Where Do We Stand?

Last week’s post generated plenty of conversation. I hope to highlight one of the points brought to light in a future post; namely, I will post on Tischendorf’s discovery of Sinaiticus and how the story is portrayed in the KJVO debate on all sides.

What got me thinking, though, is more along the lines of our personal backgrounds. I realize some of our regular guests have shared their own story, but I’m not sure that I even know where everyone stands on the issue. I see we have folks who regularly comment in support of the TR or MT but are not necessarily KJVO. We have others who are very critical of the CT but again, not KJVO. Then we have some who are indeed KJVO. I am also very interested in your theological leanings, as we’ve had people here who are not Christian at all. It helps to know who we’re talking to.

I’m wondering if those of you who regularly comment here (or who have in the past) would mind providing a little theological background and insight into your current thoughts on the Bible version issue. My fellow contributors are welcome to chime in as always. Even though we’ve given short bios on the authors page, and even though we all come from the IFB KJVO position, we have not all given our full position on this topic and I’m sure we even differ among ourselves.

To keep the commentary to the point, would you please follow these guidelines and answer these questions:

Guidelines: Please keep it brief yet specific. Please refrain from replying to a comment unless it addresses a specific point made (perhaps for an elaboration or clarification rather than an argument).

Questions:

1. What kind of church do you attend, if any?
2. What is your role in ministry, if any?
3. Has your position on the Bible version issue changed? If so, how?
4. How would you describe your current perspective on the TR, MT, and CT?
5. How important is this issue to you and how significant is it to your theology as a whole? (for example, do you practice separation if someone does not agree, etc)
6. What English Bibles do you recommend and use?
7. What resources have helped you, and which would you urge people to stay away from?
8. Finally, to keep things friendly, share with us what your favorite food is.

The above do not necessarily all have to be answered, or answered in order, but if you could frame your comments around these topics that would help us keep things clear and concise.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Where Do We Stand?

  1. Damien T Garofalo August 19, 2011 / 5:03 pm

    1. I attend a Reformed, Baptistic Church, in northern NJ. Calvinistic, conservative, evangelistic, plurality of elders, blended worship, expository preaching.
    2. I am a reader, a lay preacher, help coordinate evangelism, and teach in various capacities.
    3. My position certainly has changed, as I have shared on this site before (you can find that on the Contributors page).
    4. My current perspective on the texts is one of uncertainty. I am definitely not KJVO, and I don’t see good arguments to latch on to the TR as we know it as the final standard. In my fight against KJVO, I swallowed the CT arguments easily. I would say my default is CT, but I have an open mind and am intrigued by the MT position. I do not believe any edition of any text is perfect.
    5. It is important because of the widespread misinformation out there, especially at the popular level, by both the extreme King James Onlyists and by the liberal Ehrmanites. What I want to see is a return to a deep ecclesiology and respect for the text. I realize it is a complex issue. I am very concerned about the role of the Bible in evangelicalism (I believe in sola scriptura but not solo scriptura; see Keith Mathison for more on that). I affirm inspiration and inerrancy (along the Chicago statement lines), but I do not believe either is necessary for salvation; Christ must be the foundation, substance, and capstone of all theology. Our bibliology should flow from our Christology.
    6. My church typically uses the NKJV, though we do not demand as much. I teach and preach from the ESV most of the time. Where I teach, the school uses the NIV and have had no problem teaching and preaching from that version. I would recommend all mainstream, conservative English versions such as the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and HCSB. I would, however, prefer not to use the KJV (for archaisms) and the NIV (for borderline paraphrasing) is given the option.
    7. Resources: so many, as I’m sure others would mention them. I’ve found White’s book to be very helpful as a layman’s guide, despite some of the criticism received here. Before him, I read DA Carson’s book, which was very fine. I have benefited from One Bible Only? as well as James Price’s book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect. Many of the articles (by Kutilek and others) are posted on the sidebar, and all have shaped my thinking in one way or the other. Finally, the best one-stop resource is John Ankerberg’s 5-episode show on this topic, wherein starred Joseph Chambers, Dan Wallace, James White, Art Farstad, among others.
    8. My favorite food is Italian food. I love pizza, and I love Chicken Parmagiana.

