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.

 

[Logos1560]

I made a doctrinal distinction between preservation and reconstruction.

You claim a distinction that you do not prove to be true and that you do not apply consistently and justly to your own claimed preserved line [Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV].

Are your eyes closed to seeing examples of reconstruction in your preserved line [Wycliffe, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, 1611 KJV] since that would seem to refute your claimed distinction?

 

[Logos1560]

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.

Two lines of Bibles [one line claimed to be preserved and one claimed to be reconstructed and not preserved] or two streams of Bibles would be a leading KJV-only argument. KJV-only reasoning appeals to the same preserved line [Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, and the 1611 KJV] so you show no clear distinctions and differences between what you are arguing and what KJV-only advocates are arguing. When you argue for only a preserved line, you are in effect also alleging a non-preserved line that you condemn.

Your argument of two different doctrines would in effect seem to be a different form of arguing the same basic things that many KJV-only advocates may argue. Perhaps using a few different words, you are still in effect making the same basic argument that many KJV-only advocates make.

Ignoring the fact that the same practices of textual criticism, emendation, and reconstruction were involved in the making of the Bibles in your preserved line or least in the making of the underlying texts of those Bibles, you seem to try inconsistently and unjustly to condemn all other Bible translations not listed on your line as being the result of textual criticism, conjectural emendation and scholarly reconstruction.

You do not clearly define your terms of accusation [critical theory, conjectural emendation, and scholarly reconstruction] against Bibles on a non-preserved line, and you provide no clear measures and standards by which you claim to identify them and which you would apply consistently and justly.

 

[Mike B]

Gentlemen, may I inject a question?

Regarding Deuteronomy 33:17 (KJV)

"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: .....:

If the verse said, "...his horns are like the horns of unicorn..", well, that sounds odd. Since the verse
uses the plural "horns", and a unicorn has one horn, this (to me) implies that the translators used the
plural for unicorn as it takes more than one unicorn to achieve "horns".

Doesn't say.. - "...his horn is like the horn of a unicorn.." Singular

Does say - "...his horns are like the horns of unicorns:" Plural and balanced

Q. Does the Hebrew (or other) text use the plural "horns"?

I prefer a simple, common sense approach, as even in the days of Moses I doubt they had
a two horned unicorn.

 

[Logos1560]

Gentlemen, may I inject a question?

Regarding Deuteronomy 33:17 (KJV)

"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: .....:

If the verse said, "...his horns are like the horns of unicorn..", well, that sounds odd. Since the verse
uses the plural "horns", and a unicorn has one horn, this (to me) implies that the translators used the
plural for unicorn as it takes more than one unicorn to achieve "horns".

Doesn't say.. - "...his horn is like the horn of a unicorn.." Singular

Does say - "...his horns are like the horns of unicorns:" Plural and balanced

Q. Does the Hebrew (or other) text use the plural "horns"?

I prefer a simple, common sense approach, as even in the days of Moses I doubt they had
a two horned unicorn.

Since one animal [the reem] had two horns according to scripture, it was not an unicorn [an one-horned animal] according to common sense.

The context of the verse in Deuteronomy clearly supports the view that this animal had more than one horn. In the context, the “them” of this verse refers back to “horns.“ George Paxton wrote: “Moses, in his benediction of Joseph, states a most important fact, that it has two horns; the words are: His horns are like the horns of (a reem, in the singular number) an unicorn. Some interpreters, determined to support the claims of the unicorn to the honour of a place in the sacred volume, contend, that in this instance the singular, by an enallage or change of number, is put for the plural. But this is a gratuitous assertion; and besides, if admitted, would greatly diminish the force and propriety of the comparison.

The two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manassah, had been adopted into the family of Jacob, and appointed the founders of two distinct tribes, whose descendants in the time of Moses were become numerous and respectable in the congregation. These were the two horns with which Joseph was to attack and subdue his enemies, and by consequence, propriety required an allusion to a creature, not with one, but with two horns” (Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures, II, pp. 191-192). With them (the two horns of a reem [singular]), he [singular] shall push. Joseph is pictured as having two horns on his one head [singular] just as the one head of one reem has two horns.

It has also been maintained that Psalm 22:21 would demonstrate that this animal [the reem] had two horns. Friedrich Delitzsch asserted: “Who does not see the obvious contradiction involved in the translation of Psalm 22:21, ‘For thou hast heard me from the horns [dual in Hebrew] of the unicorns,’ where more than one horn is ascribed to the unicorn?” (Hebrew Language, p. 6).
Moses Stuart noted: “The dual in Hebrew is used principally to designate such objects as are double either by nature or by custom” (Hebrew Grammar, p. 271). Gary Long observed: “The dual, though, is restricted to nouns that occur in natural pairs (like hands),” “convey certain expressions of time,” and “measure two” (Grammatical Concepts, p. 32). Chester Kulus wrote: “The dual form indicates a pair or two of something” (One Tittle, p. 189). Ken Schenck affirmed that Hebrew “had a ‘dual’ number to indicate two things” (Biblical Hebrew, p. 97). Scrivener indicated that where KJV editions have “two horns” or “two horns” at Daniel 8:3, 6, 20 “the noun is dual” (Authorized Edition, p. 34). Just as this dual form for the Hebrew word for horns was translated “two horns” in Daniel, it could have just as accurately been translated “two horns” in reference to the reem. Robert Brown cited Deuteronomy 33:17 as follows: “his horns (i.e. two horns) are like the horns of a wild bull” (Unicorn, p. 9).

