προπεμπω (propempo), to send with things necessary for a journey.
[v] I found this chapter especially helpful. I have published hard-copy print material at my own expense and distributed it without charge, while using “copyright” as a manner of protection of the content. For example, my thinking has been that if I write “salvation is by grace alone through faith alone” I do not want someone to have the right or ability to come along and change it to “salvation is by grace, plus baptism, plus good works…” Owens effectively challenges even that kind of use of copyright (pp. 126-127).
[vi] Owens’s comments about the King James Bible are confusing (p. 133). While it is true that the KJV is under restriction in the United Kingdom (in much the same way as copyrighted Bibles in the U.S.), it is indubitably known, historically, legally, and practically that the King James Bible is freely printed and distributed outside the United Kingdom.
[vii] Here is part of how the Crossway and Good News Publishers restrict the use of the ESV:
The ESV text may be quoted (in written or print form) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to more than one-half of any one book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
Common Uses Include:

• Church bulletin
• Bible studies
• Classroom use
• Writing a book (print format)

Notice of copyright must appear as follows on the title page or copyright page of printed works quoting from the ESV, or in a corresponding location when the ESV is quoted in other media:
“Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license. The ESV may not be translated in whole or in part into any other language.”
Requests Outside Standard Use Guidelines
Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines require written permission. To obtain written permission, complete and submit our Online Form.
[viii] This is not a recommendation of the World English Bible, but simply a recognition that those who wish to use a public domain Bible are not limited to the King James Bible, and therefore cannot use that as an excuse.
[ix] The “Bible Industrial Complex,” or network of organizations that seek to shape, control, and profit from the publication and distribution of the word of God. Ĕrus or Erus is Latin for master, owner, proprietor.
[x] Particularly, things Bible students may think appear contradictory on the surface.

From the mind of God to the mind of man

 Brief (and mostly negative) comments about this book.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: a Layman’s guide to How We Got Our Bible, James B. Williams, editor. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999.

Authors: James B. Williams, Ernest Pickering, Mark Minnick, Randolph Shaylor, Paul W. Downey, John E. Ashbrook, John K. Hutcheson Sr., John C. Mincy, Mark R. Simmons, William H. Smallman, J. Drew Conley, Keith E. Gephart.

The Committee on the Bible’s Text and Translation: J. Drew Conley, Paul W. Downey, John K. Hutcheson Sr., Mark Minnick, Randolph Shaylor, Mark R. Simmons, James B. Williams.

This book purports to be sort of “central” or “neutral” in the King James controversy, “with the goal of healing the wounds” and “To expose the two extreme positions on the King James controversy: KJV Onlyism and KJV Discreditism.” (Introduction: The Issues We Face, pp. 8-9)

In the “Introduction” to this book, J. B. Williams first approvingly cites James White’s inflammatory and inaccurate KJVO categories that have hung on far too long in the fray (p. 2). He mentions a group he calls “KJV Discreditors,” who make extreme statements against it. Williams asserts that the “extremes have produced a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism.” He calls the defense of the King James Version a “cancerous sore” that has resulted in “a deplorable condition in Fundamentalism...” (pp. 2-3). It seems quite clear to me that the focus of this book is primarily on and against “King James Only” advocates. The word “Discreditism” is used only once (p. 8) and “Discreditors” is used twice (p. 3). Williams names one “discreditor” in the text of his “Introduction” (p. 3), Jack P. Lewis, author of The English Bible from KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982).[i] While the authors may sincerely wish to avoid the extreme of “KJV Discreditism,” it certainly does not come into balanced focus in this book.

Williams sets up four points (pp. 5-6) as the so-called “Historic View” about the Bible, the Christian Faith, and the King James Version “of all the recognized Christian leaders of the Christian Faith for the past three hundred years.”[ii] 

• 1. Only the originals are verbally and plenarily inspired, and the KJV is a translation of copies of the original documents.[iii]
• 2. The KJV was revised in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1659, and 1769, indicating “that it is impossible for the 1611 translation to be verbally inspired and inerrant.”
• 3. The “KJV was free from theological errors” but not “inspired in the same sense as the original documents.”
• 4. An accurate translation is God’s way of speaking to men.

