WM 331: "PhD Onlyism": The Critic Critiqued

 

JTR

WM 330: Changes coming to Modern Bibles

 

JTR

WM 329: Scrivener Series.Part 3 of 3: Did Scrivener "Back Translate" his Greek NT from the KJV?

 

JTR

WM 328: Scrivener Series.Part 2 of 3: Scrivener's Greek New Testament

 

JTR

WM 327: Scrivener Series.Part 1 of 3: Life of F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891)

 

JTR

WM 326: Confessional Subscription & the Septuagint

 

Read the article reviewed here.

JTR

WM 325: Review of Seven Significant & Curious Problems with Mark Ward's "Scholarly" Article on Psalm 12:6-7

Here are notes from my review of MW's "scholarly" article:

First: The article, beginning with its title, attacks a straw man.

Mark Ward suggests he is opposing those who hold that there are (or were in 1611) extant “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible” and conflates this with those who hold to the perfect preservation of the Scriptures (as in WCF 1:8: “kept pure in all age”). He never demonstrates (through credentialed citations), beyond his own assertions, that those whom he lists as his opponents advocate for the existence of “Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible.”

Second: MW falsely blames the KJV’s use of the adjective “pure” (Psalm 12:6) and the verb “preserve” (Psalm 12:7), for causing confusion regarding the proper interpretation of Psalm 12 (see p. 30).

These terms in English were not invented by the KJV translators but are part of the classic Protestant English translation tradition. See the use of the same terms at Psalm 12 in Coverdale’s Psalter (1553).

Third, MW falsely suggests that interpretations of Psalm 12:6-7 as related to the preservation of Scripture are the result of “English-only exegesis” which “can give rise to falsehoods and unnecessary divisions within the body of Christ” (p. 30).

Those he lists as suggesting Psalm 12:6-7 as relating to the preservation of Scripture, however, clearly do not do so simply on the basis of English translations, but on the reading/interpretation of the Hebrew original (cf. Thomas Strouse and PVK2 on “gender discordance” as a stylistic feature of Hebrew) (p. 32).

Fourth, MW misrepresents my position in this article.

He lists myself, “Jeffrey Riddle,” as a “leading” proponent of the interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 which he opposes, but he does not accurately present my position. The best documentation he can provide for my views are two quotations (one not properly enclosed in quotation marks) taken out of context from a 2022 podcast [see pp. 32-33]).

I have done no formal, published writing on this passage. Oddly enough, MW makes no reference even to the only informal writing I have done on this text in the only blog post.

Fifth, in his “interpretive plebiscite” MW perpetuates his straw man presentation of his opponents, who supposedly read Psalm 12:6-7 as promising “perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 39).

Of course, the straw man view will not be found in the survey, because, as far as I know, no one hold it. The real question is whether there are interpreters of Psalm 12:6-7 which connect this passage to the preservation of the “pure words” of Scripture, prior to the rise of KJVO in the mid-20^th century.

Even MW’s survey is suspect as he overlooks historical figures who interpret Psalm 12:6-7 counter to his thesis (e.g., John Wesley, Ebenezer Ritchie, etc.).

MW’s false pretext, leads to false conclusions: “This writer could not find a single interpreter before the advent of KJV-Onlysim who interpreted Psalm 12:6-7 to promise perfect manuscript copies of the Bible” (p. 49).

Sixth, MW insists that the “purity” and “preservation” of Scripture in Psalm 12:7 can only apply to the content of Scripture and not to the words of Scripture (see p. 50).

He here denies the classic Protestant construal of the authoritas divina duplex.

He also completely rejects the classic Protestant approach which acknowledges the existence of textual variants in the transmission of manuscripts while also affirming the providential preservation and reception of Holy Scripture.

See Thomas Watson’s comments on the preservation of both the matter and form of Holy Scripture.

Seventh, MW thus wrongly concludes that Psalm 12:6-7 is completely irrelevant as an apologetic prooftext for both the purity of Scripture (in content and words) (v. 6) and the preservation of Scripture (v. 7), as well as the preservation of God’s people (v. 7), and suggests that anyone who holds such a view in like Athanasius standing along against the world.

