William Jr.’s Reviews > Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers > Status Update

D. Scott Meadows' "Why? It's the Word of God!" begins with a tinge of sarcasm but seriously develops a well-thought out and reasonable defense for his conviction regarding the TR and the KJV. "Shaving with another man's razor" - - okay, I need a mental floss. :-) (he deals ever so briefly on variants by citing Owen).

D. Scott Meadows' "Why? It's the Word of God!" begins with a tinge of sarcasm but seriously develops a well-thought out and reasonable defense for his conviction regarding the TR and the KJV. "Shaving with another man's razor" - - okay, I need a mental floss. :-)

Christian McShaffrey's "From Certainty, to Doubt, and Back Again" reasons for the KJV as an accurate translation of the authentic text. He preaches from the Greek Text through the KJV. He presents many good reasons for that. He caps his essay with a helpful dose of "Other Misc. Considerations" (eight considerations - fascinating for sure).

Robert McCurley's "Scripture Identified Scripture" mainly rests on the conviction that God supplies His Word, specifies and sustains it. He mentions a number of Biblical proof texts to assert his beliefs, then turns to the historical confession (Westminster COF) for affirmation, and makes application to the TR in 1 Tim. 3:16 and Matt. 6:13. His contribution is more of what I expected.

Brett Mahlen's "Hank, James, and Me: My Journey to the Received Text" was an honest and irenic presentation. Mahlen comes to the TR via reading Burgon, Hills, Letis, Riddle. He says that the "IFB" embraced the KJV but "divorced from the history of that translation" - this is too broad a swipe considering men like David O. Fuller, Donald Waite. He maintains respect for those whom he disagrees with - good for him.

Trevor Kirkland's "Why I Read and Preach from the TR and AV" points out something significant - God promised to preserve His words not "manuscripts." He also cites a couple of examples of textual/translational problems between the KJV and the NKJV (2 Ki. 23:29 & 2 Chr. 35:20) & Mic. 7:19. (FYI: the NKJV already admits that they take from the LXX & other sources in their preface). "blemishes" & "imperfections" pff.

Howie W. Owen Jones' "Perspective from the Pew" presents a simple but important point - either we have God's words perfectly preserved or we have an ocean of uncertainty. Short and non-technical but practical.

Philip Gardiner's "Should We Use Those Proof Texts?" presents a good point. Since the historic confessions cite passages that are currently in question by the critical text, should or could they be considered as authentic or use-able? He mentioned the common misconception by modern version advocates - simply making the English Bible easier to understand. The foundational question for which text is what truly matters.

Brent Evans' "Preaching in the Name of the Amen" presents a wonderful elaboration & defense for the TR's "Amens." Not only is there some powerful Christological and practical blessings surrounding the word "Amen" but the manuscript evidence supporting it is in the 99% including the Vaticanus. Evans classifies the critical text: ever-emerging, always-uncertain, recently-promoted, & provisionally-reconstructed. AMEN!

William Einwechter's "John Owen's Defence of the Received Text" is a good summary of Owen's view. Owen was near prophetic concerning a corrupted TR: "as an engine suited to the destruction of the important truth before pleaded, and as a fit weapon put in the hands of men of atheistical minds and principles, such as this age abounds withal, to oppose the whole evidence of truth revealed in the Scripture."