With this myopic set up, Williams alleges “The first noticeable deviation from the accepted and historic agreement was published in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.”[iv] Like Doug Kutilek, Williams also states that Wilkinson’s book “was unknown and unused until a Baptist minister, J. J. Ray, published God Wrote Only One Bible in which he heavily plagiarized Wilkinson's book...” (p. 6)

Interestingly, both Kutilek and Williams acknowledge that they know that Ray believed there were some errors in the KJV that should be corrected! (See J. J. Ray, pp. 30-31) Yet they do not let that get in the way of a good polemic exercise.

In the “Conclusion” Keith Gephart claims “We need to be preaching Christ, not beating our drums for or against the King James Bible!” However, like the “Introduction” and points in between, his primary focus has been against “King James Onlyism.” 

This book fails to be what it purports to be, and fails to do what it purports to do. In the end, it adds one more screed in the long line of “Fundamentalist” books against “King James Onlyism” – in the “polite and kind” way of the times, of course.

---

[i] Williams also quotes Adlai Loudy, Sake Kubo and Walter F. Specht, and the Preface to the Revised Standard Version on page 3 in his “Introduction.”
[ii] Are we truly to believe that Williams is aware of “all the recognized Christian leaders” in this time frame. Of course not, it is the leaders he recognizes, and he does not recognize leaders who held a higher view of the King James Bible, some of which history I have pointed out in various blog articles.
[iii] Rather than “300 years historic,” this terminology is specifically Warfieldian. This book even mentions B. B. Warfield “is well known for his defense of the position that the autographs are inspired and inerrant” (p. 25). Rather than defend the positions, Warfield basically created it, shifting from apographs to autographs and from infallibility to inerrancy. See The Ecclesiastical Text: Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind by Theodore Letis, pages 72-81.
[iv] Of course, he must avoid mentioning the earlier pro-KJV book by Philip Mauro, an author who contributed essays to the 12-volume The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth.

Review: The Unbound Scriptures Unwound

Rick Norris, The Unbound Scriptures: A Review of KJV-only Claims and Publications. Fayetteville, NC: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2003. ISBN 0974546208. 552 pages (viii, 544).

The author of this work, Rick Norris, is a fundamental, independent Baptist. He maintains the website UnboundScriptures.com: Bible Version & King James Only Controversy Information. He spends a great deal of time working actively in internet discussion forums and Facebook groups to promote his views, especially with long copy and paste sections from or similar to his book.

Norris states that one purpose of his book “is to advocate the need for consistent principles that would result in Scriptural, balanced view of this issue” (p. 1). He claims an “additional aim of this book is to provide information concerning the history of our English Bible as it relates to the translation issue” (p. 2).

The Unbound Scriptures consists of a “Foreword” by James D. Price, author of King James Onlyism: A New Sect, and chairman of the New King James Old Testament translation committee. This is followed with an Introduction” by Norris, 18 chapters about the King James Bible and King James Only controversy, five appendices, a bibliography, and an index.

Norris’s book provides some interesting information for which he has exerted much effort in compiling. However, it is very thick, dense reading – like trying to navigate through a canebrake. Piling on quote after quote after quote, and presenting lengthy paragraphs of “unformatted” information (see the information on differences in various editions, pp. 113-131, for example) has a way of wearing out the reader. It is not clear whether Norris is oblivious to this, or whether it suits his agenda. The modus operandi includes quote after quote, source after source, with little to no distinguishing of the weight they give to the matter at hand. For example, in attempting to charge Richard Bancroft with perpetrating fourteen changes on the translation authorized by King James (pp. 92-95), he has no primary sources with which to work. There are two mid-17th-century sources that claim prelates, plural, (not Bancroft) made some editorial changes to the translation. Over a period of time, this charge morphed from prelates plural to Bancroft only. Rather than focus on the early and unique claims, Norris fills the pages with all sorts of extraneous material – author after author after author who is simply referring to what some other author – often a tertiary source – says about Bancroft changing the Bible in 14 places. This style of being heard for much speaking (Matthew 6:7) will surely frustrate many readers. Further, Norris does not address conflicting claims. He does not even mention a primary source that is at odds with his premise – the translators’ report to the Synod of Dort in 1618, which states that Thomas Bilson and Miles Smith put the finishing touches on the translation before it went to publication. 