He does not acknowledge that one might well hold a “both-and” perspective on Psalm 12:7. It refers both to God’s preservation of his needy people and the preservation of everyone of his promises (words) to them. This indeed is a distinct theme we see elsewhere in Scripture (see Isaiah 59:20-21).

Counter to MW’s conclusion, the view that Psalm 12:6-7 applies to the preservation of the purity of Scripture is hardly an “Athanasius” that must stand “against the world.” Even MW’s own article lists more than 20 historical figures who held such a position.

JTR

WM 324: W. H. Auden: Stick to Cranmer and King James

 

JTR

WM 323: Article Review: The Supposed Missing נ Verse in Psalm 145

 

Why have modern Bibles, like the NIV and ESV, begun adding a supposedly "missing" verse in Psalm 145?

Are they "correcting" the "corrupted" traditional Hebrew text or misunderstanding an original, intentionally irregular acrostic Psalm?

Read the article under discussion here.

JTR

WM 322: Interview: Taylor DeSoto, The Received Text: A Field Guide

 

JTR

WM 320: Initial Response: ESV Text Update (2025)

 

JTR

WM 319: A Response to Mark Ward's Offer to "Translate" the 1689 Confession

 

Self-identified recovering KJVO-ist, freelance youtuber, and now ardent critic of the King James Version, Mark Ward recently issued a call on his youtube channel for a new “translation” of the 1689 Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration and WCF) into modern English.

Ward begins this call by noting, “In 2021 in preparation for my ordination I translated the 1689 LBC into modern English.”

Ward, somewhat unsurprisingly, notes that he found “dead words” and “false friends” in the Confession, terms those familiar with his dogged attacks on the “intelligibility” of the KJV will quickly recognize.

Ward says he dealt with such terms in his “translation” of the Confession using modern language as he prepared for his ordination to pastoral ministry at the now defunct Cornerstone BC of Anacortes, Washington.

We’ll return to this statement later to examine Ward’s RB ministerial credentials.

Ward gives five examples of supposedly outdated words in the Confession that, he insists, need to be “translated.”

I found no merit in any of the five examples that would justify this. More importantly, I found that two of Ward’s examples are theologically problematic.

The first of these is “circumstances” from 1:6. Ward says this term is “obsolete” in the modern context. He makes no mention of the fact, however, that “circumstances” has long been a technical term among Reformed theologians in discussions especially over the Regulative Principle of Worship.

He does not draw attention to a classic distinction between “substantial” (essential) elements and “circumstantial” parts of worship.

Michael Bushel in his book Songs of Zion, explains:

Circumstances are defined by [James Henley] Thornwell as “those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all or cannot be done with decency and decorum.”

Bushel continues:

The time and place of worship, for instance, may be seen as a circumstance of worship, because one cannot worship God without doing so at a specific time, and yet the aspect of time does not, and need not, be considered in a definition of what constitutes an act of worship (29).

In Ward’s so-called  “translation” of the Confession, he says he rendered the word “circumstances” as “extraneous details.” This does not, however, accurately convey what the framers of the Confession meant by the term “circumstances.” The time when the church meets for worship is not an “extraneous detail,” but a part of worship which is not “substantial” or “essential.”

The second example is Ward’s handling of the word “authentical” in 1:8. According to Ward this word has nothing to do with the contemporary word “authentic,” meaning genuine or matching with the originals, despite the fact that in context the framers refer to the text as immediately inspired and “kept pure” in all ages (i.e., the true text is consistent with the originals).

Here Ward’s bias towards the “reconstruction” method of textual criticism shines through. “Authentical,” for Ward, can’t mean that the text kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence matches the original, because, according to Ward, they did not have the originals. So, it can only more vaguely mean something like an approximation of the text which is, nonetheless, still “authoritative.”

New Zealand Reformed theologian Garnet Howard Milne, however, in his book Has the Bible been kept pure?, a monograph dedicated to WCF 1:8 cites the 17^th century definition of “authentical” by the English divine Edward Leigh (1602-1671). Leigh said:

The question betwixt us and the Papists, now cometh to be considered, which of these Editions is authentical, that is, which of it self hath credit and authority, being sufficient of it self to prove and commend it self, without the help of any other Edition, because it is the first exemplar or Copy of divine truth delivered from God by the Prophets and Apostles (133).