  2. James Snapp, Jr. August 19, 2011 / 7:55 pm

    Damien,
    (1) I attend a non-denominational Christian Church, in the fellowship of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

    (2) I am a minister of the gospel.

    (3) My position on “the Bible version issue” has never been, and is not, KJV-Only. Ever since “The Message” and the TNIV were published, though, I have become more and more concerned about translational liberties taken with the text in some versions, and about what seem to be low discernment-levels in some evangelical publishing-houses and seminaries.

    (4) The TR is a generally good representative of the Byzantine Text but can be improved in many ways. The Majority Text is generally closer to the original text of the NT than the TR, and adequately represents, if rightly understood, the reports and instructions that were given to the church in the original text. At many points, though, the words it contains are not the same words written by the inspired authors of the New Testament. As for the critical text — well, to which critical text do you refer? I will rephrase the question: what is my perspective on the Alexandrian Text? I consider it a very important transmission-stream that includes some original readings which the Byzantine Text does not contain. But it also has significant omissions, substitutions, and additions, some of which, if adopted, would significantly change the meaning of the text and draw the doctrine of inerrancy into serious question.

    (5) I consider this issue an important question, but I tend to approach it primarily as an academic subject, not as a doctrinal one.

    (6) I tend to use the NKJV and HCSB on a daily basis, and consult the KJV and ESV. As of the 2011 revision, I do not use or recommend the NIV.

    (7) I have been helped by the following: Scrivener’s Intro, Lake’s Text of the NT, Metzger’s Textual Commentary, Metzger’s Text of the NT, Sturz’s ByzText & NTTC, Hort’s Intro, Salmon’s Some Thoughts, Miller et al’s Oxford Debate of 1897, Pickering’s Identity of the NT Text, Robinson’s Case for Byz Priority, Burgon’s Last 12 Verses of Mark, and Burgon’s Causes of Corruption. And more. All should be read thoughtfully, and then each should be re-read with a consideration of what the others presented. I would urge people to exercise extreme caution if they read any text-critical resources by Philip Wesley Comfort or by any graduate of Wheaton College or Dallas Theological Seminary. (Nothing against the schools themselves, but there seems to be a pattern of inaccurate and one-sided evidence-presentations by their grads when they write about NTTC.)

    (8) Pan-fried bluegill fillets.

    By the way, I have made a video presentation about how Constantine Tischendorf obtained most of Codex Sinaiticus and placed it on YouTube. It can easily by found by looking for “Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Tischendorf” at YouTube. The link is

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

  3. bibleprotector August 20, 2011 / 9:12 am

    1. I attend an independent local Church of which I am a co-founder. Our doctrine is Traditional Pentecostal (Word of Faith). Our view is that much of Pentecostalism is corrupt and has departed from the standards of old. The materials we use are our own, but we are strongly influenced by Smith Wigglesworth, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, John Avanzini and Keith Moore. We use creationist materials from Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. We teach the multiple interpretation of Bible prophecy and support both pre-mill, pre-trib futurism and also Protestant historicism (e.g. B. W. Johnson). We have the pro-Protestant view.

    2. I am an Elder. I also have a Bible teaching website http://www.bibleprotector.com and I also have a youtube channel with plenty of materials.

    3. I grew up in a mainstream Pentecostal denomination. I had no real understanding of different versions, except that the KJB was preferred. As a Christian I soon became KJBO/Textus Receptus Only. Since the Church has begun, I have been KJBO. We have developed the case for having one standard edition of the KJB, and have

    4. As an English text supersuccessionalist, I see diminished importance of the historically important TR (the real “MT”), I am against the modern MT & CT positions. We want all Christians to use the KJB. In missions we see the best way forward in promoting the English language and having people use the KJB.