He makes other errors of presentation, such as the discussion of “originals” on page 366-367. Norris confuses quotations that reference the apographs (original language copies) and other quotations that reference the autographs (original media of the penmen) as if they are equivalent. This may be by mistake, but it sends a mixed message nonetheless. Additionally, the first full paragraph on page 367, beginning “If there were no inspired originals…” seems to suggest that KJVO advocates do not believe the original were inspired. 

Clearly, Norris has put in a great deal of research on the subject. He provides some useful data that the has compiled. He shows inconsistencies among different KJV-onlyists (of course, there are inconsistencies among anti-KJV-onlyists as well). The comparisons of verses in the KJV in Appendices A and B might be handy and helpful reference tools. The pages of differences in certain editions/printings of King James Bibles can be instructive as well, if the reader is armed with a sharp sickle to cut through the dense cane.

Regarding his first purpose, Norris assuredly advocates for his principles, though not always consistently or balanced. This work is polemic with a capital P. Regarding the second purpose, Norris does provide some good historical information about the KJV translation (e.g., Appendix C gives a straightforward list of King James’s translators). However, he immoderately inserts too much tertiary information, while too often lacking analysis of and reflection on possible primary and early secondary sources. I cannot recommend Norris’s book, though I can see some benefit of use by the forewarned reader.

Book Review: The Landmark Edition of the New Testament

Mark Fenison, Larry Killion, Robert Myers, Jeff Short, Paul Stepp, and Jim Turner, editors. The Landmark Edition of the New Testament (KJV Study Bible). Bloomington, IL: Xlibris, 2013. 872 pp., $22.42, Softcover (9781493102952). Also available in Hardcover (9781493102969), and eBook (9781493102976).

This is a brief review to give my initial takeaways on this Bible edition. I have only perused the edition and have not viewed all of the Bible text and footnotes.

This New Testament Study Bible, as the name suggests, presents a Landmark Baptist view of ecclesiology. Six ordained elders of Landmark Baptist churches (one, Larry Killion, is now deceased) edited, compiled, and prepared the work. It begins with a “General Introduction,” including remarks on Landmarkism and the King James Bible (pp. 7-12). An essay on “The Value of Inspiration” follows (pp. 15-19). The editors are committed to divine inspiration and the infallibility of the Scriptures. They see “two primary lines of textual transmission,” and prefer the traditional text to the critical text (for example, see the comment on 1 John 5:7).[i] However, they conclude that the “contextual pattern for self-definition has not been ‘broken’ or destroyed in either line of transmission.” [ii]

After the introductory material, the text of the New Testament follows (pp. 23-872), with commentary by Mark Fenison (11 books), Larry Killion (10 books), Jeff Short (1 book), and Paul Stepp (3 books). Jim Turner is credited with the initial idea for this work, and Robert Myers for technical work and other suggestions (p. 7).

Each book of the New Testament begins with an outline and an introduction. Some helpful maps are provided. This Study Bible introduces several changes – most notably (and the primary impulse for its existence) translating the words “baptism” as immersion and “church” as congregation. Overall, the King James translation remains intact, except for those two modifications – as well as the word “with” sometimes changed to “in” (e.g. Mark 1:8 “baptized you with water” becomes “immersed you in water”). The edition also updates archaic words and standardizes Old Testament names to match the Old Testament spellings. The edition does not remove “archaic words.” Rather, the updated word is placed in brackets beside the original KJV word, as a sort of definition or commentary.[iii]

