Archaic and obsolete

Archaic, adjective. no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor.
Obsolete, adjective. No longer produced or used; out of date.

I have noticed in the “King James Version debates” that certain words are often described as obsolete. While no one should deny that there are difficult words in the King James Bible – either because they are just difficult in the general sense, or because they are words no longer frequently used in conversation, or because they are words whose meaning in the Bible are not the same as what modern English speakers usually think of today. However, the term “obsolete” is not the best way to describe these words. (See above definitions.) While the semantic range of these words may “allow” one to use obsolete, notice how carefully Dictionary.com restricts their use of obsolete.

In Dictionary.com, the archaic label is described this way: “Archaic is used as a label in this dictionary for terms and definitions that were current roughly as late as 1900 but are now employed only as conscious archaisms.” It describes the obsolete label thus: “Terms and definitions labeled Obsolete in this dictionary have not been in widespread use since the mid 1700s. Unlike some relatively familiar archaic words and phrases, like prithee and thou art, obsolete words and phrases are not easily understood by a modern reader, and obsolete senses of current terms.”

When we consider that the King James Version of the Bible has been in constant use in English-speaking nations from AD 1611 to the present, it should give us pause to think of its words as obsolete! If you mean “hard to understand” just say that. Every Bible has some words that are hard to understand. If you mean “specialized language” that is theological just say that. Maybe obsolete could be retired? I find it difficult to consider words I have been reading in my Bible and hearing in church all my life as being “obsolete” – no longer used.

Church Fathers

Q. What does the term “Early Church Father” mean?   

A. The terminology “Church Fathers” or “Early Church Fathers” is used to describe some of the earliest Christian leaders, theologians, and/or writers. They can be divided into three basic categories, commonly described as: (1) Apostolic Fathers, (2) Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, and (3) Post-Nicene Church Fathers.[i] 

The Apostolic Church Fathers were contemporaries of the apostles. They were possibly discipled by them, and are considered their direct successors (at the least chronologically). Some Apostolic Fathers include Clement, Ignatius, Papias, and Polycarp. Sometimes these are simply included as Ante-Nicene Fathers.[ii]

The Ante-Nicene Fathers came after the Apostolic Fathers (i.e. they were not contemporaries of the apostles). They are called “Ante-Nicene” because they lived after the apostles and before (ante) the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Some Ante-Nicene Fathers include Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Novatus, and Tertullian.

The Post-Nicene Fathers are so-called because their lives or ministries follow after (post) the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Post-Nicene Fathers include Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Eusebius.

In general, those considered “Church Fathers” are Christian theologians who lived in a time frame from the end of the Apostolic Age (circa AD 100) until the time of the Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787. Those who lived after than time may be but are not usually called Church Fathers. Who are legitimate “Church Fathers” and who are “Heretics” is often in the eye of the beholder.

---

[i] “Church Fathers” are also categorized by their locations and/or languages – Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc.
[ii] For practical purposes “Apostolic Fathers” and “Ante-Nicene Church Fathers” are both Ante-Nicene – that is, those of both groups lived before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Sometimes writings not attributed to a specific writer, such as the Didache, are considered the writings of “Apostolic Fathers.”

In other words, deictic and elenctic

• cagoule, noun. (British) A lightweight, hooded, thigh-length waterproof jacket.
• chippy, noun. (British) A fish-and-chip shop.
• deictic, adjective. Logic, proving directly. Compare elenctic.
• delink, verb (transitive). To break the physical connection between (two or more things).
• deliverhead, noun. The quality of being able to move quickly and easily, agility.
• elenctic, adjective. Logic refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion. Compare deictic.
• foment, verb (transitive). [Medicine] To bathe or soak (a part of the body) with heated liquid; to apply a heated medicinal preparation, esp. in the form of a moistened poultice or pad of material, to (a part of the body); To stimulate, encourage, instigate (a sentiment, belief, pursuit, course of conduct, etc.); to incite.
• fontlet, noun. A small source or wellspring; a little fountain. Obsolete.
• foolery, noun. An instance of foolish behaviour; a foolish or ridiculous belief, action, or thing. Cf. tomfoolery.
• glamping, noun. Luxury camping or glamour camping; a style of camping with amenities and, in some cases, resort-style services not usually associated with “traditional” camping (a portmanteau of glamorous and camping).
• guber, adjective. Of or relating to a governor or governorship.
• haimish, adjective. Reminiscent of home; pleasantly familiar; cozy, comfortable; unpretentious.
• jarg, adjective. False, fabricated, or counterfeit; suspicious, misleading. Also: of poor quality, inferior, awful.
• persona non grata, noun. A person who is not welcome; a diplomatic representative unacceptable to an accrediting government.
• scarper, verb. (British, informal) Run away; flee.
• tomfoolery, noun. Foolish or silly behaviour; a silly act, matter, or thing. Cf. foolery.
• tontine, noun. An annuity shared by subscribers to a loan or common fund, the shares increasing as subscribers die until the last survivor enjoys the whole income.
• twoc, noun. The offence of taking a car without the owner’s consent, esp. for the purpose of joy-riding (an acronym for taking without owner’s consent).

