Our Scriptural Confidence

[Logos1560]

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 misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of Bible believers who disagree with modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching. You seem to try to create a strawman misrepresentation to knock down rather than providing sound, verifiable facts from your claimed preserved line to back up your unproven claims.

It is actually KJV-only teaching that implies or suggests that the inspired original-language words of Scripture were largely lost and must be restored or reconstructed by textual criticism decisions and conjectural emendation decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza and by the textual criticism decisions, emendation decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

Jan Krans noted: “A key element in the understanding of Erasmus’ conjectural emendation are the many instances in which he inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin Vulgate” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 11). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism, and, as we will see, even in the conjectural emendation of the Greek text” (p. 28). Erika Rummel maintained that “he [Erasmus] dispelled the idea that emendation and textual criticism undermined the authority of the Bible” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 124).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills surprisingly acknowledged: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208; Text, p. 345). Jan Krans claimed: “There is a remarkable paradox in Beza’s editions: though he professes time and again not to change the text lightly out of mere conjecture, he offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures” (Beyond What is Written, p. 247). Jan Krans maintained that Beza’s emendations “had not been based on a sound and consistent text-critical method” (p. 198). Jan Krans suggested that Beza “used Erasmus’ technique of inferring [Greek] readings” based on the Latin Vulgate and even also “on the basis of Erasmus’ Latin translation” (p. 240). Jan Krans maintained that “the existence of versional ‘evidence’ for a reading does not exclude its being a conjecture when adopted into the Greek text” (p. 90). Jan Krans also noted that “Beza’s harmonistic approach [preferring readings that bring the gospel accounts closer together] sometimes led to conjectural emendation” (p. 241).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of Bible believers who disagree with modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching. You seem to try to create a strawman misrepresentation to knock down rather than providing sound, verifiable facts from your claimed preserved line to back up your unproven claims.

It is actually KJV-only teaching that implies or suggests that the inspired original-language words of Scripture were largely lost and must be restored or reconstructed by textual criticism decisions and conjectural emendation decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza and by the textual criticism decisions, emendation decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

Jan Krans noted: “A key element in the understanding of Erasmus’ conjectural emendation are the many instances in which he inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin Vulgate” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 11). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism, and, as we will see, even in the conjectural emendation of the Greek text” (p. 28). Erika Rummel maintained that “he [Erasmus] dispelled the idea that emendation and textual criticism undermined the authority of the Bible” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 124).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills surprisingly acknowledged: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208; Text, p. 345). Jan Krans claimed: “There is a remarkable paradox in Beza’s editions: though he professes time and again not to change the text lightly out of mere conjecture, he offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures” (Beyond What is Written, p. 247). Jan Krans maintained that Beza’s emendations “had not been based on a sound and consistent text-critical method” (p. 198). Jan Krans suggested that Beza “used Erasmus’ technique of inferring [Greek] readings” based on the Latin Vulgate and even also “on the basis of Erasmus’ Latin translation” (p. 240). Jan Krans maintained that “the existence of versional ‘evidence’ for a reading does not exclude its being a conjecture when adopted into the Greek text” (p. 90). Jan Krans also noted that “Beza’s harmonistic approach [preferring readings that bring the gospel accounts closer together] sometimes led to conjectural emendation” (p. 241).

I am not going to continue with this. You are not engaging what I actually wrote. You are reframing my position into something I did not say and then arguing against your own reframing. That is not a discussion. I made a doctrinal distinction between preservation and reconstruction. You refused that distinction and shifted to extra‑biblical authorities instead of Scripture. At that point there is nothing further to address.

 

[Logos1560]

You are not engaging what I actually wrote. You are reframing my position into something I did not say and then arguing against your own reframing.

You would seem to be guilty of what you accuse others as you reframed their and my position into something they and I did not say. You have not engaged with what I actually asserted so you do not practice what you preach.

I have responded directly to your very own assertions that I quoted and to which I replied. I have engaged with what you actually wrote.

While you may not realize it, some of your stated reasoning is the same as KJV-only reasoning in KJV-only books.