“Due to theological bias and due to rules imposed upon the KJV translators, they chose to use two ecclesiastical words that did not properly translate two Greek terms” [i.e., ekklesia and baptizo, rlv] (pp. 18-19). I take issue with the idea that the words “church” and “baptism” are not “properly translated.” As best I can tell (not having read 100% of the comments), the editors are careful not to claim that the King James translators created or transliterated these words – as some who are less informed or more careless do.[iv] However, they do not seem to acknowledge that these two words have long standing in the English language prior to 1611, and that they do possess the meanings “congregation” and “immersion” – even if they have a broader semantic range.[v]

This editorial decision may lead to clarification for one reader and confusion for another. On its face, it contradicts our long-standing Baptist contention that baptism is immersion and that church is congregation or called-out assembly. That this must be fixed suggests we were wrong. The change is almost complete capitulation to the counter claims of the opposition!

I find the practice of the editors to a degree inconsistent. These editors ask us to believe the issue is so important that they must change the words “baptize” and “church” in the Bible. Yet they continue to use “Baptist” and “Church” in the names of their immersionist congregations! The back cover uses congregation instead of church, but as far as I can tell that was only an accommodation in print. When I find their churches on the internet, each is a Baptist Church.[vi] That, to me, seems sort of “believe what I say and not what I do.”

I have this formatting complaint. On each page, the header prints the Bible book’s name but not the book’s chapter number. This makes searches for chapter and verse initially somewhat difficult.

The editors are Landmark in ecclesiology and Sovereign Grace in soteriology. The notes clearly reflect those positions. Those who are Landmark will generally find agreement with the ecclesiological comments. Those who are Calvinistic will generally find agreement with the soteriological comments. I think the commentary in this work can be helpful. Yet it is a large and rather expensive purchase in comparison to the amount of commentary provided. I give it a cautious recommendation to an informed reader.

---

[i] “This verse is the litmus test for all Bible versions. Many modern versions leave it out. Any Bible version that does not have this great Trinitarian verse was translated from a text that was corrupted...” (p. 803). Nevertheless, they write “even if the Trinitarian words in this verse were omitted, it would not in the least way diminish the scriptural truth regarding the doctrine of the Triune God of the Bible.”

[ii] They believe there is “a self-defining contextual pattern” that allows the interpreter to overcome textual and translational errors – though they also think that the critical text requires far more work to come to the right conclusion.
[iii] In this is performs something like a “Defined King James Bible.”
[iv] For example, as seen here: “A majority of translations, in both English and foreign versions, prefer to transliterate the word ‘baptism,’...” Surely words that have long since been transliterated and have been an integral part of the English language for a thousand years have gained status and meaning. It is no longer necessary or proper to keep referring to them as if some recent transliteration has occurred.
[v] Both words were established in the English language by the time of John Wycliffe’s Bible translation in the 1300s.
[vi] With the exception of Charleston Baptist using “congregation” instead of church in their name. Charleston Baptist Congregation, Harmony Missionary Baptist Church, Indore Baptist Church, The Lord’s Baptist Church, Victory Baptist Church.

Defending Chris Myers’ point

...without agreeing with everything he wrote.

Why I Preach from the Received Text, a book I recently reviewed quite positively, has come under specific attack for its Chapter 19 – “The Invincible Word” – by Christopher Myers.

First, a few general observations on Christopher Myers’ chapter. It struck me as different from most of the previous essays I had read in the book. Many of those were much more personal and testimonial. After extolling the word of God as invincible and indestructible, Myers quickly transitioned to a history of the transmission of God’s word, with the transmission of Satan’s work along with and against it. In this relation of the history, the writer affirmed Satan’s various attacks on the word of God, through uninspired writings competing with those of the apostles, hindering the laity’s access to the word of God, variations that diminished the deity of Christ, and so forth (pp. 187-191). Ultimately, the Christian reader must choose between the faulty text disrupted by the work of Satan and the reliable one that has stood the test of time.