This world is not my home

This world is not my home,
I’m just a-passing through.
My treasures are laid up
Somewhere beyond the blue.

Perhaps it is only in the last few years in the United States that we have finally faced that what the Bible says is true: in this world we really are sojourners and exiles (1 Pet. 2:11). That reality has been clouded and obscured by the size and legal protection of the church in most of the Western world. But this world is not actually our home. We’re not supposed to settle down here. We’re not supposed to expect the church to be large, influential, and respected.

Christians are increasingly going to be seen as different, and not in a good way. We are increasingly going to have to choose between obedience and comfort. The next decades will not bring apathy to the gospel, but antagonism. And that’s OK. After all, that has been the reality for most of God’s people through most of history.

Alistair Begg

Crown Him With Many Crowns

 Revelation 19:12 …on his head were many crowns…
 
“In capito ejus diademata multa. Apoc. xix. 12” headed this hymn by Matthew Bridges in his Hymns of the Heart, 2nd edition, in 1851. There have been alterations and additions. I am unsure of the relationship of the representative text below to the original, which had six 8-line stanzas.
 
George Job Elvey composed Diademata for Bridges’s short meter hymn, and this was first published in the 1868 appendix to Hymns Ancient and Modern.
 
1. Crown him with many crowns,
The Lamb upon his throne.
Hark! how the heavenly anthem drowns
All music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing
Of him who died for thee,
And hail him as thy matchless king
Through all eternity.
 
2. Crown him the Lord of life,
Who triumphed o’er the grave,
And rose victorious in the strife
For those he came to save;
His glories now we sing
Who died and rose on high,
Who died eternal life to bring,
And lives that death may die.
 
3. Crown him the Lord of love;
Behold his hands and side,
Rich wounds, yet visible above,
In beauty glorified;
No angels in the skies
Can fully bear that sight,
But downward bends their burning eyes
At mysteries so bright.
 
4. Crown him the Lord of years,
The potentate of time,
Creator of the rolling spheres,
Ineffably sublime.
All hail, Redeemer, hail!
For thou hast died for me;
Thy praise shall never, never fail
Throughout eternity.

A Primer for Christian Doctrine, and other reviews

The posting of reviews does not constitute endorsement of the products or reviews that are linked.

• A Primer for Christian Doctrine, Reviewed by Daniel Blanche -- “The book is intended to be read alongside a larger textbook of systematic theology, and the author recommends that we view it as a ‘guidebook’ to help the beginner to find their way around the text.”
• Book Recommendation: Can We Trust the Gospels? -- “The final conclusion of the book when Williams asks us to consider this basic question: What is the most reasonable conclusion of the given facts (names, places, Jewish materials, surprising content, undesigned coincidences, fulfilled expectations and more).”
• Book Review: Providence, by John Piper -- “In this book, he surveys the biblical landscape of God’s providential involvement in our world. His stated goal is clear: to invite us into “a world of counterintuitive wonders,””
• Book Review: The Essence and Implications of Missio Dei, by Peter Pikkert -- “As helpfully as Pikkert’s book connects the dots between missio Dei and shifts in evangelical missions priorities, one question hangs over his argument...”
• Book Review: The Man of God: Volume 3, by Albert Martin -- “The greatest strength of these three volumes is Martin’s faithfulness to the Bible.”
• Book Review: Tom Nettles, Ready for Reformation: Bringing Authentic Reform to Southern Baptist Churches -- “This is a courageous book in which Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology atthe Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, dares to say that the recovery of Biblicalinerrancy among Southern Baptists, though laudable, does not go far enough. (And an audio version HERE)”
• In Review: Reforming Apologetics by J.V. Fesko -- “The book is a treat from start to finish, despite certain areas of conflict I had with some of the material. Overall, the insight gleaned from this book should encourage Christians to read more from their theological roots.”
• Review: Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin -- “The Institutes are not technically a systematic theology, although they are commonly categorized and useful as such. As an elenctic work it is polemical in nature, written to expose errors.”
• Review: The Inclusive Language Debate by D. A. Carson -- “I totally understand that not every pastor can read every book and be up on every issue, but I’ve never heard of pastors in my circles being aware of the kinds of arguments Carson makes.”
• Review of Michael Licona’s Why Are There Differences In The Gospels? -- “...the claim that a biblical passage manifests a fact-altering ‘compositional device’ fails to satisfy the significant burden of proof borne by such a complex claim. Licona often overlooks much simpler explanations or rejects them too hastily.”
• The Ecclesiastical Text -- “This is a collection of essays written by Theodore Letis, the Director of the Institute of Renaissance and Reformation Studies, over a period between 1987-1997 and published in journals both popular and academic...”
• The Madness of Crowds – A Review of Douglas Murray’s Latest Book -- “It’s as though there is a collective insanity gripping the Western world, an insanity that will cause us to destroy ourselves unless we wake up. This book is about as clarion a wake up call as you could wish for.”
• WM 116: Review: Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible -- “In conclusion, this critique of the KJV is unusual in that it does not come from a Calvinistic evangelical perspective (like previous popular works by D. A. Carson [1978] and James White [1995]), but from one with a fundamentalist background.”