 

[Mike B]

Joseph is pictured as having two horns on his one head [singular] just as the one head of one reem has two horns.

Thank you...that is helpful.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of Bible believers who disagree with modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Yeah, since when does 'the Bible believers who disagree with...KJV-only' thing not also have to do with Anthony and I?

You and Anthony and I are b'elievers who disagree with...KJV-only reasoning/teaching'

We're in agreement there.

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 love when "someone says something" and you sure do, consistently as you well know

 

[Logos1560]

You and Anthony and I are b'elievers who disagree with...KJV-only reasoning/teaching'

I do not find that you and Anthony Pritchard actually disagree with essential aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching. You seem to hold to an incorrect definition and understanding of what constitutes KJV-only reasoning. You may try to suggest that the term KJV-only applies only to the views of Peter Ruckman and his followers.

Since the KJV is an English Bible translation made in 1611, the term KJV-only would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain view or teaching concerning English Bible translations since 1610, not concerning the pre-1611 English Bibles and not concerning Bible translations in other languages.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English. In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV. In typical KJV-only reasoning/teaching, no other English Bible is accepted as equal in authority to the KJV as an English Bible translation.

​

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I do not find that you and Anthony Pritchard actually disagree with essential aspects of KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Which of your vague and constantly shifting criteria are condemnations you would like to level at Br. Anthony Pritchard and/or I, as if there is anything at all we have to do with these bright ideas you've come up, within your own little strange world and jaded obsession of yours??

We're all ears.

 

[Conan]

Which of your vague and constantly shifting criteria are condemnations you would like to level at Br. Anthony Pritchard and/or I, as if there is anything at all we have to do with these bright ideas you've come up, within your own little strange world and jaded obsession of yours??

We're all ears.

Or you are KJVonlyist . Isn't that more accurate of a way of putting it?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

New Thread:

In practice, KJV-only advocates accept no other English Bible as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) that they would claim only or solely for the KJV.

To suggest that all English Bibles were translated in the exact sense (unequivocally) when we consider the vast differences in the overall translation procedures and philosophies used in the preserved-text process of translation vs the modern eclecticism reconstruction procedures and philosophies makes no more of an intelligent assumption than Peter Ruckman claiming the KJV Translators were Inspired and all that goes along with his ridiculous indefensible assertions.

The History, Conceptualization, Manuscripts, Translators characters, Translation Philosophies, etc., are all very different, with the working assumptions of the critical text, Alexandrian text-type proponents, for one stark example, all being entirely lacking in observable credibility, in the least.

Their wild guesses they based re-writing the Bible on have all been proven false (read: lies).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Or you are KJVonlyist . Isn't that more accurate of a way of putting it?

I can't tell if you're telling me something, or asking a question.

Tell me you're not "within your own little strange world and jaded obsession", too.

Well, that's enough of that non-sense, let's think about something important.

Where do you think Westcott and Hort are, today?

 

[Logos1560]

To suggest that all English Bibles were translated in the exact sense (unequivocally) when we consider the vast differences in the overall translation procedures and philosophies used in the preserved-text process of translation vs the modern eclecticism reconstruction procedures and philosophies makes no more of an intelligent assumption than Peter Ruckman claiming the KJV Translators were Inspired and all that goes along with his ridiculous indefensible assertions.

I did not claim that all English Bible are translated in the exact same sense (unequivocally) as you incorrectly suggest. I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text nor any English Bible translations made from it so you should know that I do not accept and recommend all English Bible translations.

What I stated is that KJV-only advocates will not accept any other English Bible translation which would include the pre-1611 English Bibles as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) as they inconsistently claim only or solely for the KJV. There is not one other English Bible that they will consider to be the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally)as they claim only for the KJV.

 

[Conan]

I can't tell if you're telling me something, or asking a question.

Tell me you're not "within your own little strange world and jaded obsession", too.

Well, that's enough of that non-sense, let's think about something important.

Where do you think Westcott and Hort are, today?

Sorry. I was asking if you were KJVonlyist, which you appear to me.

W/H were documentarians. They were wrong in their theories. We all know that today.

 

[kyredneck]

@Anthony Pritchard,

Psalm 12:6, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Synonymous with:

7​	The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
8​	The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9​	The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, [and] righteous altogether.
10​	More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb.
11​	Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward.
12​	Who can discern [his] errors? Clear thou me from hidden [faults].
13​	Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous [sins]; Let them not have dominion over me: Then shall I be upright, And I shall be clear from great transgression.
14​	Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer. Ps 19