Mark Ward and Matthew Everhard have both charged Chris Myers of accusing folks who use certain modern translations of using Satan’s Bible. In his blog review of the book, Ward writes:

“Myers makes it clear that when he refers to Satan’s Bible, he is not speaking of the sectarian New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, but to the Bible that I carried to church this very day as I write (the ESV), and to the one my pastor preached from (the NASB), and, by a small extension, to the Bible I preached from in our Spanish ministry (the NVI, related to the NIV).” (Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text)

In a YouTube video, Everhard states:

“One of the authors calls some of the modern translations, including the NIV and the ESV, Satan’s Bible.” (Sparring TR & KJV Advocates! Interview with Dane Johannsson and Brett Mahlen, @ 49:10)

Myers wrote:

“Modern translations based on Satan’s Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others.” (Why I Preach, p. 192)

I understand that those who use the ESV, NASB, NIV, et al., will take offense at Myers above expression. However, I do not believe the quotes from Ward and Everhard exactly or accurately portray Myers’ statement, in its context. While one might extrapolate that from what Myers wrote, it is not what he wrote. There is a fine line. He did not say they are using Satan’s Bible, but that these Bibles are “based on” it (“based on,” an adjective that in context seems to mean that they have attachment to or reliance on it as a source item for their translations). The attempts Satan has made against God’s word affect all these Bibles.[i] The more I look at “Chapter 19,” the more I think people have misunderstood and misapplied what Myers wrote. Is it just vacant talk that provides some sort of “moral high ground” when we say we are seeking to understand and fairly represent our opponents? If not, then we must all try to understand and then fairly represent our opponents, including Chris Myers and what he wrote. He wrote strong words. Very strong words. These words cannot help but sound inflammatory to modern Bible proponents. He is calling them out. The point he is making is that the modern translations founded on the NU Greek text are heirs to the defects (especially deletions) that have entered into the texts through the leavening work of Satan.

Possibly many TR and KJV proponents failed the Dale Carnegie “How to Win Friends and Influence People” course, while most CT and modern Bible proponents passed with flying colors! Myers sharply spells out the consequences of what he understands as an assault against the word of God, whereas the other side simply says we are adding verses instead of their removing verses, usually leaving us to intuit the rest that goes with that accusation.[i] Who is nicer? Regardless, pleasing demeanor and affable tone are not the arbiters of truth.

Satan has an interest in opposing, questioning, and confusing God’s word. This is not some KJVO or TRO conspiratorial viewpoint. The text and teaching of the Bible itself verifies this.[ii] From the beginning the serpent questioned the word of God. A wicked king tried to burn it. False apostles mimicked letters in the name of Paul. The multiplication of Bible translations, the words written about textual variants, and so on, can work to his advantage. There are textual variants (and translations thereof) that do matter. George Vance Smith, an Unitarian, served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 that produced the English Revised Version. He believed the variants had theological impact, and he wrote with some pleasure that he thought the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement (see Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed). You do not have to be a TR or KJV advocate to recognize this. James Snapp, Jr., an advocate of “Equitable Eclecticism,” exhibits this when he writes, “But we should not let ourselves pretend that some textual variants cannot be used against orthodox doctrines...There was, and is, a spiritual battle going on” (see Abner Kneeland, Forgotten American Translator (and Apostate)). A spiritual battle!

In “Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616?” our friend Dwayne Green discusses text criticism, the mark of the beast, and the variant number 616 instead of 666. He says:

“It makes senses that the Devil would want to confuse you about what that number is.” (Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616? @ 0:43)

Dwayne is neither KJVO nor TRO. Yet he recognizes that Satan has an interest in confusing us about God’s word. Is it only okay for those who are not KJVO or TRO or Confessional Bibliologists to point this out? No, it is truth, regardless of who says it, and regardless of who objects.