Preterism

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view.[i] One definition of preterism is “a belief that interprets biblical prophecies as events which have already happened in the first century A.D. (as opposed to remaining to be fulfilled in the future).” The view roughly divides into partial preterism or full preterism. Effectively, most or all prophecies of the Bible become history instead. In eschatological terms, preterism is the opposite of futurism. Preterism means past in fulfillment, and futurism means future in fulfillment.[ii]
 
Full preterism holds that all eschatological events (what many Christian consider future “end-time events”) were fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Preterists usually replace the idea of a future second coming and resurrection with a sort of metaphorical and/or positional change.
 
Partial preterism, on the other hand, holds that most but not all of the eschatological events have been fulfilled, and that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled most of Jesus’s Olivet Discourse (the prophetic teachings on the Mount of Olives recorded in Matthew 24-25, as well as Mark and Luke).
 
I recently discovered there is a “Preterist Bible.” Originally called the Fulfilled Covenant Bible (FCB), it is now titled The Kingdom Bible (TKB). According to information about the Bible, it is a revision based on testaments from two public domain Bible – the World English Old Testament and the King James Clarified New Testament. It is a collaboration of the work of many Preterists, with Michael E. Day serving as editor. “The fog of futurist translation bias has been thoroughly dissipated,” they say – and replaced, of course, by preterist translation bias.

---

[i] Eschatology is any system of doctrines or branch of theology concerning last, or final, matters, such as death, resurrection, judgment, the afterlife, etc. 

[ii] The English term preterism comes from the Latin word praeter. Praeter is a prefix meaning “past.” Those who hold the belief of preterism are known as preterists.

Mark Ward’s KJV and KJVO model

Mark Ward’s KJV and KJVO model (see below).

On this blog I have mentioned models of Bible Version views – that is, ways of categorizing how people think and what they believe about various versions of the Bible. About a week ago, I shared some ideas that might (with work) lead us toward more clarity and less confusion – HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. Other posts include:

• Categorizing “KJV-Only” beliefs
• 4 Categorizations of KJV-Only
• King James by Tradition

Recently Mark Ward, author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, in personal correspondence shared with me his model or way of thinking about different approaches to the King James Version.

• 1. People who prefer the King James Version but are not really invested in the debate over the King James Version.
• 2. People who prefer the King James Version but who are also aware in some measure that the Textus Receptus is the locus of debate and the place where the New Testament is preserved.
• 3. People who believe that the King James Version is perfect.

He further explained that statements that people make about the King James Bible often travel among all three views, with overlap especially in the latter two.

I thought this might be interesting and helpful. Used by Permission of Mark L. Ward, Jr., 11 May 2021.

What text type did the early church fathers use?

In 2007, John Oakes answers the question, What text type or types do the most early church fathers use? He answers that the “Alexandrian” text type is closer to the original writings of the New Testament. Then, to add insult to injury, he adds, “If a supporter of the KJV says that the church fathers from the second century used the Byzantine text, you can be assured that this person is either misinformed or is extremely biased. You would do well to ignore such a statement.”

Oakes does not provide space for questions or comment. This extremely biased misinformed person, rather than ignoring his statement, would have liked to asked a question or two.

From what text type were Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century) and Cyprian (3rd century) quoting when they referred to what we know as Acts 8:37? The Alexandrian or Byzantine? From what text type did Irenaeus (2nd century) quote when he referred to what we know as Mark 16:19? The Alexandrian or Byzantine?

The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew?

As a matter of interest, some folks say that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. This is hard to prove, as there are no extant copies. This, it then seems, is based solely on historical claims.

Papias of Hierapolis (circa AD 60 – circa AD 130), mediated through the church historian Eusebius (circa AD 262 – circa AD 339), since whatever Papias originally wrote about this has not survived to the present.

Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 38, Paragraph16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.

Irenaeus of Lyons (circa AD 130 – circa AD 202)

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

Clement of Alexandria (circa AD 150 – circa AD 215), via Eusebius of Caesarea (circa AD 262 – circa AD 339) re

Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chapter 24, Paragraph 6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

Origen of Alexandria (circa AD 184 – circa AD 253)

Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book I. Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism.
[Notice, though, that Origen does not claim personal knowledge of Matthew’s Gospel written in Hebrew, but that he learned it by tradition. rlv]

Origen of Alexandria (circa AD 184 – circa AD 253), via Eusebius of Caesarea (circa AD 262 – circa AD 339)

Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, Chapter 25, Paragraph 4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

Jerome of Stridon (circa AD 345 – AD 420) says a Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel was extant in his day, though it is not clear whether he claims to have seen it:

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 3. Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene.”