    5. I see KJBO is a highly significant issue because of its relationship with other doctrines, most interestingly, historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy, where the KJB can actually be identified in Daniel and Revelation. I accept that there are Christians who are not KJBO. I can see, however, that departing from the KJB is linked with doctrinal compromise.

    6. I recommend and use only the KJB. We promote using the Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB.

    7. Helpful resources on the Bible Version issue were for me the materials such as E. Hills and Dr T. Holland’s writings. Good resources include Brandon Staggs and Will Kinney. I have developed material myself, and am not a “KJBO parrot”.

    Unhelpful resources include D. A. Carson’s book because it fails to understand the role of English, James White’s book for it’s miscategorization and misrepresentation of sound KJBOism. I think that Doug Kutliek’s material is the worst. I would recommend people avoid certain rabid anti-KJBO people who post in some internet forums.

    8. My favorite food is honey.

  4. Richard Corniel August 20, 2011 / 7:46 pm

    1. Damien’s co-laborer in the Faith.

    2. Layman. However, intrigued by van till and bahnsen’s thinking.

    3. Yea, James White saved me from the KJBO type thinking.

    4. God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men -WMLC

    5. Acts 4: “11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

    6. KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NET BIBLE.

    7. aomin.org

    8. Spanish, Italian, American food.

    Blessings.

  5. Jim August 21, 2011 / 8:37 am

    1. I attend a Quaker Meeting.

    2. The Quaker tradition I am a member of does not have ministers; but I have been called to serve as the Clerk of the Meeting for next year. I have been a Prison Chaplain in the past.

    3. My view of the Bible version issue is in flux. It has changed since I started reading the Bible on a daily basis about six years ago. My view of this is influenced by my past Buddhist studies and how translation philosophies and approaches have effected how Buddhism is presented in the west. I have, for example, read and compared seven translations of the Lotus Sutra into English and seen how different approaches generate different renderings. There is also a lot of debate among Buddhist scholars as to the accuracy of source texts (Pali, Tibetan, Chinese) and their status and reliability. So I bring this with me to the Bible version issue. At this time I tend to agree with David Norton when he wrote that he feels that the fidelity of the KJV to its sources has been underestimated; that in general it is more accurate than many modern scholars would be inclined to grant.

    In other words, I have very gradually become a KJV Preferentialist rather than an onlyist. I still find value in other versions, and unlike most people here I enjoy reading the NRSV, which was my first Bible, and which I still have a fondness for. I appreciate the apparatus, such as footnotes, found in the NRSV and the NKJV and often find them helpful. I am not a fan of either the NIV or NASB; though I sometimes refer to them. I haven’t found the ESV attractive, but I have no animus against it either.

    4. I have become extremely skeptical of modern NTTC. The more I read of it the less coherent it appears to me. My view of the CT is that not only does it not bring us closer to the original text (assuming there was an original), but also the CT cannot do so. That is to say I believe that the procedures used to generate the CT actually subvert the appearance of the original.

    My view is that the procedures of NTTC can be tested by applying them to existing examples of multiple versions of a work where we do have the autographs. When the procedures are applied to such a situation, do these procedures generate the autographs? In my opinion they do not, and therefore NTTC fails as a methodology. Historically, I think the drift to a teeny tiny number of marginal texts has not been a good thing and has resulted only in confusion and a diminution of the NT as a whole.

    5. That’s an interesting question. The Quaker tradition is not a sola scriptura tradition; the experience of the ‘inner light’, or the ‘inner Christ’, or ‘that of God within all people’ is considered to be more significant. Early Quakers were steeped in the Bible, but their relationship to scripture was more fluid than most reformation traditions. So in a sense this issue is secondary to me. It is more important to love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to dwell in the Presence of eternity.

