Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."
Image (left side): Decorative urn with title for the book of Acts in Codex Alexandrinus.
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
WM 263: Chris Myers on Why I Preach from the Received Text
JTR
6 comments:
A.G. Cripp
said...
The title of the book seems off. Don't all the authors *technically* "preach from the" KJV?
You might also be interested in the interview I did in WM 250 which included Archibald Allison, one of the contributors. He notes that he preaches from the NKJV. So, you're wrong. The book is about why the contributors preach from the Received Text.
Thank you for the response. It sounds like the exception makes the rule. But in all seriousness, the authors (save Mr. Allison) do indeed preach from the KJV, as opposed to any Greek edition of the "Received Text," correct?
So, I'm guessing this means you haven't actually read the book. The point is not to preach from "a Greek edition" but to make use of faithful Protestant translations based on the immediately inspired originals in both Hebrew and Greek. What do you think of another contributor Pooyan Mehrshahi who ministers to Persian speaking people and recently completed a translation of the NT into Pharsi that is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? Does he fit your stereotype of what our book is about?
Yeah, A.G. Cripp, The truth is that there aren't many readily available translations of the Received Text. The KJV and the NKJV are the two easiest to obtain. The MEV is a good one, but isn't as accessible as the previous two. I actually prefer personally the Geneva Bible and Young's Literal Translation. That being said, they aren't as accessible for church use. Therefore, by default, you will be limited to the KJV and NKJV as translations. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. The movement in my estimation carries a tighter conviction of "preservation" regarding the Scriptures. While most professing Evangelicals hold to a looser and more ambiguous point of view, the "Received Text" position limits inspiration and preservation to the Received Text and the Masoretic Hebrew as a foundation. I personally think that Dr. Riddle and others on the Received Text side have been fair minded concerning those with whom they disagree. However, I have seen that the other side as a whole hasn't been so charitable with a few exceptions. Many who desire to "win an argument" will misrepresent the other side. It is a common tactic these days in the realm of politics and the secular world. This should not be the case amongst Christians. Maybe an initial misunderstanding is permissible, but to plod on after learning the truth in false accusation is unacceptable. The KJV only accusations are false and "VERY" stale. It would be best for everyone if critics would move on and stop using it to dismiss these guys. It's very clear the difference between KJV Onlyism and the Received Text position. KJV onlyists hold to inspiration and preservation of the "ENGLISH TRANSLATION," and Received Text proponents hold to the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew texts as being the "Preserved Texts." So critics would be better served to argue their position correctly instead of raising the straw man of KJV onlyism. Just because they like the KJV doesn't make them KJV onlyists.
6 comments:
The title of the book seems off. Don't all the authors *technically* "preach from the" KJV?
AGC, have you read the book?
You might also be interested in the interview I did in WM 250 which included Archibald Allison, one of the contributors. He notes that he preaches from the NKJV. So, you're wrong. The book is about why the contributors preach from the Received Text.
JTR
Thank you for the response. It sounds like the exception makes the rule. But in all seriousness, the authors (save Mr. Allison) do indeed preach from the KJV, as opposed to any Greek edition of the "Received Text," correct?
AGC,
So, I'm guessing this means you haven't actually read the book. The point is not to preach from "a Greek edition" but to make use of faithful Protestant translations based on the immediately inspired originals in both Hebrew and Greek. What do you think of another contributor Pooyan Mehrshahi who ministers to Persian speaking people and recently completed a translation of the NT into Pharsi that is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? Does he fit your stereotype of what our book is about?
Yeah, A.G. Cripp, The truth is that there aren't many readily available translations of the Received Text. The KJV and the NKJV are the two easiest to obtain. The MEV is a good one, but isn't as accessible as the previous two. I actually prefer personally the Geneva Bible and Young's Literal Translation. That being said, they aren't as accessible for church use. Therefore, by default, you will be limited to the KJV and NKJV as translations. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. The movement in my estimation carries a tighter conviction of "preservation" regarding the Scriptures. While most professing Evangelicals hold to a looser and more ambiguous point of view, the "Received Text" position limits inspiration and preservation to the Received Text and the Masoretic Hebrew as a foundation. I personally think that Dr. Riddle and others on the Received Text side have been fair minded concerning those with whom they disagree. However, I have seen that the other side as a whole hasn't been so charitable with a few exceptions. Many who desire to "win an argument" will misrepresent the other side. It is a common tactic these days in the realm of politics and the secular world. This should not be the case amongst Christians. Maybe an initial misunderstanding is permissible, but to plod on after learning the truth in false accusation is unacceptable. The KJV only accusations are false and "VERY" stale. It would be best for everyone if critics would move on and stop using it to dismiss these guys. It's very clear the difference between KJV Onlyism and the Received Text position. KJV onlyists hold to inspiration and preservation of the "ENGLISH TRANSLATION," and Received Text proponents hold to the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew texts as being the "Preserved Texts." So critics would be better served to argue their position correctly instead of raising the straw man of KJV onlyism. Just because they like the KJV doesn't make them KJV onlyists.
What was that book that was refrenced? The one on the different heresies?
Post a Comment