Our Scriptural Confidence

[Anthony Pritchard]

your comparison between the KJV and what you see as errant texts it actually comes down to which line of manuscripts that were used.

Brother, the issue here is not manuscript lines, and NET textual notes do not resolve the actual problem. The problem is the category error of equating preserved Scripture with reconstructed paraphrases.

The Bibles you listed in the preserved line - Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV - differ only in spelling, orthography, and minor phrasing. They share the same doctrinal content, the same underlying preserved text, and the same reception among believing churches.

The reconstructed versions you listed - GNB, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, RSV, MESSAGE - differ in underlying text, translation philosophy, doctrinal consistency, and in many cases the actual meaning of the verse. These differences are not superficial. They are qualitative. They are the result of reconstruction, not preservation.

That is why they cannot be equated.

NET notes do not address inspiration or preservation. They are academic commentary, not Scripture. They deal in conjecture, reconstruction, and alternate readings. They speculate about vocalization errors, orthographic confusion, metathesis, and parallelism. None of that has anything to do with the doctrine of preservation or the continuity of the received text.

Pointing to NET notes only proves the concern @Alan Dale Gross raised: reconstruction assumes the text is unstable and must be corrected. Preservation says the text is stable and has been kept. Those are two different doctrines, and they cannot be blended.

So the issue is not “which manuscript line was used.” The issue is what the translators did with the text, and whether they preserved it or reconstructed it.

The preserved line maintains the meaning. The reconstructed line often replaces it.

That is the difference, and it is not a small one.

 

[Logos1560]

Brother, the issue here is not manuscript lines, and NET textual notes do not resolve the actual problem. The problem is the category error of equating preserved Scripture with reconstructed paraphrases.

The Bibles you listed in the preserved line - Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV - differ only in spelling, orthography, and minor phrasing. They share the same doctrinal content, the same underlying preserved text, and the same reception among believing churches.

You are somewhat uninformed or misinformed since all the Bibles [Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV] do not share the same underlying preserved text.

The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was based on editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which is not the same as the underlying text of the KJV.

The Old Testament of the 1535 Coverdale's Bible was not translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, and the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible [which has the book of Psalms from the Great Bible instead of from the 1568 edition of the Bishops'] all have readings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate from influence of the Greek Septuagint that are not found in the KJV.

The Old Testament of the 1539 Great Bible was not translated from the 1524-25 Second Rabbinic Bible, the Daniel Bomberg edition by Jacob Ben Chayyim. In his revising or translating the Old Testament, Miles Coverdale was not restricted to a Hebrew text. Bleddyn Roberts indicated that Coverdale’s 1535 translation of the Psalms was based on Jerome’s Gallican Psalter based on the Greek Septuagint, “and this, in turn, became the basis of the Prayer Book version of the Psalter” taken from the 1539 Great Bible (OT Text, p. 250). Ruth Magnusson Davis asserted: “The influence of the Latin Vulgate upon the Great Bible came in several kinds, both great and small” (Story of Matthew, Part 2, p. 39). Ruth Davis continued: “Coverdale’s most significant revisions were in those passages where he reverted to the interpretations of the Latin Bible” (p. 40). Ruth Davis noted: “Coverdale added back into the Great Bible certain word or verses from the Latin version even though these were regarded as later interpolations into the text” (p. 43).

In several likely additions from the Latin Vulgate/Greek Septuagint including three whole verses in Psalm 14 (between verses 4 and 5), an edition of the Great Bible in 1540 has over two hundred words in the book of Psalms that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Ps. 1:4, 2:11, 7:11, 11:4, 13:6, 14:2,14:5, 18:6, 19:14, 20:9, 22:1, 22:31, 24:4. 28:3, 29:1, 30:7, 33:3, 33:10, 37:28, 37:36, 38:16, 38:22, 41:1, 42:10, 45:9, 48:4, 50:21, 51:1, 55:12, 55:23, 65:1, 67:1, 71:8, 73:13, 73:28, 85:8, 92:12, 95:7, 108:1, 111:10, 115:9, 118:2, 118:25, 119:97, 120:7, 132:4, 134:1, 134:2, 136:26, 137:1, 145:15, 147:8, 148:5). The same textually-based differences in the book of Psalms are found in John Earle’s 1894 reprint of The Psalter of the Great Bible of 1539. In his introduction to his reprint of the 1539 Great Bible’s Book of Psalms, John Earle noted: “The chief type representing the Hebrew text, while the Greek (Latin) additions are bracketed and in reduced lettering” (p. xlii).

In Psalm 68:4, the Great Bible added a clause “as it were upon an horse” that is not from the Hebrew, not from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, and not from the Greek Septuagint. The Great Bible rendered this verse as follows: “Oh sing unto God, and sing praise unto his name: magnify him that rideth upon the heavens as it were upon a horse: praise ye him in his name JA and rejoice before him.” At Psalm 104:21, the 1539 Great Bible has the archaic rendering “seek their meat at God” where the 1568 Bishops’ Bible has “seeking their meat of God” and the 1611 KJV has “seek their meat from God.”