    6. I recommend the KJV for both religious and cultural reasons. Religiously I find it to be the most inspirational, the most poetic, and the version most likely to transmit a feeling of exaltation. Culturally, the KJV is the version which most resonates with such things as Handel’s Messiah, a huge amount of poetry, and many other cultural contexts. If one reads a modern version, that cultural connection is mostly lost.

    7. I have found David Norton’s work helpful. He helped clarify for me aspects of the KJV in a more positive light. Metzger’s works have been a big influence on me, though I don’t always agree with his conclusions I admire his dedication and scope of knowledge. I didn’t find James White’s work helpful and I think it often misrepresents the KJV. I think White often over-generalizes. White tends to use debate tactics in the book which I do not find helpful. To pick one minor example, he tends to conflate KJV appreciation or preferentialism with KJV only. I think a non-debater would have a more nuanced approach.

    8. Crackers are my favorite food. Yup, crackers!!! Whoever invented crackers was a great benefactor of humanity.

    Jim

  6. Nazaroo August 21, 2011 / 10:24 am

    Hmmm… Before this gets out of hand, let me offer some advice.
    The same advice that police services offer all over the world,
    without variation:
    Don’t volunteer personal information over the internet.
    And this includes more than just your personal pin numbers.

    That having been said, some of the questions are not necessarily personal, or at least do not require personal information in the sense above, only opinions.

    I would have to qualify my own answers with similar issues,
    although my situation and factors will not be the same as others.
    As a technical person involved in: (1) proprietary company property, (2) patents etc., (3) confidentiality agreements, (4) security agreements (5) technologies that have military and other applications (what new technology doesn’t?), I cannot give personal info or indeed a lot of other info.

    But in the Spirit of as much transparency as is feasible and responsible, I’ll give my shot. I must add that as part of team, I’m not the only ‘Nazaroo’…

    1. I attend church wherever I’m invited, and welcomed. I have learned that the hand can’t say to the eye “I’ve no need of you”, and if the analogy of a living body is of much use, this includes necessary blood-cells, which not only transport food and oxygen to every region, but also form essential communication channels for good health and intelligent operations. I have learned to live with my role as a blood-cell in the body of Christ.

    2. I am a technical person, and have felt the call to do textual criticism for nearly 30 years, back when there wasn’t much out there.

    3. My position on the Bible has indeed changed (by this I presume you mean while being a Christian). I am more convinced than ever that God has preserved His word by simple means, and that ‘critical texts’ are a disaster.

    4. Printed copies of the TR are probably not perfect. But a text as close to perfect as we wish, according to our efforts is easily achievable. The Maj.Text is about as close to perfect as you are going to get without more advanced techniques, including the documentation of historical edits.
    The CTs (plural) are currently substandard to the point of appalling, and are only good for their apparatus, which isn’t saying much.

    5. For me establishing scientifically the reliability of the NT text is essential for its authority in this day and age, and should precede any special claims based on exact wording of passages.

    6. I am willing to use TR-based translations for reference, teaching, and debate, but I am well aware at this point of their translational problems.

    7. Learn Greek and Hebrew. Stay away from Text-critical handbooks, unless you already have a very firm foundation in the faith and the authority of Holy Scripture.

    8. I keep the food-laws in the Bible, because I believe that Man has an ideal diet, like every animal does (ask any farmer). I trust the word of God in regard to food, when applied with intelligence. Food is a tool. A means to an end. I couldn’t care less about food. I wish I were free from having to waste time eating, when I can be working. Unfortunately, you can’t run a car on an empty tank.

    Nazaroo

  7. Richard Corniel August 21, 2011 / 10:01 pm

    BP,

    You said: ” I can see, however, that departing from the KJB is linked with doctrinal compromise.

    Can you clarify your statement and if possible point to the specific doctrine(s).

    TY

    Nazaroo,

    ?

    • bibleprotector August 22, 2011 / 7:33 am

      I am not talking about specifics (though there are specifics), but rather over all, a spiritual waning.

      Over and again, I have noticed that moving toward liberal theology and worldly compromised positions are by people who depart far from the KJB.

