Our Scriptural Confidence is that We have a Pure, More Sure Word of Prophecy.

[Alan Dale Gross]

The King James Version is an English Bible translation. The very word translation by definition (when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language) would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent

And in the case of original language manuscripts persevered through the centuries by God's people being used as the source for translation, we are assured that the initial autographs came from a Divine Source and, therefore, those original language copies, by comparison with the majority, also have a Divine Source that is derived from the autographs.

And the Lord said He would Maintain that our translations from them are also Derived, secondarily but essentially, from that same Divine Source, since their Author said He would Preserve His Words to Mankind.

By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.”

Which in no way precludes their Authenticity, Integrity, Authority, and Inspiration derived from a Divine Source.

Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language.

Above.

What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived?

And the essential quality of the Sources may be that they were Divinely Originated and Inspired, from which a translation may Receive Derived Inspiration.

Without original-language texts from which to be translated, a Bible translation would not exist.

Very good, however a translation may have all of the same qualities Intended by the Author of the original-language texts Contained in their entirety, as God has Determined.

A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is.

An Inspired translation Derived from an initial Divine Source can not be said to be any less Blessed than what it is.

By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original-language texts of Scripture.

And yet, when faithful to those original-language texts, a Bible translation may be said to be virtually and essentially indistinguishable from the original-language, for all the Intends and Purposes of their Author.

To state that a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth.

To state that a faithful Bible translation is not appreciably different from the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth, by a factor of what? 99.9999%-100.0000%?

By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence.

The Lord Promised that the Making and Existence of the translations dependent on Him as their Divine Source would Result in a More Sure Word of Prophecy, than that of the Old Testament Prophets.

Is this property of dependence a primary or essential part of what constitutes a translation?

The property of dependence of Bible translations includes the Superintendent Mind and Hand of God as a Primary and essential part, on Whom they are dependent.

I know exactly what I think about the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and what I think about post-NT Bible translations. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

The scriptures state that they are Pure Words, Derived from God Himself, to the extent that since they contain the Revelation of Him and His Operation of the Universe, including the translations of His Word from one language to another, He has Exalted His Word as being more important in Stature and Significance than His Very Thrice-Holy Name.

That, along with all of the other above points, is a big deal.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

from which a translation may Receive Derived Inspiration.

Alan, I agree with your emphasis on the purity and authority of Scripture, and I agree that faithful translations carry the preserved inspired words of God. But I am cautious about saying translations “receive derived inspiration.” That might be taken to imply reinspiration, which would require the original inspiration to pass away, something Christ explicitly denies in Matthew 24:35. Inspiration is preserved, not rebreathed. The translation carries the inspired words; it does not become newly inspired. Otherwise, major kudos.

 

[Logos1560]

Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse [2 Tim. 3:16] does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite contended: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 32). D. A. Waite observed: “The accurate view of Bible inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse refers to the way that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were produced by God’s true plenary verbal inspiration” (p. 20). Dennis Kwok asserted: “No translation can claim to be 100% equivalent to the original language Scriptures” (VPP, p. 19).

Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Bryan Ross wrote: “Inspiration does not guarantee the inspiration of any particular modern or ancient translation” (From This Generation, Vol. 1, p. 322). Phil Stringer asserted that “there is not the slightest hint of any such doctrine [that God repeated the miracle of ‘inspiration’ in 1611] anywhere in the King James Bible” (Unbroken Bible, p. 15). Phil Stringer noted that “when God wanted to describe the means of inspiration He chose to call it ‘God-breathed’” (pp. 60-61).

D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Sam. 7:4, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Jer. 32:26, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The word of the LORD from the mouth of a true prophet is the truth (1 Kings 17:24).

The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3, Rom. 6:17). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. The term “man of God’ in 2 Timothy 3:17 could suggest a prophet when the Old Testament usages of that term are considered.

Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The term “man of God” is used in the Old Testament to refer to prophets (Deut. 33:1, 1 Sam. 2:27, 1 Sam. 9:6, 1 Kings 13:1, 1 Kings 20:28, 2 Kings 6:6, 2 Kings 8:2, 2 Kings 8:8, 2 Kings 13:19). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7). The Scriptures directly given to the prophets and apostles is what is identified as being all Scripture “given by inspiration of God.”

 

[Logos1560]

however a translation may have all of the same qualities Intended by the Author of the original-language texts Contained in their entirety, as God has Determined.

Where do the Scriptures state or teach that inspiration is a quality or attribute that is transferred to post-NT Bible translations?

Do any KJV defenders clearly, consistently, and soundly prove from the Scriptures the idea that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that will be or at least can be transferred in the later post-NT process of translation?

If inspiration was a continuing attribute or quality in the Hebrew Masoretic OT text and in the Textus Receptus NT text that could be transferred during translation, then it would be expected that it should have been transferred to the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, to the 1560 Geneva Bible, or to all the pre-1611 English Bibles. Do KJV-only advocates suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles had the breath of God still on them? How would the fact of some significant textual differences in the varying printed Textus Receptus editions suggest that all the editions had the continuing quality of inspiration? If inspiration was not transferred to any of the pre-1611 English Bibles, does it suggest that inspiration was not a continuing quality or attribute that could be transferred, or does it suggest that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus did not have it? Could the same attribute be affirmed and denied of the same things which are dependent upon each other? If inspiration was an attribute or quality of any of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision, it could be regarded as a serious problem for KJV-only reasoning since the makers of the KJV made many changes and revisions to their “inspired” words.

From which specific accessible perfect source or sources is it asserted that the 1611 KJV directly obtained this claimed continuing attribute or quality of inspiration? The fact that the KJV was actually made from multiple, imperfect, textually-varying sources makes it difficult if not impossible for KJV-only advocates to explain from which one specific OT source and from which one specific NT source the KJV is supposed to have obtained any continuing quality of inspiration.

No one branch (translation) can possibly be superior in authority to the tree itself. What sort of a good tree of Bibles would have only one good or one "perfect" branch? Can one branch of a tree that is still part of that tree be claimed to be alive if the trunk, roots, and other branches of that same tree are implied to be dead? A good tree would have many good branches with good fruit. The tree itself has to be good before it can bring forth good fruit on its branches. Can any one natural branch bring forth fruit that is contrary to the qualities of the fruit of the other natural branches of this same tree? All the natural branches of the same tree derive their qualities from the same identical source. No tree can give to its branches what it does not possess. If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). The holiness and other qualities of one branch is of no other nature than that of all the other branches of the same tree. The innate, inherent, ingrained qualities or essential constitution of all the natural branches of one tree are the same. Thus, truth stated in God's Word indicates that whatever is affirmed of one branch must be affirmed concerning all the branches. Therefore, it would be unscriptural and contradictory to claim that one branch is holy and inspired but the other branches of the same tree are not. Is one branch superior and greater in authority than another branch? Two branches or even all the branches of the same tree that are claimed to have the same qualities as this tree are equal to each other. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Their own tree analogy confirms that there are major problems with a KJV-only view. Their own tree or stream argument proves more than they intended.

Any quality or attribute in the KJV would need to have already been in the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision. If the attribute or quality was not already present in the family tree, it could not have been passed on to the branch. If the qualities were not already present in the trunk and tree [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages], how did they supposedly get into one natural branch of that tree? If the qualities were supposedly somewhat lacking in the other branches (the pre-1611 English Bibles), how were they transferred to a later branch (the KJV)?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Phil Stringer asserted:

Your quote stacking is essentially meaningless. It does not prove anything, nor does it clarify the text. It only adds noise.

 

[Logos1560]

Your quote stacking is essentially meaningless. It does not prove anything, nor does it clarify the text. It only adds noise.

