Our Scriptural Confidence

[Logos1560]

You clearly said that omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the original words God gave. That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs.

I do not at all say that God's preservation failed. I stated the truth while you improperly try to twist it into something that I did not say. You are not accurately presenting my scripturally-based point.

The truth remains that a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God's words when he omitted it. The Scriptures do not say when a scribe or copier adds a word that that added word become an inspired word of God.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not at all say that God's preservation failed. I stated the truth while you improperly try to twist it into something that I did not say. You are not accurately presenting my scripturally-based point.

The truth remains that a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God's words when he omitted it. The Scriptures do not say when a scribe or copier adds a word that that added word become an inspired word of God.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that “a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God’s words when he omitted it,” yet you deny that this asserts preservation fails when a scribe errs. Those two statements cannot both be true. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation depends on scribal accuracy. That is the logical implication of your own words, not something I invented.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

 

[Logos1560]

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

In other words, are you directly claiming that preservation of the Scriptures in the NKJV is God's work, not man's performance?

Are you saying that the Scriptures are preserved in the same sense in present-day Modern English in the NKJV or other modern English Bibles as the Scriptures are preserved in Early Modern English in the KJV or in the other pre-1611 English Bibles?

 

[Logos1560]

Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun

The 1611 KJV does not preserve all God's words down to the number of the noun at Deuteronomy 33:17. 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 pre-1611 English Bibles to a plural.

Do you contradict you yourself in your attempts or efforts to excuse or rationalize the changing of the number [singular/plural] of original-language nouns in the KJV?

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).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The 1611 KJV does not preserve all God's words down to the number of the noun at Deuteronomy 33:17. 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 pre-1611 English Bibles to a plural.

Do you contradict you yourself in your attempts or efforts to excuse or rationalize the changing of the number [singular/plural] of original-language nouns in the KJV?

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).

You are trying to turn a doctrinal statement about God’s preservation into a claim that all English translations preserve the Scriptures in the same way. Preservation is defined by Scripture as God keeping His words down to the number of the noun and down to the smallest stroke in the inspired languages. Preservation concerns the text God gave, not every later translation of it. A translation may be accurate or inaccurate. Its accuracy does not determine whether God preserved His words. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

Your question about the NKJV does not touch the doctrine of preservation. The issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices. That is a question of accuracy, not a denial of preservation. Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

Concerning Deuteronomy 33:17, you are again trying to turn a translation choice into a doctrinal claim about preservation. The Hebrew singular can be used collectively. Hebrew frequently uses a singular noun to denote a class or group. Translating a collective singular with an English plural does not deny the number of the noun. It renders the meaning of the noun in English. Paul himself builds doctrine on the number of a noun in Galatians 3:16, and he does so by interpreting the inspired Hebrew usage, not by imposing English morphology on Hebrew idiom.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men. They do not redefine preservation as depending on perfect scribal behavior. You said that a scribe who omits a word “did not preserve one of God’s words.” That is a doctrinal claim about preservation. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the logical implication of your own statement, not something I have invented.

Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. Translation choices do not overturn it. Human fallibility does not overturn it. Later editorial opinions do not overturn it. God preserves His words.

 

[Logos1560]

The issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices. That is a question of accuracy, not a denial of preservation.

The 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV.

These English Bible translators make the exact same-type translation choices as the makers of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the makers of the KJV. If the translation choices of the KJV translators cannot overturn preservation, by a consistent application of your own stated reasoning the translation choices of post-1611 translators also cannot overturn it. The translation choices of the KJV translators involved interpretation just as the translation choices of later translators involves it. It is your stated reasoning that tries to suggest that all English translations [besides the KJV] have to preserve the Scriptures in the same way as else you will condemn them as reconstructive.

Your two lines is an extra-biblical argument not taught in the Scriptures. You fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly to the making of all post-NT Bible translations.