      I have seen it in many denominations, and first hand in Pentecostalism.

      Even the Calvinist Bible college in my city seems to have become intellectually compromised since one of their own was part of the NIV.

    • MWicks August 23, 2011 / 2:10 pm

      Bibleprotector may have a point. I’m not a KJVO, but I have also noticed that some of the people who use the NIV are less careful about the precision of words in biblical terminology.

  8. MWicks August 23, 2011 / 2:37 pm

    1. A Baptist church that holds to the doctrines of grace.
    2. Church musician and Bible teacher.
    3. My father used the NASB when he went to Bible school but was turned off by a certain amount of inaccuracy in the critical notes of that Bible, and went back to the KJV. So, I grew up reading and memorizing the KJV. In my teens and early college days, I leaned towards the KJVO position. However, it was a KJVO pastor that convinced me there was something wrong when he brought up Acts 12:4 to try to prove that the English word in the KJV is “correct” even though it is different from the Greek word of the TR. I couldn’t trust that kind of reasoning. Since then, I rejected the idea that the KJV is 100% the same as the TR. Later, it was recommended that I read Gary Zeolla’s book “Difference Between Bible Versions”, which is in support of the MT tradition. I’m somewhere in that ballpark now.
    Right now, I love to read (devotionally) from the KJV, teach from the NKJV (mostly), and cannot live without e-sword (20+ versions, including interlinears, English versions of the Septuagint, the Syriac Peschitta, and Wycliff New Testament) on my tiny computer that I take with me practically everywhere for Bible study.
    4. From everything I have read, I beleive that the MT/Byzantine tradition is closer to the originals than the CT. Between the MT and the TR, I am not always sure which reading to pick. I have wanted for some time to learn Greek and Hebrew firsthand, but providence has not allowed for that. I do my best with the tools I have, like e-sword, etc.
    5. I think that the difference between the MT/TR and the CT positions do have some doctrinal significance, though not of such significance that I stop fellowship with people of different persuasions. [MT and TR are closer, I do wonder about MT’s omission of Acts 8:37. I have not seen enough good research/evidence in either direction on this variant.] Many in my own fellowship hold differing views to my own. Now, I would practice separation if on the one hand, the inspiration, infallibility, or sufficiency of the scriptures is being denied, or on the other hand, if there is a belief in double-inspiration or the idea that you can only be saved by the KJV. Otherwise, I do fellowship with all the people who are agreeable to do so, as far as this issue is concerned.
    It is a very personal issue, though. Sometimes I wonder why I come back to this after all the headaches I’ve had over it. Maybe because I love the Word of God!
    6. I favour any literal translation in the MT/TR tradition. (ALT,MSTC,EMTV,LITV,Gevena, for example) I prefer the KJV myself. I am on my 7th time reading the complete KJV Bible and I only occasionally need a dictionary. Even if it may be the best Bible (one of the), it cannot forever be the only Bible since language is always changing. I echo with Paul that I would rather say five words that people can understand than 1000 words in an unknown tongue. For people whose first language is not English, I would NOT recommend the KJV. I generally recommend the NKJV. The NKJV reference Bible with the translators notes (in addition to the textual notes) is the best because it defines a lot of the more technical language that remains in the NKJV. NIV is too loose for me, ESV would be better if it had offset inserted words with italics. NASB is not used because of it’s reliance on the CT. NET is interesting for its textual notes, but way too paraphasistic in its final text. NLT? No thank-you!
    7. In a nutshell from KJVO to CT – David Cloud, Trinitarian Bible Society, “Difference Between Bible Versions” by Gary Zeolla, Daniel Wallace. There is an interesting sermon series on textual criticism by a certain Baptist, Harold Chase who has wandered somewhat from the KJVO position. I like James White’s soteriology, but I supect that I may not agree with his Bibliology, so I want to read his book about KJVO eventually. One of these days, I’m also planning to read Burgeon’s book about “unholy hands” on the Bible.
    DA Carson’s “The King James Only Debate” is not helpful. It is understandable for its date of printing (1979), but this is before even the NKJV (1982) and the printing of a Majority Text New Testament (1982). It is out of date and in my opinion, and sometimes too biased.
    Also stay away from the writings of Riplinger, Ruckman, etc, but remember that there is misinformation on both sides of the spectrum. In my opinion, last week’s Will Kenney vs. James White debate demonstrates this.
    8. I like pretty much all foods, except coffee. I favour whole, natural, and unprocessed foods and enjoy fine cuisine from many ethnicities.