A 1540 edition of the Great Bible also has over two hundred fifty words in the book of Proverbs that are not found in the KJV (check and compare Prov. 4:27, 6:12, 12:11, 13:13, 14:21, 15:5, 15:27, 16:5, 17:16, 18:8, 18:22, 25:10, 25:20, 27:21, 31:4). At the end of chapter 4 in the book of Proverbs, the 1540 Great Bible has this addition: “For the Lord knoweth the ways that are on the right hand. As for the ways that be on the left hand, they be froward. For he shall direct thy goings, and thy ways shall he guide in peace.” Around Proverbs 6:12, the 1540 Great Bible added: “But if thou be not slothful, thy harvest shall come as a springing well, & poverty shall flee far from thee.” The addition near Proverbs 12:11 stated: “Who so hath pleasure to continue at the wine, leaveth dishonestness in his own dwellings.” The Great Bible’s addition near Proverbs 13:13 stated: “A deceitful son shall have no good: but a discrete servant shall do full well, and his way shall prosper.” After Proverbs 14:21, the Great Bible added: “He that putteth his trust in the Lord, loveth to be merciful.” After Proverbs 15:5, this is added: “Where righteousness is plentiful, there is very great power: but the imaginations of the ungodly shall be rooted out.” At the end of Proverbs 15:27, the Great Bible added: “Through mercy and faith are sins purged, and through the fear of the Lord doth every one eschew evil.” After Proverbs 16:5, the Great Bible stated: “The beginning of a good life is to do righteousness for that is more accepted unto God than to offer by sacrifices.” Around Proverbs 17:16, this addition can be found: “Whoso buildeth his house too high seeketh destruction: and he that refuseth to learn, shall fall into mischief.” The Great Bible added: “Fear casteth down him that is slothful: and the souls of such as live in voluptuousness shall hunger” after Proverbs 18:8. After Proverbs 18:22, the Great Bible added: “He that putteth away a good woman, putteth away a good thing: but he that keepeth an harlot, is a fool and unwise.” After Proverbs 25:10, this addition is found: “Grace and friendship doth deliver which see that thou keep for thyself, lest thou be reproved.” The Great Bible added the following: “Like as the moth hurteth a garment, and a worm the tree, so doth the heaviness of a man hurt the heart” at Proverbs 25:20. After Proverbs 27:21, the Great Bible added: “The heart of a wicked man seeketh after mischief, but a true heart seeketh for knowledge.” To Proverbs 31:4, this is added in the Great Bible: “For there is no secret where drunkenness reigneth.”

Other textually-based additions are found in the Great Bible in other Old Testament books. At 1 Samuel 4:1, the 1540 Great Bible has this addition: “And it fortuned that in those days the Philistines came together to fight.” Around 1 Samuel 5:6, the following addition is found in the 1540 Great Bible: “The villages also and the fields in the midst of the country were full & there came up mice & there was a confusion of great death in the city.” Around 1 Samuel 5:9, another addition states: “And the Bethites [or Geththites] took counsel & made themselves [prayer] seats of skins.” Another long addition [“and thou shalt deliver his people out of the hands of their enemies, which are round about them. And this token shalt thou have, that the Lord anointed thee to be prince”] is found at 1 Samuel 10:1. Near what would be 1 Samuel 13:15, this addition is given: “and the remnant of the folk went up after Saul, to meet the people, which fought against them, as they were coming from Gilgal to Gabaa in the hill of Benjamin.” Around 1 Samuel 14:13 these words “so when they had seen Jonathan’s face” are added. Then after the word “increased” in 1 Samuel 14:41, this addition is given: “Lord God, give you the judgment. How happeneth it, that thou gavest thy servant no answer to day? If this sin be in me or in Jonathan my son, shew it, or if this iniquity be in thy people.” The 1540 Great Bible has this addition at 1 Samuel 15:13: “Saul offered burnt sacrifice unto the Lord of the first of the spoils, which he had brought from Amalek.” The 1540 Great Bible has another addition around 1 Samuel 17:36 where this is stated: “Now, will I go & take away the rebuke of the people, for what is this uncircumcised Philistine.” The Great Bible additions in 1 Samuel would be over 200 words.


Because of possible additions from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, an edition of the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check and compare Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). Some other NT examples of likely additions in the Great Bible include Matthew 24:41 where this is added: "Two in a bed, the one shall be received, and the other refused." "He shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" is added to the end of Matthew 7:21. Near the beginning of Matthew 26:15, the words “unto them” are added from the Latin Vulgate. Another addition is found at Luke 16:21 [“and no man gave unto him”]. At the end of Luke 24:36, the 1540 edition added: “It is I, scare not.” At the end of 1 Corinthians 4:16, the Great Bible added: "as I follow Christ." The words "with whom also I am lodged" are added to the end of 1 Corinthians 16:19. The Great Bible added at 1 John 1:4 these words: “ye may rejoice, and that.” The Great Bible added the following at 2 John 11: "Behold, I have told you before that ye should not be ashamed in the day of the Lord." After the word “fire” in Jude 1:23, there is also an addition [“and have compassion on the other”]. At the end of Jude 1:24, another addition is found [“at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”]. After the words “the third part” and before the phrase “of trees” at Revelation 8:7, the 1540 edition has added words [“of the earth was set on fire, and the third part”].