Milne concludes, “In other words, the authentical edition is the correct copy of an author’s work” (133). Such a definition does not fit with Ward’s “translation.”

The other three examples Ward offered [“private spirits” in 1:10; “opposite to all good” in 6:4; and “necessities” in 27:2], as noted, IMHO do not warrant any adjustment in the text, but can be more than adequately understood by the mature reader.

Ward’s approach to the Confession recalls some of the problems evident in his approach to the AV, as pointed out by James Snapp, Jr. in an October 29, 2024 blog post, which Ward, has, thus far, completely ignored. Snapp, BTW, is hardly a proponent for either the traditional text or traditional Protestant translations.

Snapp’s article is titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim About the KJV,” and was written to respond to a now rather infamous statement made by Ward that it would be sinful to give the KJV to a child. Here, in part, is what Snapp wrote:

Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture.  No Scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum.  Christians are instructed to worship together.  Christians should consider the Scriptures together…

We are expected to mature.  With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible.  We are expected to fellowship together.  We are expected to learn…. The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings.  The shortcoming is in the individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.   

 Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….

 I encourage Mark Ward:  come out of your fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new things.

Snapp makes the valid point that Ward advocates for an impossible goal of “absolute intelligibility” in a Bible translation, for any reader, of any age or maturity.

Snapp’s critique of Ward’s views on English Bible translations is also applicable to his newly expressed views on the Confession. No substantial and significant written document will ever be “incapable of being misunderstood.”

What is more, the case can be made that the historical Confession in its original form is not unintelligible to modern readers, who approach it with humility in the context of Christian community, instructed by teaching elders, and informed by a tradition of classic Protestant interpretation.

Oddly enough, after covering his five examples of supposedly “outdated” terms in the confession, Ward proceeds to justify revision of the Confession based on how the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) was updated after WW2. The Anglicans did it, so why shouldn’t we?

This seems to be a peculiar argument, because it was, in fact, the liberal mainline factions of the Episcopal denomination that embraced revision to the prayer book on their way to liberalizing church practices relating to issues like ordination of women.

It has been the conservative and orthodox Anglicans who broke away from the liberal mainline that have held fast to the 1662 prayer book.

I can tell you that if there ever comes a time, in my lifetime, when a group of Reformed Baptists reject the original text of the 1689 Confession in favor of a modern “translation” of it, I and my church will be among many that will be forced to separate from them.

I have no doubt that if any church were to accept even the few changes Ward suggested in his video, they would be at risk of departing, at the least, from the classic confessional view of the regulative principle of worship and from the classic confessional view of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved Scriptures as “authentical.”

Eventually, Ward proposes that a set of recognized experts should get together, and, according to Ward, they should invite “a red-headed word nerd” to join them and help them with all his vast knowledge and expertise.

He adds, “it will take big names and institutions.”

Ward proceeds to say that he offers this counsel “from my tiny little spot on the Reformed spectrum as an independent—and I’ve been independent since I was born.” That last statement, oddly enough, does not seem very Baptistic.

So Ward sees himself a “Reformed” independent. But what exactly does that mean?

He continues, “I’m issuing this call. I think Reformed denominations should hold a sort of ecumenical council and translate the confession—not revise it.”

By using the word “translation” Ward thinks he can head off conservative opposition to any efforts to “update” or “revise” the Confession. But by “translation” Ward, of course, means “interpretation” and “change” (see the examples of “circumstances” and “authentical”).

Ward insists he only wants to make the confession more accessible to the ordinary reader. He adds that this would especially fit with the concept of the “priesthood of the believer,” a phrase more familiar to twentieth century SBC moderates than to 17^th century Particular Baptists.

As I listened to Ward’s unsolicited call to change the Confession I began to wonder about his confessional convictions, his ministerial standing, and his ecclesiastical commitments. Until recently I did not know that he even claimed to be a “Reformed Baptist” of some sort.