Wilbur Pickering, like Dwayne Green, is neither KJVO nor TRO. He is a modern textual critic advocating what is called the Family 35 Majority Text. He has strong words about Satan’s influence on the text of the Bible.[iii]

“Since eclectic textual criticism is based on falsehoods, it belongs to Satan. Since most theological seminaries and Bible schools teach eclectic textual criticism, even the most conservative ones, and since that is the only option that they teach, most students graduate thinking that is all there is. The graduate may believe the NT to be inspired and inerrant in the autographs, but he uses and teaches from an eclectic Greek text and modern versions based on an eclectic text. He embraced a lie because he trusted the teachers who assured him it was the truth. But that lie has become a stronghold of Satan in his mind, which is why so many evangelicals seem to be unable to reconsider what they were taught.” (Textual criticism and the spiritual factor)

The above examples demonstrate that speaking of Satan working against the word of God is not a feature of any one brand of “Bible Onlyism,” neither is it a relic of the past. Others believe and say that there is Satanic influence in textual transmission and Bible translation.

That agreement with Myers laid out, I also diverge somewhat with his approach. We should exercise caution not to cause sincere believers (even sincerely wrong ones) to doubt God’s word. For those who completely exclude any part of critical texts and modern translations from being God’s word, my point will fall flat. However, (the rest of you) consider that in many places the critical text and traditional text have the same readings. Some translations of verses have the same words as those same verses in the King James translation. In good conscience and the spirit of truth, we cannot deny those portions are the word of God, regardless of where they appear.

Here is Romans 1:1 from four different Greek texts. Which one is the word of God?

• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

Here is Romans 1:1 from three different English translations. Which one is the word of God?

• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

These examples are all the same (with the exception of the capitalization and pointing in the fourth Greek example, and, of course, the difference between Greek and English). Either every one is the word of God or none is the word of God. We cannot keep a consistent (or biblical) textual view if the same word of God ceases to be the word of God when sewn under the wrong two leather covers. SO, in my opinion, we need to respect the word of God that is the word of God, whether it is printed under the covers of a Bible text or translation we do not like, quoted in a book we would not read, printed on a banner, posted on Facebook, or spoken from the mouth of either the godly or godless. This position does not mean we cannot or should not oppose what is wrong in the the ESV, NASB, NIV, and other modern translations, as defective and deficient. It means that we carefully choose to apply or not apply certain terminology to books that contain some of God’s word, mistranslate some of it, and/or leave out some of it. It may be that we need to use that book, and the words of God contained within it, to convince some sincere believer concerning his or her views. For example, say there is a sincere believer who thinks the NIV is the word of God. Adamantly I say, “No, it is Satan’s book.” Then that person may begin to question God’s word (in other words, question God’s word in principle, not just the NIV, because he or she thinks it is God’s word). Later they may not accept any Bible as authoritative! A speaker may intend for a person to question the NIV and/or critical text and accept the KJV and/or traditional text. However, there is no guarantee that will be the results.

It is not necessary to believe that evangelical text critics and modern Bible translators are Satanists in order to believe they have been led astray in creating, adopting, and/or translating a certain defective text.[iv] Some of us believe that the Westcott-Hort/NU text tradition leaves out and changes some of God’s words. If we are correct, then the basic point Christopher Myers makes is correct. Some of us might make the point in different language than Myers, but the general point is true nevertheless.

It will be interesting to hear whether and how Myers himself responds to these criticisms.

Greater is he that is in his word (God) than he who opposes it (Satan). The word of God is not bound. It is not broken. The Devil cannot defeat it.

---

[i] In fact, if our opponents are correct, then the attempts that Satan has made against God’s word affects MY Bible. They may not wish to say that plainly, but they are saying it when they say that the Textus Receptus adds to the word of God. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). Biblically speaking, if we add to the word of God, we are liars, following the father of lies (John 8:44), and our Bible, at least in its additions, is “based on” Satan’s Bible. Refusing to state the conclusion that follows your position may seem nice, but those are the consequences nevertheless. “Translations based on Satan’s Bible, that add to the Word of God, include the Geneva Bible, King James Bible, Modern English Version, New King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, and several others.” If you think I am wrong, tell me precisely, instead of beating around the proverbial bush.
[ii] See, for example, Genesis 3:1; Luke 4:9-10; 8:11-12; John 8:44; 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Revelation 12:9.
[iii] Pickering is more emphatic in this interview, Transcript of TF Radio Episode 12- Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering.
[iv] Humility and honesty makes the “traditional-text Christians” admit that we have been and can be led astray in many areas of life.