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You are somewhat uninformed or misinformed since all the Bibles [Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV] do not share the same underlying preserved text.

Your long list of textual variants does not address:

inspiration
preservation
reception by the believing churches
doctrinal continuity
the difference between translation and reconstruction
the difference between maturity and illusion
the difference between preserved meaning and altered meaning

You are describing translation history, not preservation.
You are describing textual criticism, not doctrinal continuity.
You are describing source variation, not category distinction.

The preserved line differs in spelling, orthography, and minor phrasing.
The reconstructed line differs in meaning, doctrine, and underlying text.

That is the distinction. And nothing in your post overturns it.

The issue between us is not textual history. It is doctrine. It is obvious to me that you do not believe in actual preservation, and I do. Because of that, we have no common ground on which to discuss translation.

Your entire response assumes that Scripture is a fluid text that must be reconstructed from variant sources. My position is that God preserved His words in a stable, received form. Those are two different doctrines, and they cannot be reconciled.

Because we do not share the doctrine of preservation, your catalog of textual‑criticism details does not address the point I made. The preserved English line is unified in meaning and doctrine. The reconstructed modern versions are not. That is the distinction, and nothing in your post touches it.

 

[Logos1560]

Your entire response assumes that Scripture is a fluid text that must be reconstructed from variant sources. My position is that God preserved His words in a stable, received form. Those are two different doctrines, and they cannot be reconciled.

Because we do not share the doctrine of preservation, your catalog of textual‑criticism details does not address the point I made. The preserved English line is unified in meaning and doctrine. The reconstructed modern versions are not. That is the distinction, and nothing in your post touches it.

You jump to wrong conclusions with your strawman assumptions, or you make false claims since I accept the Bible's doctrines of inspiration and preservation. I do not claim that Scripture is "a fluid text" as you falsely allege.

I present actual verifiable facts from the English Bibles that you yourself listed: Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV. The significant differences I cited are in your claimed "preserved English line", refuting your incorrect assumptions concerning it. There are the same type differences in your claimed "preserved English line" and even greater differences than there are in your alleged "reconstructed modern versions" such as the NKJV.

The Church of England makers of the KJV revised or reconstructed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views, which could be considered doctrinal changes.

 

[Silverhair]

Brother, the issue here is not manuscript lines, and NET textual notes do not resolve the actual problem. The problem is the category error of equating preserved Scripture with reconstructed paraphrases.

The Bibles you listed in the preserved line - Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV - differ only in spelling, orthography, and minor phrasing. They share the same doctrinal content, the same underlying preserved text, and the same reception among believing churches.

The reconstructed versions you listed - GNB, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, RSV, MESSAGE - differ in underlying text, translation philosophy, doctrinal consistency, and in many cases the actual meaning of the verse. These differences are not superficial. They are qualitative. They are the result of reconstruction, not preservation.

That is why they cannot be equated.

NET notes do not address inspiration or preservation. They are academic commentary, not Scripture. They deal in conjecture, reconstruction, and alternate readings. They speculate about vocalization errors, orthographic confusion, metathesis, and parallelism. None of that has anything to do with the doctrine of preservation or the continuity of the received text.

Pointing to NET notes only proves the concern @Alan Dale Gross raised: reconstruction assumes the text is unstable and must be corrected. Preservation says the text is stable and has been kept. Those are two different doctrines, and they cannot be blended.

So the issue is not “which manuscript line was used.” The issue is what the translators did with the text, and whether they preserved it or reconstructed it.

The preserved line maintains the meaning. The reconstructed line often replaces it.

That is the difference, and it is not a small one.

The difference is the underlying manuscripts that are used. Unless you think they received the text by divine inspiration.

The original text is correct. So for you to claim that your preferred bibles are correct requires you to make assumptions.

You are correct when you say the issue is what the translators did with the text. They made judgement calls based on the manuscripts they had.

But you are mistaken when you say the NET notes have nothing to do with the inspiration or preservation because that is what they actually address.

If you reread the NET notes you will see that is just what they are pointing out.

Note I am not saying which text is correct, I am saying that the manuscripts that used lead to the text they presented.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The difference is the underlying manuscripts that are used. Unless you think they received the text by divine inspiration.

The original text is correct. So for you to claim that your preferred bibles are correct requires you to make assumptions.

You are correct when you say the issue is what the translators did with the text. They made judgement calls based on the manuscripts they had.

But you are mistaken when you say the NET notes have nothing to do with the inspiration or preservation because that is what they actually address.

If you reread the NET notes you will see that is just what they are pointing out.

Note I am not saying which text is correct, I am saying that the manuscripts that used lead to the text they presented.

Brother, the point you raise actually reinforces the concern I was addressing. Scripture teaches verbal inspiration, not merely conceptual inspiration, and therefore preservation must operate at the level of words rather than general ideas.

Paul builds doctrine on a single letter in Galatians 3:16 when he notes that Scripture says, “and to thy seed,” not “seeds.” His entire argument depends on the exact form of the word. This is verbal inspiration at the level of spelling and number.