As a guest on the podcast of Covenant Baptist Seminary (an RB seminary) on October 21, 2024, Ward said (c. 17:56 mark), “I was ordained according to a lightly edited (by myself) [edition] of the 1689 Confession…” He adds, “I also took some minor exceptions, but we can get into that in another interview…”

The podcast host did not follow up on this statement, and did not ask Ward to explain in what areas he does not fully subscribe to the confession, or what these so-called “minor exceptions” might be.

Ward was a guest again on the Covenant Baptist Seminary podcast on December 17, 2024. In this episode, Ward said (c. 18:43 mark), “I am sort of a Reformed Baptist, because in God’s providence I’ve never been near enough to a 1689 congregation for it to be a reasonable option for me…”

So, by Ward’s own admission, he has never actually been a member of a confessional RB church.

What is more, he gives further explanation in this episode about his inability fully to subscribe the 1689 Confession. He states,

“I’m probably just a little bit different on eschatology than the standard 1689 guy.” Yet, he adds, “I’m a confessional guy.”

Neither of the podcast hosts expressed any curiosity about what Ward meant by this statement. What is his position on eschatology? Where does his view on eschatology depart from the 1689 Confession to which he cannot fully subscribe and to which he takes exception? Is he a dispensationalist? If so, can he fairly be said to be a “confessional guy”?

This conversation sparked my curiosity about Ward’s ministerial and ecclesiastical standing.

So, I took a look at the “About Me” page on Ward’s blog (By Faith We Understand) where I read the following:

I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church for 18 years while in Greenville, SC, and I “pastored” an outreach congregation there Sunday mornings for the last (almost) six of those years.

MCBC is a well-known Independent Baptist Church but certainly not a confessional RB church. Notice Ward only says he “attended” this church but not that he was a member of it. Notice also the nuanced language. Ward does not say he served on the staff or as a recognized pastor in this church. In fact, he puts the word “pastored” in quotes, indicating his role was not officially pastoral. He continues:

After moving to Washington, I was something of an assistant pastor for six years—though ordained for only the last 9 months of that time—at Cornerstone Baptist Church of Anacortes. The church voted to close toward the end of the COVID era.

Presumably Cornerstone BC of Anacortes was also an independent Baptist church and not a confessional church. Again, Ward’s language here is unclear, He does not say he served as elder in this church or as an assistant pastor, but that he was “something of an assistant pastor” for nearly six years and was ordained nine months before the church dissolved. Was he ever installed as an officer in this church? He concludes:

My family now attends Emmanuel Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, WA, where we serve in various capacities.

This church is also an independent Baptist congregation. I find it interesting that Ward only says he “attends” this church and does not say he is a “member” of this church. The church’s leadership page lists seven elders and six deacons. Ward is not listed as a church officer. I did not locate any sermons or teaching by Ward that were posted on this church’s youtube page (but, admittedly, my search was not exhaustive). What are the “various capacities” in which he has served in this church?

The church’s belief page lists twelve brief doctrinal points, but it offers no mention of any classic Christian creeds or Protestant confessions. The statement on “The Last Things” reads, “We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.” Though vague, it might indicate belief in dispensational premillennialism and a millennial kingdom, and I did run across one sermon preached by the lead pastor titled “The Rapture of the Church.”

So, at this point I am unsure of Ward’s confessional, ministerial, and ecclesiastical standing.

Confessionally, he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession.

Ministerially, he was ordained to the gospel ministry by an independent Baptist church within nine months of its closing but does not say he served as an elder in this church.

Ecclesiastically, he states that he has never been a member of a confessional RB church and only says he presently  “attends” an independent Baptist church (that apparently holds to some form of dispensationalism).

I want to be clear, I am not criticizing Ward for the convictions which he holds. I do not believe that the kingdom of God begins and ends with confessional RBs. I have many friends who are not confessional RBS.

I am concerned, however, by the fact that Ward is suggesting not only that the 1689 confession be “translated” (i.e., changed) but also that he would offer himself up as a candidate to be on a committee to do this work.

I’m also concerned that he claims to be a “confessional guy” even though he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 confession, has never been a member of a confessional RB church, has never served in the office of elder in a confessional RB church, and he may be only “attending” a church at present.