I make no claim that the Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew language – only that it is true that some early church fathers believed that it was so written. One can take the claims as historical records, for whatever they might be worth.

A Response to James White, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Response to Dr. James White’s “Fatal Flaw” Argument Against the TR -- “The TR argument is based on accepting readings based on what the church has received as God's Word, which is in part the same methodology used to accept the books of the canon.”
• A Tribute to Edward F. Hills -- “His work on the defense of the Textus Receptus (or Traditional Text) has helped countless believers through his book Text & Time.”
• Are KJV Onlyists Asking the Same Questions as Mark Ward? -- “If the requirement for a Bible to be adequately intelligible is that it must be perfectly comprehensible at every word at a fourth grade reading level, I suppose we’re all stuck with the NLT.”
• Atlanta officer who was fired after fatally shooting Rayshard Brooks to be reinstated -- “The Civil Service Board granted the fired officer's appeal and revoked his dismissal as an employee of the Atlanta Police Department.”
• Dem Nebraska State Senator Says He’ll Abandon School Choice When Colleagues Send Their Kids to Public School -- “I will vote to kill this bill if you send your kids to one of the kid’s schools in my district that we’re waiting to turn around.”
• Found Families: A Christian Perspective -- “And yet, what struck me about Penny’s article is that, although in it she spells out her critique and exclusion of traditional family life, the article contains no suggestion that she knows traditional family life apart from academic analyses like Brooks’s or secondhand reports.”
• Genealogy Trips are the New Family Vacation -- “Before you get out your suitcases, do your homework! The key to figuring out where to explore your family roots is to talk to family members.”
• Hillsboro Methodist - Org. 1808, Jasper County -- “Both the town of Hillsboro and the church featured here owe their existence to one man, John Hill, who settled here in the early 1800s.”
• Something to Consider: A Response to Francis Chan and His Romish View of the Lord’s Supper -- “Every few years a prominent evangelical announces that he wants to go back to worshiping God the old-fashioned way, having discovered the ancient liturgy of the apostolic church....A gullible Protestant will often fall headlong into such a trap...”
• Texas Democrat Resigns after Calling Tim Scott an ‘Oreo’ -- “I am deeply and sincerely sorry for my inappropriate and hurtful use of racist term I used to describe Sen. Tim Scott on my personal Facebook page.”
• The Greek Text in Acts xx. 28; 1 Timothy iii. 16; and i John v. 7, 8 -- “But they may dismiss all such unnecessary fears. For the subject of various readings, which have been set forth in great capitals as fifty thousand, may be brought into a very small compass, so far as the doctrinal purity of the Greek text is concerned.”
• The Modern Critical Text -- “...there is not one Modern Critical Text, there are a number of Modern Critical Texts, perhaps an endless amount. The printed editions of the Modern Critical Text might possibly considered more of a tool than a text.”
• Why the King James? -- “The immediately inspired text is that which God inspired, and a mediately inspired text is that which mediates accurately the immediately inspired text in any ‘vulgar tongue.’”
• 1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism -- “Remember, that the orthodox believed the Scriptures to be “pure in all ages,” not in need of reconstruction. The shift from preserved to reconstructed is a shift in the doctrine of the church.”

Original autographs of the Bible

Some unique thoughts about the original autographs of the Bible:

Let us look at some undisputed facts about the originals. First: there never was a book of 66 originals of the Bible. Second: there never was a book of the 39 originals of the Old Testament. Third: there never was a book of the 27 originals of the New Testament. Fourth: no one living or dead ever saw the 66, 39 or 27 originals. Fifth: each of the originals was lost, worn out, destroyed or gone within 100 to 150 years of their writing. Sixth: the originals were written over a period of about 1600 years from the first book of Job to the last one Revelation. Seventh: the originals were written a distance of 1500 to 2000 miles apart from each other. Eighth: the originals were written in at least three different languages. Ninth: the originals were written on any number of kinds of materials, with any number of kinds of writing fluid. Tenth: the originals under God’s will and guidance incorporate many kinds of culture and background. Eleventh: no version in existence today was or is translated from any original. Twelfth: no one living today would know or recognize any one of the 66 originals if they saw one. And on and on and on. Therefore, in the light of the above to flee to the supposed sanctuary of the originals is unreal, hypocrisy, a fetish, and worse than the proverbial ostrich hiding its head in the sand and thinking it is covered and out of sight.

Ralph Irvin Yarnell, (A Fresh Look At The King James Bible, Marietta, OH: 1983, pp. 33-34)

An address to all

The following hymn appears at least as early as Hymns, Original and Selected, for the Use of Christians (5th edition Elias Smith, Abner Jones, Philadelphia, PA: Herald Office, 1812). There it is “Hymn 293. C. M. Address to all.” The author is unknown. It is a solemn warning of the inevitably of death as an appointment for all (Hebrews 9:27).
 