Christ affirms preservation down to the smallest written marks in Matthew 5:18, saying that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” A jot is the smallest Hebrew letter, and a tittle is the smallest stroke. If the smallest letters are preserved, then preservation must preserve the words and letters that were inspired.

This is why the preserved line of English Bibles such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV maintains continuity of meaning. They differ only in spelling and minor phrasing, but they share the same doctrinal content because they transmit the same received text.

The reconstructed versions you listed do not simply differ in manuscript selection. They differ in translation philosophy, underlying text, and often in the actual meaning of the verse. These differences are qualitative rather than superficial. They arise from reconstruction rather than preservation.

Regarding the NET notes, they do not address inspiration or preservation. They address textual reconstruction, including alternate readings, conjectural emendations, vocalization issues, parallelism, and possible scribal errors. These notes assume that the text is unstable and must be corrected. That is the definition of reconstruction.

Preservation teaches that the text is inspired and kept. Reconstruction teaches that the text has been lost and must be reconstructed. These are two different doctrines, and they cannot be blended.

So the issue is not whether translators made judgment calls. All translators do. The issue is what those judgment calls were based on, whether a preserved text received by the churches or a reconstructed text assembled through critical theory.

The preserved line maintains the meaning. The reconstructed line often replaces it. That is the difference.

 

[Silverhair]

You keep going back to that one line of transmission and treat the KJV line as if it were the gold standard.

There in lays the problem. We did not have a clear line of transmission.

The reconstructed versions you listed [note I did not list any versions @Alan Dale Gross did] do not simply differ in manuscript selection.

The NET deals with the problems that you keep suggesting are present in anything other than the KJV line. What do you think pointing out the various alternate readings, conjectural emendations, vocalization issues, parallelism, and possible scribal errors are if not possible transmission or preservation errors?

The text has had to be reconstructed from all the manuscripts that we have since we do not have the autographs.

Even the KJV etc are reconstructions unless you think they had divine inspiration.

So again what we have is men using what the considered the best manuscripts available to them to make judgement calls.

 

[Logos1560]

This is why the preserved line of English Bibles such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV maintains continuity of meaning. They differ only in spelling and minor phrasing, but they share the same doctrinal content because they transmit the same received text.

You can repeat your unproven claims, but your statements are factually not true. Verifiable facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles refuted your claims, showing that they differ more than just in spelling and minor phrasing. They do not all transmit the same exact received text.

The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was based on editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which is not the same as the underlying text of the KJV.
The Old Testament of the 1535 Coverdale's Bible was not translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, and the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible [which has the book of Psalms from the Great Bible instead of from the 1568 edition of the Bishops'] all have readings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate from influence of the Greek Septuagint that are not found in the KJV. The 1539 Great Bible has over 800 words based on textual differences that are not found in the KJV.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You keep going back to that one line of transmission and treat the KJV line as if it were the gold standard.

Brother, I am not arguing for KJV‑onlyism. I am arguing for preservation‑text‑onlyism. The issue is the continuity of the received text as it was preserved and transmitted through Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV, and not only in English but in every language where the preserved text was translated and received. That line is not a single Bible. It is a historical pattern of preservation that maintains doctrinal stability and continuity of meaning.

Scripture teaches verbal inspiration. As the words and even the letters are inspired, then preservation must preserve those words and letters rather than reconstructed approximations of them.

The preserved line reflects the received text as it was kept by the believing churches. The reconstructed line reflects critical theory and conjectural reconstruction. These are not the same approach, and they do not produce the same doctrinal stability. That is why I distinguish between them.

Regarding the NET notes, they do not address inspiration or preservation. They address textual reconstruction, including alternate readings, conjectural emendations, vocalization issues, parallelism, and possible scribal errors. These notes assume that the text is unstable and must be corrected. That is reconstruction, not preservation.

Preservation teaches that the text is inspired and kept. Reconstruction teaches that the text has been lost and must be reconstructed. These are two different doctrines, and they cannot be blended.

So I am not arguing for the KJV alone. I am arguing for the preserved text that the KJV and its predecessors transmitted, and for the preserved text as it was received in every language where the churches kept it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You can repeat your unproven claims, but your statements are factually not true. Verifiable facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles refuted your claims, showing that they differ more than just in spelling and minor phrasing. They do not all transmit the same exact received text.

The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was based on editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which is not the same as the underlying text of the KJV.
The Old Testament of the 1535 Coverdale's Bible was not translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, and the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible [which has the book of Psalms from the Great Bible instead of from the 1568 edition of the Bishops'] all have readings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate from influence of the Greek Septuagint that are not found in the KJV. The 1539 Great Bible has over 800 words based on textual differences that are not found in the KJV.

I have not appealed to unproven claims. My point concerns the continuity of meaning within the preserved line. There is a difference between comparing a reading and basing a translation on a different textual tradition. Comparing is not the same as allowing influence, and it is wrong to claim influence without evidence.

Your statements about Wycliffe being based on the Latin Vulgate and about Coverdale or the Great Bible by showing readings similar to the Vulgate or Septuagint are meaningless in this context. Language overlaps. Similar wording does not prove influence, and it certainly does not prove dependence. A translator can compare texts without allowing them to shape or override the base text. Influence must be demonstrated, not assumed.