I also wonder what Ward would make of Confession 26 on each Christian’s duty to give “up themselves to the Lord, and to one another” in particular churches (26:6), where the bishops or elders are given “the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty” (26:8), it being “incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office,” while others “also gifted” might also preach only if they are “approved and called by the church” (26:11). I wonder how Confession 26 reads in Ward’s “translation” of the Confession.

Has any church at present approved him as a public preacher and teacher, or is any church giving oversight to the teaching he now offers in various venues, including on his youtube channel and especially behind the paywall in the courses he now offers and charges his patrons to access? I wonder also whether this teaching adheres to any confession that might be examined.

I also wonder about the fact that at least one Reformed Baptist Seminary has welcomed Ward as a lecturer and lists him on its faculty page. I even wonder that an RB seminary would welcome him as a podcast guest to speak to areas of interest to confessional Baptists.

In the end, I want to give my answer to Mark Ward’s call to “translate” the confession and his offer to serve on a committee which would take up such a work. My response, quite simply is, No.

The better option, IMHO, for one who considers himself to be confessional (and Baptistic) would be to join a confessional RB church and to sit under the teaching and instruction of that church to grow in one’s knowledge of Scripture, as well as in his understanding of corresponding confessional RB beliefs and practices. If one aspires to teach and interpret doctrine, including that found in the confession, he should express these desires to the elders of his church so that he might be examined as a candidate to become an elder or sanctioned as a “gifted brother,” and only then to exercise his ministry not independently but under the authority of a particular church.

JTR

WM 318: Article Review: Scribes, Distigmai, Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14:33-34

 

JTR

WM 317: Article Review: Has Evolution Changed Your Bible?

JTR

WM 315: Review: Gallagher on Paul, LXX, and Canon

 

JTR

WM 314: Review: Meade on "I've heard it said the Old Testament is full of errors"

 

I want to offer a brief review of a video and an article that was recently posted to the Crossway website (October 29, 2024) in the series titled “I’ve heard it said.”

This short video (less than two minutes) features Dr. John D. Meade, OT professor at Phoenix Seminary, and a recent critic of the Reformation Bible Society and its defense of the traditional MT of the Hebrew OT.

Meade’s segment is titled “I have heard it said that the Old Testament is full of errors,” This video (and others in this series) are meant to address various controversial topics on theology or apologetics from a contemporary evangelical perspective.

Let’s listen to the video and then I’ll offer a few observations.

Meade’s video is presumably meant to defend the authority, authenticity, and integrity of the text of the OT against unnamed modern skeptics who argue that it cannot be trusted because it is full of errors.

If you listen to Meade’s presentation, however, you will find that he does not deny or refute the charge that the text of the OT is full of errors. In fact, he agrees with and affirms this perspective.

Meade begins by noting, rightly, that there are no longer any extant autographs or original manuscripts of the OT books. We do not, for example, have any of the books of the Pentateuch handwritten by Moses. We do not have autographs but only apographs, copies of the OT books. The Puritan John Owen speculated that God did not allow the autographs to be preserved because he knew that men would be tempted to worship them.

Meade then adds that these copies of the OT are riddled with human “fragility” and are filled with transmissional errors. He says it is not a question as to whether or not there are errors, affirming plainly, “There are errors.”

Meade then suggests, however, that this admitted situation of an overwhelmingly corrupted OT text should not lead to pessimism or despair. Despite this confused textual situation, Meade says, one cannot conclude “We don’t have the Bible.” He assures his listeners, in fact, that we have “a wealth of manuscripts” (some modern scholars are fond of saying we have “an embarrassment of riches”).

Our saving grace (or saviors), Meade asserts are “textual critics” who can compare manuscripts, “sift out” copyist errors, and “actually restore the original text,” by comparing all of the evidence.

Meade concludes by saying he is “optimistic, that we can get back to the original books of the OT.”

Let me offer five observations on Meade’s presentation:

First, as already noted, Meade is NOT refuting the charge that the OT is full of errors. He is in basic agreement with that assertion. The title of the video might well have been, “I agree that the OT is full of errors, but I am nonetheless optimistic we can almost fix it.”