Book Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text

Jeffrey T. Riddle & Christian M. McShaffrey, editors. Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers. Winter Springs, FL: The Greater Heritage Christian Publishing, 2022. 280 pp. $15.99. Paperback and Hardcover; also available in eBook, PDF and EPUB formats.

Since I discovered his Word Magazine, I listen regularly and profitably to Jeffrey Riddle, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Louisa, Virginia. He is a leading spokesman for Confessional Bibliology and often uses Word Magazine to support the traditional original language texts of the Bible against the ravages of the modern critical text. For that reason, I was excited when he teamed up with Christian McShaffrey (Editor-in-Chief of “Text and Translation”) to produce a book – Why I Preach from the Received Text – promoting some of the very things he promotes on his YouTube Channel.

This book is available from all the usual suspects (e.g. Amazon), but I chose to order it from the publisher. The Greater Heritage is a conservative Christian publishing company that issues original articles, books, Bible studies, and church resources. I purchased it, read it, and now give you my thoughts.

Why I Preach from the Received Text expands and extends the available resources confronting the modern text criticism and its associated texts and translations. A supporting cast of 22 Reformed ministers and 1 deacon joins editors McShaffrey and Riddle. The editors build this work with a simple design around a simple question to the contributors – “Why do you preach from the Received Text?” The answers furnish the chapters of the book. The answers have both simple significance and complex contents.

Why I Preach from the Received Text is a valuable contribution to the field of Bibliology. The editors launch the book with an “Editorial Introduction” (pp. 13-19), which demonstrates why this book matters. There is an attacking foe. “Modern academic textual criticism rejects divine preservation, and therefore proceeds to pursue reconstruction of the text based on human reasoning” (p. 15). There is a position to defend. “The primary purpose of this book is a defense of the traditional original Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible” (p. 17). The goal of testifying, teaching, and encouraging is soaked in prayer, “May the Lord use this book as an instrument to stimulate, revive, confirm, and defend intelligent and effective usage of the traditional text of the Word of God” (p. 19).

This book is a collection of writings by various authors. The contributors are “men who were gladly laboring in the trenches of local church ministry” (p. 16) – connecting to the work of God in the “highways and hedges” of church houses rather than the ivory towers of scholars in academia. These authors exhibit both unity and diversity – unity on the text of the Bible and Reformed theology, with diversity of denominational affiliations and geographical locations. Twenty-four of the chapter authors are preachers. One essay displays a non-pastoral perspective – a Baptist deacon explains why he wants to be preached to from the Received Text! The choice of introducing the essays in alphabetical order suggests that all these essays are equally important. The reader can fruitfully follow the established order, or may read them in any order. The essays not only complement each other, but also are capable of standing alone. The book’s style (conversational, with short chapters) and little larger than usual print makes it easy to read.

In his review of this work, Mark Ward “wondered how [he could] fairly describe a book that has more than two dozen authors,” writing, “There is, indeed, a spectrum of views represented here. The contributions do not all perfectly cohere.” I question that he succeeded in describing it fairly (here and elsewhere). A reader must understand the purpose of the book in order to understand whether the views expressed do or do not cohere. Yes, these chapters present the various views of 25 different authors. However, they do cohere (hold together, unite) at the place of the purpose of the book – defending and promoting preaching from the traditional text of Scripture.

Following the 25 essays, the editors return with a practical “Appendix” which offers “Steps Toward Change.” The book testifies and teaches, but also propels and persuades. The approach of “Steps Toward Change” is not academic, but pastoral, geared to local church ministry. May these steps be used and be successful.

An “Annotated Bibliography” on pages 261-276 rounds out the work. Rather than give a bare list, the editors chose brief descriptions and evaluations of each work – providing not only possible resources, but also guidance in selecting them. The bibliography is divided into 13 sections, beginning with “Books, Pamphlets, and Tracts” and concluding with “Websites that Defend the Traditional Text.” Though I consider myself well informed on this subject, I found two books of which I had never heard! (Historical Criticism of the Bible, by Eta Linneman, and Clash of Visions by Robert Yarbrough.) This bibliography will help the reader who will use it.