  9. Richard Corniel August 23, 2011 / 4:21 pm

    BP,

    Could you point out one of the specifics?

    Mwick,

    Yea, I think you should read White’s book or at least look up the relevant chapters he points out some problems in the KJV and does a comparison of the major bible versions(NIV, NASB, KJV). I think you will find it interesting.

    However, I think that the KJV rules when it comes to the book of Psalms.

  10. Wes August 26, 2011 / 12:33 am

    1. I go to a very liberal Episcopal Church
    2. I am not currently involved in any church related ministry, although I do quite a bit of mentoring and teaching on my back porch.
    3. I have become more convinced over the years that the texts behind the KJV are the words God has preserved, that the passages brought into the Traditional Text from the Latin witnesses by the criticism of the KJV translators was of God and was a restoration of the text, and that the KJV translators, because of their erudition and especially because of their belief that they were translating not just the Word of God, but the words of God, were careful to put the words over, as much as possible, into simple, generic English, and to distinguish between the words of God and those supplied by the translators. I do not see this kind of craftsmanship in even the very good modern translations. I think those learned men knew some things that have been lost. The more I look at their work and compare it with the original language texts, the more I marvel at their skill. So I have changed in becoming stronger in my conviction that the KJV is THE Word of God in English until such time that God raises up a group of men who will follow the traditional texts and who will translate along the same principles with the same learned craftsmanship.
    4. Current perspectives on TR, MT, and the CTs. Hort, a hostile witness, said that the great majority of the manuscripts as represented by the TR are essentially carbon copies of an exemplar. He regarded the exemplar as the Antioch recention, which, apparently, is a necessary postulation of his theory of the history of the text. Dean Burgon points out that there is no mention in history of this recention. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that this 99% of all the Greek manuscripts are descendants of the originals. The Traditional MT as presented in the Second Great Rabbinic Bible: I think this is generally true of it. As for the Critical Texts, both the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstadt, and the UBS texts of the NT, and the BHS of the OT, I think they are valuable tools for examining the readings of the manuscripts, versions, fathers, etc. I use them frequently. However, I also believe the Scripture teaches, and therefore I believe, that God has both breathed out and providentially preserved His words in the Scriptures. So I expect that the great majority of the MSS OT or NT most likely preserve the words God gave.
    5. How important is this to my Theology? Well, if I believed the modern approach to textual criticism as taught by, for example, Metzger, then I would have to believe that a. The great body of MSS represented by the TR is corrupt and unreliable. But common sense would also tell me that this little handfull of early MSS which disagree not only with the TR, but with each other in thousands of places, that these cannot be but a mess either, and that, therefore, if God ever did give anything that He did not preserve it. And in reverse of my understanding that if God gave Scripture, he necessarily would have to preserve it, I would conclude that if it is clear that nothing has been preserved (that we just have a collection of manuscripts that are all to one degree or another corrupt)then, necessarily, it is because nothing was given. I would agree with Metzger that the idea of a preserved, inspired Bible is ridiculous. I certainly could not hold with any kind of certaintly to any more than a bare frame idea that there may have been a Jesus, but what did he do or what did he say would be second-hand or worse and certainly not of any divine origin; just high ideas of well intentioned men. So, in short, I would go back to being an honest agnostic.
    6. I recommend, of course, the KJV, and I recommend that the better of the modern translations be used as commentaries, but with the understanding that they are not worthy of putting one’s full weight down on.
    7. Resources I recommend: Scrivener’s Introduction to NT Criticism, Horts intro, all of John Burgeon’s writings on the subject, Benjamin Wilkinson’s Our Authorized Bible Defended, Metzger, F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, whose book I enjoyed, but disagree with, E.F. Hills Authorized Version Defended, some of D.A. Waite’s information, Pickering, The Byzantine Text Type by I can’t remember who, The introduction to Hodges and Farstadt’s Majority Text, the introduction to the UBS critical texts, the many articles from Far East Bible College regarding the doctrine of Providential Preservation that can be found on the Web. Things to stay away from: the KJVO people who go in circles in their reasoning and defend by launching ad hominim arguments; the anti-KJVO who do the same and from those who want to break fellowship with those who disagree on this subject.
    8. Favorite food: FOOD