His approach here reminds me of the veritable cottage industry that developed among evangelical scholars a few years ago in order supposedly to “refute” the textual criticism of Bart Ehrman. The only problem was most of these men who lined up to “refute” Ehrman confessed that they basically agreed with Ehrman that the text of the NT was overwhelmingly corrupt, that traditional passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53—8:11 are spurious, and that it is the task of scholars to attempt to reconstruct it to some semblance of what the original might have been. These evangelical scholars did not so much disagree with Ehrman as to whether the NT text was grossly corrupt and needed reconstruction, but only as to whether, under these circumstances, it could still be said to be inspired and to hold authority for faith and practice.

Meade is essentially suggesting a similar approach with regard to the text of the OT, though he does not explicitly cite a “Bart Ehrman” type OT scholar as a foe.

Second, Meade is promoting in this video a modern restorationist view of textual criticism. This view suggests that the text of the Bible is rather hopelessly corrupted, but that modern academic scholars can examine the extant empirical evidence and use human reasoning to at least “reconstruct” a close approximation to the original text. Such scholars are typically clear to point out that they cannot guarantee that the text they reconstruct is, in fact, the authorial text. It will be subject to change based on new discoveries and methods developed by scholars.

Third, this modern reconstruction model is a departure from the classic Protestant approach to the text of Scripture. That view held that the Bible had been immediately inspired by God, and it has been kept pure in all ages (see WCF/2LBCF 1:8). This view holds that though the autographs have not been preserved, they remain accessible through faithful copies (apographs). There were some scribal discrepancies in transmission, but these were minor and could be easily corrected using those faithful copies and the consensus of the rule of faith.

With respect to the OT the Protestant fathers affirmed that these ancient “oracles of God” had been preserved by the Jews in the traditional Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT (cf. Romans 3:2). This text had then providentially come into print at the dawn of the Protestant era (first published by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-1525). These printed editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament were used as the touchstone and standard for all the classic Protestant translations of the Bible.

The Dutch divine Petrus Van Mastricht declared, “Neither the Hebrew of the Old Testament, nor the Greek of the New Testament has been corrupted” (TPT 1:164).

The English divine John Owen suggested that to attempt to amend or alter the traditional text would be “to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself” (Works 16:357).

Fourth, the reconstruction method is advocating departure from the traditional Masoretic Text, affirmed by both Jews and Protestants for centuries, in favor of a modern critical text, reconstructed using reasoned eclecticism.

Fifth, as indicated by Meade’s answer, and as touched on above, those who hold to this modern view do not believe that we currently have the text of the OT rightly reconstructed in hand. They are only “optimistic”—to used Meade’s term— that perhaps a very close approximation of the text might be achieved sometime in the future, as a result of the application of modern textual criticism.

Sadly, we seem to be observing the same undermining of the stability and authority of the OT text, under the application of modern textual criticism, as has already largely taken place among many evangelicals and mainline Protestants with respect to the NT text. No doubt many evangelical scholars making use of this reconstruction method would be willing to say of the OT text what Daniel B. Wallace has already said of the NT Text. Something like:

We do not have now—in our critical [Hebrew] texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the [Old] Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it [cf. Gurry and Hixson, Eds. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, xii].

Let us, finally, return to the topic. “I’ve heard it said that the OT is full of errors.” Is it possible that we might still respond to this topic in the way that Van Mastricht and Owen the Westminster divines and the Particular Baptist fathers did in their day?:

The Hebrew OT is not full of errors. It was immediately inspired by God and has been kept pure in all ages in faithful copies. As it did for the ancient Jews and for men of the Reformation, the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text continues to provide for Bible-believing Protestant Christians a clear and authoritative canonical standard for both the sacred books and the sacred text of the OT.

JTR

WM 313: Rejoinder to Ward, Ross, & Meade on the LXX and Classic Protestant Bibliology (Part 2)

 

JTR

WM 312: James Snapp Jr. on Mark Ward and his "Ridiculous Claim" About the KJV

 

JTR

WM 311: Rejoinder to Ward, Ross, & Meade on the LXX and Classic Protestant Bibliology

 

JTR

WM 310: The ECM, Revelation 21:6, & Theology

 

JTR