When I refer to Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV, I am pointing to the continuity of doctrinal content and meaning within the preserved line. That line is not defined by identical sources in every edition, but by the preserved text as it was kept and used by the believing churches.

My argument concerns preservation versus reconstruction. Scripture teaches verbal inspiration. Paul builds doctrine on a single letter in Galatians 3:16 when he notes that Scripture says, “and to thy seed,” not “seeds.” Christ affirms preservation down to the smallest written marks in Matthew 5:18 when He says that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” As the words and even the letters are inspired, then preservation must preserve those words and letters rather than reconstructed approximations of them.

The preserved line reflects the preserved text as it was kept by the churches. The reconstructed line reflects critical theory and conjectural reconstruction. Preservation teaches that the text is inspired and kept. Reconstruction teaches that the text has been lost and must be reconstructed. These are two different doctrines, and they cannot be blended.

I am claiming that the preserved line maintains continuity of meaning and doctrinal content, while the reconstructed line often replaces it.

 

[Silverhair]

Brother, I am not arguing for KJV‑onlyism. I am arguing for preservation‑text‑onlyism. The issue is the continuity of the received text as it was preserved and transmitted through Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV, and not only in English but in every language where the preserved text was translated and received. That line is not a single Bible. It is a historical pattern of preservation that maintains doctrinal stability and continuity of meaning.

Scripture teaches verbal inspiration. As the words and even the letters are inspired, then preservation must preserve those words and letters rather than reconstructed approximations of them.

The preserved line reflects the received text as it was kept by the believing churches. The reconstructed line reflects critical theory and conjectural reconstruction. These are not the same approach, and they do not produce the same doctrinal stability. That is why I distinguish between them.

Regarding the NET notes, they do not address inspiration or preservation. They address textual reconstruction, including alternate readings, conjectural emendations, vocalization issues, parallelism, and possible scribal errors. These notes assume that the text is unstable and must be corrected. That is reconstruction, not preservation.

Preservation teaches that the text is inspired and kept. Reconstruction teaches that the text has been lost and must be reconstructed. These are two different doctrines, and they cannot be blended.

So I am not arguing for the KJV alone. I am arguing for the preserved text that the KJV and its predecessors transmitted, and for the preserved text as it was received in every language where the churches kept it.

You keep trumpeting the KJV but it is not the standard you should be holding to. We have many manuscripts and they have been used by many scholars to reconstruct the bible as it was handed down. The KJV while good was not the best.

You continue to miss what the NET notes say.

But then again I could say that the KJV etc do not address inspiration or preservation either. They are all just man's best effort at translation/reconstruction of the bible from the manuscripts they had.

God preserved His word through all those manuscripts reconstruction means that we have to use the best manuscripts we have in the attempt to get back to the autographs.

The NET whether you agree or not was just pointing out the issues that those scholars face in doing so.


"One of the things I cherish the most in my work at CSNTM is the opportunity to see New Testament manuscripts, both in person and on our website. After all, these are the books that transmitted and preserved the sacred text that tells us about the life and works of Jesus Christ and the teachings of his apostles. "

Denis L. Salgado​

Lead Research Fellow

Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

This is a bogus strawman misrepresentation that does not at all deal with my acceptance of all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves including what the Scriptures teach about preservation

To deal with what you say is "my acceptance of all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves" does that include accepting what the Scriptures say in II Timothy 3:16 about themselves?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Perhaps KJV-only advocates do not know what consistent Bible preservation looks like since they seem to deny same exact word preservation of the words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles

I don't know or care two cents worth about what a KJV-only advocate believes or denies, but I still don't think you got it right about what they deny from what you're saying there.

I thought that they say that is what they believe which is why you've made a career out of beating them up and bullying them over there being "exact word preservation of the words", when no words from any language can be translated into the exact words in another language, because they different languages,where their stance on that is indefensible.

and when they seem to suggest that preservation directly concerns different varying words in English only in the varying editions of the KJV that are not every word the same.

When you learned some things about KJV-only advocates and you're saying they believe "in English only in the varying editions of the KJV", I'm happy for you.

 

[Logos1560]

To deal with what you say is "my acceptance of all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves" does that include accepting what the Scriptures say in II Timothy 3:16 about themselves?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Yes, I accept what is stated and taught in 2 Timothy 3:16. According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).

My acceptance of 2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean that I will blindly accept what KJV-only advocates inconsistently and incorrectly suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 states or teaches. While the sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse. Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question or by eisegesis that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse?
Do KJV-only authors clearly demonstrate that they merely let the Scriptures themselves define Scripture and inspiration, and do they present those definitions?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural. This definition of Peter Ruckman differs and even conflicts with his definition of the term at 2 Timothy 3:16 in his 2009 Reference Bible. In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591).

Perhaps it has never occurred to some KJV-only advocates that their definition, understanding, and interpretation of the term inspiration and of the term Scripture may not be sound or perfect. What is their clear, precise, sound definition and understanding of inspiration that can be applied consistently, soundly, and justly in the same sense (univocally) including both before and after 1611? Perhaps KJV-only advocates have not stuck with scriptural usage when they take the term inspiration for the process by which Scripture was given to the prophets and apostles and then try to apply it to the different process of post-NT translation.