1. I sing a song which doth belong
To all the human race,
Concerning Death, which steals the breath,
And blasts the comely face;
 
2. Come listen all unto my call,
Which I do make today
For you must die as well as I,
And pass from hence away.
 
3. No human power can stop the hour,
Wherein a mortal dies;
A Caesar may be great today,
Yet death will close his eyes:
 
4. Though some do strive and do arrive
To riches and renown,
Enjoying health and swim in wealth,
Yet Death will bring them down.
 
5. Though beauty grace your comely face,
With roses white and red,
A dying fall will spoil it all,
For Absalom is dead:
 
6. Though you acquire the best attire,
Appearing fine and fair,
Yet Death will come into the room,
And strip you naked there.
 
7. The princes high and beggars die,
And mingle with dust,
The rich, the brave, the poorest slave,
The wicked and the just.
 
8. Therefore prepare to meet thy God,
Before it be too late.
Or else you’ll weep, lament and cry,
Lost in a ruined state.
 
In Hymns, Original and Selected, for the Use of Christians, the hymn has seven stanzas. As printed with the tune An Address for All in The Southern Harmony and The Christian Harmony, the hymn has eight stanzas. The eighth stanza probably is not original. It does not contain the internal rhyme as found in the first and third lines of the hymn in the other seven stanzas. William Walker may have added it, since he was using the hymn for a “doubled” tune and needed an even number of stanzas. The Christian Harmony uses the first four stanzas of this hymn with the tune Solemn Call.
 
For an eighth stanza with internal rhyme, I suggest the following possible substitute:
 
8. Therefore embrace, thy God to face,
Before it be too late.
Or else you’ll cry, lament and die
Lost in a ruined state.

In other words, tetchy and touchy

• accurate, adjective. Free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact; careful or meticulous.
• animadversion, noun. An unfavorable or censorious comment; the act of criticizing.
• corpus theologicum, noun. The body or collection of theology.
• demitasse, noun. A small cup of strong black coffee or espresso; also, the small cup used to serve this drink.
• Francophone, noun and adjective. (n.) A speaker of the French language, especially a native speaker. (adj.) French-speaking.
• Germanophone, noun and adjective. (n.) A speaker of the German language, especially a native speaker. (adj.) German-speaking.
• hawala, noun. A traditional system of transferring money used in Arabian and South Asian countries, whereby the money is paid to an agent who then instructs an associate in the relevant country or area to pay the final recipient.
• hawaladar, noun. A person who acts as an agent in a hawala transaction; a hawala dealer.
• negaholic, noun. A person with an excessively or habitually pessimistic outlook.
• odium theologicum, noun. Bitterness developed during or typical of controversy about religion; intense anger and hatred generated by disputes over theology (Latin, theological hatred).
• owldom, noun. The realm or domain of owls.
• perk tree, noun. A long pole; spec. a pole or rod, set up horizontally, from which to hang cloth or clothes.
• quaere, verb (transitive). To query; to question. Frequently with “whether.”
• query, noun. A question or inquiry.
• rigmarole, noun. A complicated, petty set of procedures; confused, rambling, or incoherent discourse; nonsense.
• spelunk, verb (used without object). To explore caves, especially as a hobby.
• suggestio rerum, noun. Suggestion or incorporation of things or matters.
• suggestio verborum, noun. Suggestion or incorporation of words. 
• sycophant, noun. A person who attempts to gain advantage by flattering influential people or behaving in a servile manner.
• ta, exclamation. (informal British) Thank you.
• tetchy, adjective. Bad-tempered and irritable.
• touchy, adjective. Apt to take offense on slight provocation.
• wastrel, noun. A wasteful or good-for-nothing person.
• whio, noun. A blue duck (New Zealand).

How Old Must a Pastor or Deacon Be?

Q. At what age may a person become a pastor or deacon?

A. The Bible mentions qualifications for the office of bishop/elder (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13; cf. Acts 6:1-7). There is no age-specific qualification – that is, no age (in terms of years) is given to which a person must obtain to be qualified. Some of the qualifications, however, indicate a man who has been around long enough to have some life experience. In general, the candidate for office has been around long enough that the qualities could be seen and judged. Paul mentions both wife & children. While that may not mean that every pastor and deacon explicitly must be married with children, surely Paul expected that would be the norm.

Paul told Timothy “Let no man despise thy youth” (1 Timothy 4:12). According to 1 Timothy 3:6 the bishop (pastor, elder) is to be “not a novice,” which likely refers to either lack of experience, or being a recent convert – as opposed to referring to a person’s age. Paul also advises in 1 Timothy 5:22, “Lay hands suddenly on no man…” The person appointed to office should be qualified to hold the office. The person should be known by the church to be qualified to hold the office.

The biblical qualifications for the offices of pastors and deacons should be taken seriously. Often they are not taken seriously, and even different qualifications required in their place. The other extreme should be avoided as well. This other extreme is a mentality of “don’t go in the water until you learn how to swim.” Fact is, pastoring and deaconing is a learning experience. No one will know what he needs to know when he begins. There is a certain amount of “on the job training.” Much of this could be alleviated, though, if we followed the biblical example of plurality of elders and deacons.