  11. Bill Brown August 27, 2011 / 2:46 pm

    1. What kind of church do you attend, if any?

    North American Baptist

    2. What is your role in ministry, if any?

    Praise Team leader

    3. Has your position on the Bible version issue changed? If so, how?

    Yes…and no. I began by liking the KJV (and still do). But my early bibles did not have text-critical notes so when you find something like the Comma Johanneum missing in the NIV, it certainly gets your attention. What flipped me, however, was the KJVO position as espoused by Pensacola Christian College on their VHS tape series that they mailed to a bunch of fundamentalist churches back in 1998. I watched it and researched it – and came out anti-KJVO (which should not be confused with anti-KJV).

    4. How would you describe your current perspective on the TR, MT, and CT?

    In favor of CT but persuadable. The “which CT” question is only valid if one holds a VPP view, which I don’t. We could just as easily ask “which TR” or for that matter “which MT.” There are some places I think CT is overly dogmatic.

    5. How important is this issue to you and how significant is it to your theology as a whole? (for example, do you practice separation if someone does not agree, etc)

    It is only an issue if someone spouts the one Bible only cult. Otherwise it is best to live and let live. I don’t think a person who uses a TR-based Bible is going to Hell or a bad person – or even necessarily ill-informed. I don’t think a person who holds to Robinson’s view or Hodges’s view is ill-informed. And I don’t think someone holding to Harry Sturz’s view is ill-informed, either.

    6. What English Bibles do you recommend and use?

    My favorite is the NKJV simply because of the text-critical notes. I also like the ESV (which I’ve been reading much lately) and the RSV.

    7. What resources have helped you, and which would you urge people to stay away from?

    Most resources on this issue are helpful in at least some way. Avoid Riplinger-Ruckman-Waite and those other “sans reality” theological-based arguments. Otherwise, there are a variety of helpful resources on all sides. I highly recommend one read MT sources to learn about MT positions (something that appears to lack sometimes). I also enjoyed the work of Zuntz as well as Elliott, Fee, and Sturz.

    8. Finally, to keep things friendly, share with us what your favorite food is.

    Pizza

  12. Harrison Hamada September 3, 2011 / 10:42 am

    1 Episcopalian but also non-denominational
    2 bible study teacher, plus individual outreach
    3 I wouldn’t say it has changed dramatically, just the normal ebb and flow
    4 I believe that CT is preferable, and use them by default, but I also use MT and TR.
    5 When I deal with CLEARLY heterodox theology, I make correction, but MOST Christians do not have the capacity to understand the differences. It makes no sense to shake what little understanding they do have.Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. ALSO, “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”
    6 I primarily use NASB and ESV for studying, and KJV for memorization because the poetry makes it easier. When I teach my beginning classes, it is usually NIV because of simplicity. My “advanced” classes use a mix, but usually NASB/ESV. If I could recommend only ONE, I’d probably recommend NASB over the ESV, because there are so many tools that the ESV has not had time to develop yet.
    7 Internet, Metzger’s Textual Commentary, Metzger’s Text of the NT, and others
    8 Southern Italian, Cantonese

Comments are closed.