KJV-only advocates do not soundly demonstrate that the term inspiration for the process of how all Scripture is given to the prophets and apostles is taught in Scripture to be the term for the process of how Scripture is copied or how Scripture is later translated. It has not been soundly demonstrated from sound exegesis of the Scriptures that inspiration would be the correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are to be copied or for the way or process by which they are to be translated into other languages including into English. Have some KJV-only advocates in effect or in practice privately interpreted “all Scripture” to mean only the KJV? KJV-only author David Cloud observed: “The idea that the King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration’ is to confuse divine inspiration—which is the process whereby the Scriptures were given by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old—with translation” (Why We Hold, p. 508).


The term Scripture would refer to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition. According to its usage and meaning in the Scriptures, the noun Scripture does not include all words that ever have been written. Words can be written without them being Scripture. Words can even be written in or added to a copy of the Scriptures without them being Scripture. Marginal notes or commentary can be added to a copy of the Scriptures without the added words being Scripture. According to truths suggested in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19), would words added by men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture? Would any errors written by imperfect men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture according to a correct definition of it? Would any actual errors introduced by printers in a printed edition of Scripture become Scripture according to its correct definition? The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of giving by inspiration is not its definition? The term inspiration or God-breathed for how God gave the words to the prophets and apostles is not actually the definition of Scripture.

Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated “Scripture”? While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that single adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. David Croteau observed: “A central maxim to proper interpretation is that description does not equal prescription” (Urban Legends, p. 114).

In the Bible, the Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate or describe its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition. Descriptive adjectives are not the same as prescriptive commands or instructions. While all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being “profitable” is not the definition for the term Scripture. Is everything that qualifies as “profitable” Scripture? Something can be “profitable” and perhaps even profitable for doctrine/teaching without it being Scripture. This adjective “profitable” is used of Scripture in the same verse (2 Tim. 3:16) to which KJV-only advocates appeal for their claimed definition so why is it not included as part of the definition that they claim is given in this verse? The two Greek adjectives for God-breathed and profitable are grammatically parallel in describing Scripture. Peter Van Kleeck Sr. & Jr. wrote: “”Inspiration’ and ‘profitable are grammatically parallel requiring both adjectives to be semantically equivalent. The function of one of these words in the sentence cannot be altered without effect the other also” (Theological Grounding, p. 115).

 

[Logos1560]

I am claiming that the preserved line maintains continuity of meaning and doctrinal content, while the reconstructed line often replaces it.

You make the claims, but you fail to prove them to be true. Your claims are unproven since you have failed to demonstrate "continuity of meaning and doctrinal content" in what you claim to be the preserved line: Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV. Have you actually read and compared Wycliffe's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible or do you assume your claims concerning them?

You seem to close your eyes or dismiss the actual verifiable facts from Bible in this preserved line that would contradict your incorrect claims.
There are the same type differences in your claimed "preserved English line" and even greater differences than there are in your alleged "reconstructed modern versions" such as the NKJV.

The Church of England makers of the KJV revised or reconstructed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views, which could be considered doctrinal changes.

One place where the 1611 KJV indicates bias for Episcopal church government is in Acts 14:23 where either the KJV translators, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, Bishop Thomas Bilson, or another prelate omitted the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham’s New Testament, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election").

James Lillie maintained that “this [Acts 14:23] is a key-text on the subject of church-government” (Bishops, p. 18). In an article entitled “Did King James and his translators tamper with the truth of God as delivered by William Tyndale” in the Baptist Magazine for 1871 as edited by W. G. Lewis, the author asserted: “This all-important text [Acts 14:23] was mutilated and corrupted by James’s revisers, by leaving out the two words ’by election;’ and by changing congregation into church; thus representing the act as exclusively that of Paul and Barnabas, and as Whitgift and Bancroft said they were successors of the Apostles, they turned the text into a justification of their lordship over the congregations, besides leading the people to believe that the congregations of the Apostles were the same as the churches of the bishops” (p. 582). This article maintained “that James and his hierarchy committed a foul crime against God and man in their daring forgery on this text [Acts 14:23]” (p. 583). This article connected the change with the Church of England’s doctrine of apostolic succession.

 

[Logos1560]

Paul builds doctrine on a single letter in Galatians 3:16 when he notes that Scripture says, “and to thy seed,” not “seeds.” His entire argument depends on the exact form of the word. This is verbal inspiration at the level of spelling and number.

Christ affirms preservation down to the smallest written marks in Matthew 5:18, saying that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” A jot is the smallest Hebrew letter, and a tittle is the smallest stroke. If the smallest letters are preserved, then preservation must preserve the words and letters that were inspired.

Your preserved line does not preserve the Scriptures in the original languages to the level of spelling and number. Here is an example of where the KJV does not preserve the number [singular/plural] in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Likely following the Greek Septuagint or Jerome’s Latin Vulgate or both, the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops') all had unicorn [singular] at Deuteronomy 33:17. The 1569 Spanish Bible and 1602 Spanish Valera Bible have unicornio [singular] at this verse.