Did 17th Century Baptists Use the King James Bible?

What Bible were the English Baptist people using in the 17th century? Some decidedly say it was the Authorised or King James Version. Ed Edwards emphatically and absolutely claimed it was the Geneva Bible. He thought that the Baptists would not have used and were even boycotting the King James Bible. We might get some sense of the truth by examining the Scriptures quoted in their Confessions of Faith.

The London Baptist Confession of 1644 (1646 edition) (allowing for some spelling or typographical differences, and assuming the original is reproduced at the link) seems to follow the Authorised or King James Version rather than Geneva, in the four verses quoted in the introduction.

• Acts xxiv. 14, 15. But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers, beleeving all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets, and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust. (London Confession)
• But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• But this I confess unto thee, that after the way (which they call heresy) so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets, And have hope towards God, that the resurrection of the dead, which they themselves look for also, shall be both of just and unjust. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Acts iv. 20. For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard. (London Confession)
• For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• John xviii. 23. If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill; but if well, why smitest thou me? (London Confession)
• If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• If I have evil spoken, bear witness of the evil: but if I have well spoken, why smitest thou me? (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Matth. v.11, 12. & xix. 29. Blessed are yee when men revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoice, etc. (London Confession)
• Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice... (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Blessed shall ye be when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you for my sake, falsely. Rejoice... (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, 1646, Written by Benjamin Cox quotes Matthew 10:27-28 in a way that matches the Authorised Version rather than the Geneva Version.

• What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Appendix)
• What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the houses. And fear ye not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him, which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

In the verses quoted in the The Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations, 1651 it seems that sometimes they match the Authorised Version, but sometimes the Geneva. The quote of Ezekiel 43:11 does not seem to exactly match either. It might be, also, that there could be typographical errors in the some of the Confessions, that they did quote from either of the two, or that the Scriptures were written from memory, etc..

A Confession of the Faith of Several Churches of Christ in the County of Somerset, and of some Churches in the Counties neer adjacent. 1656 [The Confession is very rare, copies of the original being found only at the Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford, and at the British Museum.   Apparently neither Underhill nor McGlothlin knew of its existence, and it has probably not been printed in modern times.  A facsimile copy of the document found in the British Museum is given here.]

• I Peter iii. 15. Sanctifie the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (Somerset Confession)
• but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and reverence. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Acts xvii. 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of minde, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  (Somerset Confession)
• These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• These were also more noble men than they which were at Thessalonica, which received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

1 Peter 3:15 (except for the absence of the word “But”) and Acts 17:11 match the Authorised Version, whereas Matthew 10:32 and Isaiah 8:20 are the same in both the AV and Geneva.

The Orthodox Creed, Or, a Protestant Confession of Faith [The version of the Creed reproduced here has been transcribed from the original publication rather than the editorial tradition. The punctuation, capitalization, and spelling have been transcribed as published in the 1679 original...]

• Jude, 3.—That you should earnestly contend for the Faith, which was once delivered unto the Saints. (Orthodox Creed)
• that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• that ye should earnestly contend for the maintenance of the faith, which was once given unto the Saints. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Rom. 10.10. With the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness, and with the Mouth confession is made unto Salvation. (Orthodox Creed)
• For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth man confesseth to salvation. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• I Thess. 5.21. And as St. Paul saith, To prove all things, and hold fast that which is good; (Orthodox Creed)
• Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Try all things, and keep that which is good. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• I Tim. 1.17. Now unto the King Eternal, Immortal, Invisible, the only Wise God, be Honour and Glory, for ever and ever, Amen. (Orthodox Creed)
• Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Now unto the king everlasting, immortal, invisible, unto God only wise, be honor, and glory, for ever, and ever, Amen. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• I Kings 8.27. Is it true, indeed, that God will dwell on the Earth? Behold, the Heaven, and Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Thee: How much less this House which I have built, (Orthodox Creed)
• But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Is it true indeed that God will dwell on the earth? behold, the heavens, and the heavens of heavens are not able to contain thee: how much more unable is this house that I have built? (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Psalm 145.3. Great is the Lord, and worthy to be praised, and his Greatness is Incomprehensible. (Orthodox Creed)
• Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Great is the Lord, and most worthy to be praised, and his greatness is incomprehensible. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• I John 5.7. And there are three that bare Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, (Orthodox Creed)
• For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Mat. 28.19. Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, &c. (Orthodox Creed)
• baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Heb. 13.8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever, (Orthodox Creed)
• Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, the same also is forever. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Luke 20.44. David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? (Orthodox Creed)
• David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Seeing David called him Lord, how is he then his son? (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

Three examples from John Clarke in Ill Newes from New-England, 1652 suggests he was using both the Authorised and Geneva Versions (though they do not always exactly match, and he adds some comments). He perhaps was writing the texts from memory.