Why I Preach from the Received Text balances testimony and theology. Some authors “from a child” knew the traditional text, and some “fetched a compass” to get there. The authors are English speakers (residing in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Consequently, they preach from the Received Text (usually) via the Authorized Version, or (sometimes) the New King James Version. Though expressing consistent support for the Authorized or King James Bible, the writers are not King James Version Onlyists. They arrive at their common positions from their confession that original language copies of the Scripture have been “kept pure in all ages.” Supporters of the traditional original language texts and/or the King James translation who are not confessional may find the continuing appeal to the Confessions off-putting. If they will persevere, however, they will find much agreement with and support for their own viewpoint.

The authors present the positive and negative – what is right with the received text and what is wrong with the critical text – through testimonial, theological, and historical approaches. Positively, they believe that they have “scripture, theology, reason, and history on our side” (p. 259). The angles of approach allow each individual author to focus on the traditional text in his own way. For example, Pooyan Mehrshahi notes the value of a definitive text, “The TR-based historic translations [in various languages] give the church a standard and unifying text of the Holy Scriptures” (p. 171). Christopher Sheffield relates his journey, “I did not set out to disprove the claims of the modern Critical Text, only to understand them; but as time went on, I became increasingly convinced that the modern Critical Text and the philosophy which undergirded it, was an affront to the honor of God, the glory of Christ, and the good of the Church” (p. 206). Robert Truelove focuses on the canonical question of the text of the books of the Bible (pp. 225-233).

Due to the number of contributors, the essays are necessarily short. Some readers may find themselves wishing for more. Nevertheless, the brevity and autonomy of the chapters have an intrinsic sufficiency, and well suits the reader with a busy schedule. Due to the testimonial nature of the essays, there is an inevitable amount of repetition. However, that repetition can edify rather than annoy the reader. Good variety with repetition, unified on a central theme, is not inherently a bad thing. It helps us absorb and remember the points and their purpose.

The synopsis of the book is succinctly summed up in Scott Meadows’s chapter title “Why [do I preach from the Received Text (TR)]? It’s the Word of God” (p. 160). The theological position promoted by the contributors to this book sets their view above and apart from supporters of the modern Critical Text and Bibles translated from it. For the latter, there must always be some question whether all of it is the word of God. The contributors to this book do not settle for a gospel that is mostly good news, spiritual food that is mostly good food, or a spiritual sword that is mostly sharp. From what do they preach? The Received Text. It’s the word of God!

I highly recommend this book. This book can help us find answers to questions raised by the modern text critics. You will be better informed for having read it. Why I Preach from the Received Text is solid, accessible, and practical. It emanates from a biblical theology of the providential preservation of God’s inspired writings. It provides personal, thoughtful, and reasoned support for the traditional texts. It challenges, with personal, thoughtful, and reasoned objections, the modern critical texts. “To those who believe that God has providentially preserved his Word, the question of the veracity and tenacity of Scripture has been asked and answered. God has spoken” (p. 252). Those who favor the traditional texts of the Bible will find support, strength, and encouragement. King James “English Only” Defenders will find the book extremely respectful and supportive of the King James Bible, but also find that it does not directly support their position. Those who deny the traditional texts and favor the modern critical ones will be surprised, confronted, and challenged – perhaps even halt a little!

Why I Preach from the Received Text supports the time-honored traditional texts and offers a new vision for the old paths – a scriptural and suitable way forward in the original texts and Bible translations debates. Buy it. Read it.

A more technical theologically driven work would make an excellent sequel to Why I Preach from the Received Text.

Other related resources include: 

• Word Magazine 239, Christian McShaffrey and Jeff Riddle video discussing Why I Preach from the Received Text
• Greater Heritage Information Sheet
• Free Sample of the Introduction and First Chapter
• Search Jeff’s web site for interviews with the chapter authors
• 25 quotes from 25 chapter authors