At Deuteronomy 33:17, the 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural. The 1762 Cambridge standard KJV edition and the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition have the following marginal note for the word unicorns: “Hebrew an unicorn.” The marginal note can be seen in an edition of the KJV printed in London in 1711 so it was added before 1762. Other KJV editions that had marginal notes such as the 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, and 1885 Oxford editions, the 1853 American Bible Society standard edition, the 1769, 1844, 1872, 1887, and the 2005 Cambridge editions, and the 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible have this same marginal note at this verse. This marginal note in standard editions of the KJV affirms with the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1602 Spanish Valera, and the 1657 English translation of the Dutch that the Hebrew word was singular in number. Tristram affirmed that this marginal reading “is here undoubtedly correct so far as regards the singular number” (Natural History, p. 146). There is a plural form for this Hebrew word, which was not used at this verse (Deut. 33:17). The number of the Hebrew word at this verse is the same as its number at Numbers 23:22 [singular].

In his 1848 Bible (KJV) and Commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: "Reem is in the singular number, and because the horns of a unicorn, a one-horned animal, would have appeared absurd, our [KJV] translators, with an unfaithfulness not common to them, put the word in the plural number" (I, p. 834).

When another English translation changes a noun that is singular in number in the KJV to a plural, it is claimed that this type change is "diabolical dynamic equivalency" and is "not accuracy in translation." For example, D. A. Waite listed several such examples as claimed dynamic equivalencies in his booklet concerning the NKJV (see pages 22-25 in The NKJV compared to KJV). In formal equivalence, Gail Riplinger maintained that “a singular is carried over as a singular” (In Awe, p. 270). H. D. Williams wrote: “If a singular word is changed to a plural word, the theological implication and meaning could be very significantly affected” (Word-for-Word, p. 95). Caleb Garraway asserted: “If you blur the line between singular and plural or between subject and object, you risk misinterpretation” (Pure Words, p. 336). According to a consistent application of the KJV-only view's own stated reasoning, was the KJV wrong to change a noun singular in number to a plural at this verse? Would Jack McElroy ask about this change of a Hebrew noun singular in number to a plural that if the KJV is “so wrong and confused about singular and plural, what else is it confused about?” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 218). Has any consistent, sound evidence been presented that proves that this Hebrew word that is singular in number must be precisely translated as plural at this verse?

 

[Deacon]

The problem of textual purity becomes even more complex when you examine the multiple versions of Hebrew Scriptures before, during and after the time of Christ.

Simply examining the variety of Scriptural sources used by Jesus and those who wrote the epistles adds whole other dimension to what the purity Scriptures actually entails.

While appreciating the value of the Qumran scrolls as a witness to the text of the Old Testament, we must also acknowledge the extent of variants in the scrolls. Some manuscripts match closely what is known of the same texts from other sources, while not a few give evidence of revision or expansion. It’s apparent that multiple textual traditions were preserved among the scrolls, especially in the case of Samuel and Jeremiah. Even manuscripts of the Pentateuch have insertions, deletions, rearrangement and paraphrasing. As Waltke notes, the texts being copied at this stage of transmission were not fixed; there was a scribal tendency to revise texts as they copied them.

While some scribes simply copied what was in front of them as exactly as possible, many others felt free to introduce deliberate changes of various kinds into the text.… The presence of such a variety of text types at a single location … suggests that the members of that community, who otherwise appear to have been quite rigid in their practice of their particular version of Judaism, do not seem to have been particularly troubled by discrepancies in biblical manuscripts. (italics added to indicate indentation)

In the centuries following the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish scribes became increasingly focused on copying manuscripts as they received them, leading up to the work of the Masoretes (sixth to ninth centuries a.d.). The Masoretes were the most careful of any ancient copyists in transmitting Scripture. But until that point, as Eugene Ulrich notes, “small additions, omissions, and rearrangements are characteristic of the biblical text throughout its history up to the second century c.e.” Hence, the changes in copying procedures introduced by the Masoretes earned them a wide reputation, and as a result their manuscripts (dated to the ninth to eleventh centuries) have been the basis for the majority of modern Bibles.
Walton, John H., and D. Brent Sandy. 2013. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. p. 189-190.

Rob

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your preserved line does not preserve the Scriptures in the original languages to the level of spelling and number. Here is an example of where the KJV does not preserve the number [singular/plural] in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

The inspired words were given in Hebrew and Greek, and God also preserved those inspired words through history. Preservation does not require a translation to reproduce Hebrew morphology mechanically; it requires faithful transmission of the inspired meaning. Hebrew frequently uses singular nouns generically or collectively, and a faithful translation may render such a form as plural in English when the context and imagery call for it. A change in grammatical number in translation, when driven by context and idiom, does not mean the inspired word has been lost. It means the inspired meaning has been carried accurately into the receptor language.