• Phi. 2. 9. Wherefore (saith the Apostle) God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name
• Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Joh. 3. 30,31 He must increase (saith Iohn the Baptist, who came in the spirit of Elias, and was, saith Christ, more than a Prophet, so that among those that were borne of Women be∣fore him there was not a greater) and I must decrease; he that cometh from above (saith he) is above all, he that is of the Earth is Earthly, and speaketh of the Earth, he that cometh from Heaven is above all, and what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his Testimony; he that hath received his Testimony hath set to his seal that God is true, for he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him; (Clarke, Ill Newes)
• He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• He must increase, but I must decrease. He that is come from on high, is above all: he that is of the earth, is of the earth, and speaketh of the earth: he that is come from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: but no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath receiveth his testimony, hath sealed that God is true. For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God giveth him not the Spirit by measure. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

• Mat. 17. 5. This is my wel-beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him; (Clarke, Ill Newes)
• This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Authorised Version at Bible Gateway)
• This is that my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear him. (Geneva Version at Bible Gateway)

Conclusion:

I have performed a quick review of some documents that might help reveal the Baptist use of an English Bible version. This gives an idea, but ideally more time should be spent, especially in checking actual Bible printings that were available at the time the documents were written, as opposed to using the transcriptions at Bible Gateway. Furthermore, time should be spent making sure that the transcriptions of the Confessions faithfully represent them as originally printed.

Nevertheless, I expect what I have found is fairly representative. If so, claims of Geneva exclusivism make a false narrative. These Baptists had no problem quoting the Authorised Version – clearly were not “boycotting” it! Neither did they exclusively use it. The Geneva Version still lived in their thoughts as well. This is all I had time to do. It would make an interesting study for someone to conduct in greater detail.

20 Articles That Refute, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• 20 Articles That Refute Modern Textual Criticism -- “...the TR position has a rich doctrinal structure, furnished with historical and Scriptural support.”
• Are Traditional Text Theorists KJVO? -- “The Traditional Text theorist would state that the Scriptures, both Hebrew and Greek texts, have been preserved according to the sovereign, providential work of God.”
• Arizona governor signs ban on abortions based on genetic abnormalities -- “Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law on Tuesday a measure banning abortions performed strictly on the basis of genetic disorders detected in the fetus, such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis...”
• Are The Words of The KJB Archaic and/or Obsolete? -- “Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives.”
• Democrat Portland Mayor ‘Done’ With ‘Anarchist Mob,’ Begs Public To Help ‘Unmask’ Rioters -- “The city is beginning to recover, but self-described anarchists who engage in regular criminal destruction don’t want things to open up, to recover.”
• ‘Gender critical’ beliefs protected by law, says equalities watchdog -- “The belief that trans women are men is protected by law, the equalities watchdog has confirmed. The statement from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) came as a landmark case over trans rights concluded this week.”
• God-Honoring and Bible-Based Christian Mutual Funds -- “When we stand before the Lord, we will have to give an account for our use of money, along with everything else.”
• London police pull elderly Christian preacher, 71, off his podium and ARREST him -- “...supporters say he refused to stop reading from the Bible about how God wanted families to be headed by a ‘father and a mother’.”
• Media Buried Lede That Kerry ‘Ratted’ on Israeli Covert Ops to Iran -- “Why didn’t you report that the leaked audio showed that John Kerry shared sensitive information with Iran, a US State Department designated state sponsor of terrorism?”
• Once Again: It’s Not Florida That’s Cooking the Books, It’s New York -- “...the official tally might have undercounted the true toll by as much as 50 percent. That was something Mr. Cuomo’s aides had known since the previous spring, The New York Times found.”
• Our Golden Age of the Craven Apology -- “...the Oscar for Most Depraved Sniveler goes to Hank Azaria, who voiced the Indian convenience store owner ‘Apu’ in The Simpsons.”
• Quotes That Everybody Should Copy and Paste on Any Post About Textual Criticism -- “Here are some quotes that should help you demonstrate to the fool his folly.”
• Senator Scott’s Home Run -- “Most of all, I’m saddened that millions of kids have lost a year of learning when they could not afford to lose a single day. Locking vulnerable kids out of the classroom is locking adults out of their future. Our public schools should have reopened months ago.”
• Steve Deace on ‘Faucian Bargain’: Second Opinions About COVID-19 Denied to Americans -- “We were told to trust the experts,” he said. “Why weren’t we permitted to get second opinions from counter experts...”
• Tennessee Republican Governor Strips Mask Mandate Authority From Health Departments -- “Above all else, Tennesseans have embraced the idea of personal responsibility, and have allowed us to get in this state from a public health crisis to a managed health issue.”
• The arrest of another Christian street preacher could prove costly for the Met -- “The CPS have to consider whether Pastor Sherwood’s preaching from the Bible reached the threshold of ‘abusive or threatening’ speech under Section 5 of the Public Order Act.”
• Thomas Watson's Directions For Profitable Bible Reading -- “Read the Scriptures with reverence; think about every line you read; God is speaking to you.”
• “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and Other Sermon Points I Didn’t Make Up: Some Thoughts on Pastoral Plagiarism -- “Passing off another person’s actual experience as your own isn’t just lying and stealing, it’s also just downright bizarre.”