A marginal note that identifies the Hebrew form is simply a lexical observation, not an indication that preservation or inspiration has been lost. The issue is not singular versus plural in Hebrew, but whether the preserved meaning of the inspired word has been carried accurately into English. Hebrew singulars used collectively or generically do not bind English to singular forms, because preservation concerns meaning rather than mechanical reproduction of morphology.

God preserved His inspired words, plural, in their meaning and in correct English word choices. Inspiration is not lost in translation because preservation ensures continuity of the inspired words across languages, even when grammatical forms differ between Hebrew and English.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You keep trumpeting the KJV but it is not the standard you should be holding to. We have many manuscripts and they have been used by many scholars to reconstruct the bible as it was handed down. The KJV while good was not the best.

You continue to miss what the NET notes say.

But then again I could say that the KJV etc do not address inspiration or preservation either. They are all just man's best effort at translation/reconstruction of the bible from the manuscripts they had.

God preserved His word through all those manuscripts reconstruction means that we have to use the best manuscripts we have in the attempt to get back to the autographs.

The NET whether you agree or not was just pointing out the issues that those scholars face in doing so.


"One of the things I cherish the most in my work at CSNTM is the opportunity to see New Testament manuscripts, both in person and on our website. After all, these are the books that transmitted and preserved the sacred text that tells us about the life and works of Jesus Christ and the teachings of his apostles. "

Denis L. Salgado​

Lead Research Fellow

Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Brother, I appreciate your engagement, and I know you are speaking from conviction. My point is not to elevate any particular English translation. My point is to distinguish between two different doctrines. One doctrine says that God preserved His inspired words and that the churches received and transmitted those preserved words in every language where they were kept. The other doctrine says that the inspired words were largely lost and must be reconstructed through critical theory, conjectural emendation, and scholarly reconstruction. These are not the same doctrine, and they do not produce the same outcome.

You continue to appeal to extra‑biblical sources to support reconstruction. I am not denying the value of manuscripts or the work of scholars. I am saying that Scripture itself teaches verbal inspiration and preservation of inspired words. Preservation does not require mechanical reproduction of Hebrew morphology. It requires faithful transmission of inspired meaning. Hebrew often uses singular nouns generically or collectively, and a faithful translation may render such a form as plural in English when the context calls for it. That is not a failure of preservation. It is normal translation practice across languages.

A marginal note that identifies the Hebrew form is simply a lexical observation. It does not imply that preservation or inspiration has been lost. The issue is not singular versus plural in Hebrew. The issue is whether the preserved meaning of the inspired word has been carried accurately into English. Preservation concerns meaning, not mechanical reproduction of morphology.

You quoted a scholar who says manuscripts transmitted and preserved the sacred text. That is exactly the point. Preservation means the inspired words were kept and transmitted. Reconstruction assumes they were lost and must be rebuilt. These are two different approaches, and they cannot be blended.

So my argument is not about any particular English Bible. It is about the preserved text as it was received and kept by the churches, and about the difference between preservation and reconstruction.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

There comes a point in some discussions where continuing does not add clarity or move anyone closer to truth. It simply becomes an exercise in trying to satisfy someone’s need to win the exchange. I have stated my position as plainly as I can, and I believe the relevant points have been addressed. Rather than repeat what has already been explained, I will step back here and let the thread continue without me.

 

[Silverhair]

Brother, I appreciate your engagement, and I know you are speaking from conviction. My point is not to elevate any particular English translation. My point is to distinguish between two different doctrines. One doctrine says that God preserved His inspired words and that the churches received and transmitted those preserved words in every language where they were kept. The other doctrine says that the inspired words were largely lost and must be reconstructed through critical theory, conjectural emendation, and scholarly reconstruction. These are not the same doctrine, and they do not produce the same outcome.

You continue to appeal to extra‑biblical sources to support reconstruction. I am not denying the value of manuscripts or the work of scholars. I am saying that Scripture itself teaches verbal inspiration and preservation of inspired words. Preservation does not require mechanical reproduction of Hebrew morphology. It requires faithful transmission of inspired meaning. Hebrew often uses singular nouns generically or collectively, and a faithful translation may render such a form as plural in English when the context calls for it. That is not a failure of preservation. It is normal translation practice across languages.

A marginal note that identifies the Hebrew form is simply a lexical observation. It does not imply that preservation or inspiration has been lost. The issue is not singular versus plural in Hebrew. The issue is whether the preserved meaning of the inspired word has been carried accurately into English. Preservation concerns meaning, not mechanical reproduction of morphology.

You quoted a scholar who says manuscripts transmitted and preserved the sacred text. That is exactly the point. Preservation means the inspired words were kept and transmitted. Reconstruction assumes they were lost and must be rebuilt. These are two different approaches, and they cannot be blended.

So my argument is not about any particular English Bible. It is about the preserved text as it was received and kept by the churches, and about the difference between preservation and reconstruction.

I do not have a problem with your views up to a point.

The biblical scholars have had to reconstruct the bible using the manuscripts that they have. Over time we have been able to refine the text as we have found older and/or better manuscripts. You even agreed with the scholars that I quoted.

We are both saying the same thing at the end of the day.

You see reconstruction as changing the text I see reconstruction as using the manuscripts to give a more accurate copy of the autographs. That is why God has preserved the various manuscripts.