New categories: backing up, to go forward

Continuing the thoughts begun Thursday in Recategorizing “KJV Only”, Friday in New categories for the Bible Versions Debates, and Saturday in Exploring some ideas for the Bible Versions Debates. On Saturday, I jumped too far ahead and left too many loose ends. This post attempts to back up and then go forward. I hope it helps.

For whatever reason most lists and their listers seem happy to focus on discussing King James Version views.[i] However, such lists usually commit a category error by lumping the person who likes the King James best and the person who thinks it is new revelation together in some “King James Only” category. Further, it is likely that we miss a lot of understanding of points of view when we focus only on that angle of the Bible Version Debates. For example, others who are not KJVO may have their own sort of exclusive view that goes unnoticed. Some Christians will only use a translation made from an underlying critical text – Textus Receptus or Majority Text “need not apply.”

Different views about Bibles and Bible versions can be examined on a spectrum from loose/open on one end to exclusive/closed on the other end. On the “open” end, there is generally the idea that it does not matter too much which Bible translation you use, or from which text it was translated.[ii] On the “exclusive” end, there is the idea that it does matter which Bible translation you use, as well as from which text it is translated. The most exclusive view says, “Only X Bible translation is the word of God.” Other views spread across the spectrum between the most open and the most exclusive.

How to better distinguish Bible version views might be arrived at by asking a series of questions that attempt to understand how each view approaches the Bible. These three would be the main questions. An answer, however, may require further investigation with other questions.

1. What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing?
2. What do you believe about the copies of the original writing?
3. What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing?

Then the taxonomist (the person creating the categories) appraises the answers and decides where the view fits on the spectrum.

Consider two of the views I introduced on Saturday. I will use the first two that are in that post. Ultimately, the differentiation on the more exclusive end of the spectrum will be, I think, the more important.

An example of how an Open View might reflect various factors related to the Bible:

Question: What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing? Answer: The Bible is inerrant and inspired. Taxonomist: This answer is an exclusive view (i.e., that the first writings are inspired and inerrant is limited to a dogmatic view that is not open to negotiation).

Q: What do you believe about the copies of the original writing? A: We cannot know for sure what the original is, or that we have the first writing in an accurate or complete form. Also, the copies that we have contain scribal errors. T: This answer is not dogmatic or exclusive, but open to varying possibilities (i.e., even though they believe the originals are inspired and inerrant, they cannot be sure that they have been passed down to us).

Q: What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing? A: All translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce other errors made by the translators. Therefore, Bible readers may choose any translation or translations that he or she prefers. T: This answer is not dogmatic or exclusive, but open to varying possibilities (i.e., the view will not prescribe one translation over another).

Considering the answers to the above questions, this Bible view belongs on the open end of the spectrum. It starts with an exclusive view, but moves to openness with the copies and translations. We might call it an “Open Text View” since its lowest common open denominator is at the textual level.

An example of how a Semi-Exclusive View might reflect various factors related to the Bible:

Question: What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing? Answer: The Bible is inerrant and inspired. Taxonomist: This answer is an exclusive view (i.e., that the first writings are inspired and inerrant is limited to a dogmatic or exclusive view that is not open to negotiation).

Q: What do you believe about the copies of the original writing? A: We do not have but can substantially reproduce the originals through collating and comparing manuscripts. Also, the copies that we have contain scribal errors, but the oldest copies are best. T: This answer is somewhat exclusive, but leaves open varying possibilities (i.e., even though they believe the originals are inspired and inerrant, they cannot be sure that they have been passed down to us complete or intact).

Q: What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing? A: Translations can substantially reproduce the original word of God; a formal equivalence translation made from a critical text (such as the NASB) should be used. T: This answer is somewhat exclusive. It is open to some varying possibilities, but those variations may only come from within a limited range of possibilities (i.e., the view will prescribe some translations and reject others).

Considering the answers to the above questions, this Bible view belongs toward the exclusive end of the spectrum. It starts with an exclusive view, but accepts some variation in the copies and translations. We might call it a “Semi-Exclusive Translation View” since it retains some exclusionary features regarding translations.

I hope this explanation and visual below will help bring the concept into better focus.

The above chart is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather only a visual example of how charting this work might begin. Click to enlarge.

---

[i] Not too many other views regarding Bible translations correspond to the way some believers regard the “King James Only” view, so it is true that it stands distinctively out from others. There certain peripheral groups who only use a Bible that they themselves have translated or revised (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and some of the Sacred Name” groups). 

[ii] People might get to this place traveling on different roads – for example, one believing that all copies and translations contain the inerrant word of God, or another believing that none of them is the word of God.