Evidently KJV defenders are in discord and strongly disagree among themselves in their own understandings and interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 and the doctrine of inspiration.
Are KJV-only advocates so fragmented and divided over the doctrine of inspiration that Phil Stringer concluded that there is a “’King James Only’ civil war over inspiration” (Unbroken Bible, pp. 9-20)? Phil Stringer wrote: “A civil war rages among independent Baptists about the ‘inspiration’ of translations” (p. 9). Phil Stringer wrote: “Endless debate over the doctrine of inspiration, preservation, and the role of the King James Bible has split fundamentalism into several camps” (p. 291). Douglas Stauffer wrote: “The ‘inspiration of the scriptures’ is a hotly contested issue today, even among Bible believing Christians” (One Book One Authority, p. 430). William Grady wrote: “Take this matter of the A. V. 1611 and the endless debate over the doctrine of inspiration, structured around a single Greek word—theopneustos” (Given By Inspiration, p. 88). David Sorenson acknowledged that “even amongst fundamental Baptist brethren who adhere to some sort of King James position, there is confusion” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 6). David Sorenson wrote: “This leads to a contemporary controversy. Some across the land today would have us to believe the King James Version of the Bible as a translation is inspired. They may be well intentioned, but they are simply wrong” (Faithful Word, p. 22).

Are KJV-only advocates possibly divided into three or four camps or groups in their conflicting claims concerning the Bible doctrine of inspiration? Does one camp possibly advocate retained or continuing inspiration, one camp advocate derivative inspiration, one camp advocate a new or second inspiration for the KJV, and one camp advocate no inspiration for Bible translations?

Some KJV-only advocates may seem to be in more than one of these three or four camps or groups since they make vague, unclear, or varying claims concerning inspiration. Phil Stringer acknowledged: “Virtually everyone in our movement, including me, has used the term ‘inspiration’ carelessly at one time or another” (Unbroken Bible, p. 13). Phil Stringer suggested: “Most of the leaders of the independent Baptist movement can be quoted several different ways on both the definition of ‘inspiration’ and on textual issues” (p. 20). Has that careless use of this important term inspiration possibly misled or confused many believers, contributing to a KJV-only civil war?

Modern KJV-only teaching about inspiration is not systematically consistent and coherent. God is not the author of the confusion that could result from these inconsistent, conflicting, or contradictory KJV-only claims concerning inspiration in this KJV-only civil war.

 

[Logos1560]

The scriptures state that they are Pure Words, Derived from God Himself, to the extent that since they contain the Revelation of Him and His Operation of the Universe, including the translations of His Word from one language to another, He has Exalted His Word as being more important in Stature and Significance than His Very Thrice-Holy Name.

Do the Scriptures actually state and teach that words added by men are "pure words, derived from God Himself"?

Do the Scriptures actually state and teach that any errors introduced by men [whether copiers, printers, or translators] are "pure words, derived from God Himself"?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Evidently KJV defenders are in discord and strongly disagree among themselves in their own understandings and interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 and the doctrine of inspiration.
Are KJV-only advocates so fragmented and divided over the doctrine of inspiration that Phil Stringer concluded that there is a “’King James Only’ civil war over inspiration” (Unbroken Bible, pp. 9-20)? Phil Stringer wrote: “A civil war rages among independent Baptists about the ‘inspiration’ of translations” (p. 9). Phil Stringer wrote: “Endless debate over the doctrine of inspiration, preservation, and the role of the King James Bible has split fundamentalism into several camps” (p. 291). Douglas Stauffer wrote: “The ‘inspiration of the scriptures’ is a hotly contested issue today, even among Bible believing Christians” (One Book One Authority, p. 430). William Grady wrote: “Take this matter of the A. V. 1611 and the endless debate over the doctrine of inspiration, structured around a single Greek word—theopneustos” (Given By Inspiration, p. 88). David Sorenson acknowledged that “even amongst fundamental Baptist brethren who adhere to some sort of King James position, there is confusion” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 6). David Sorenson wrote: “This leads to a contemporary controversy. Some across the land today would have us to believe the King James Version of the Bible as a translation is inspired. They may be well intentioned, but they are simply wrong” (Faithful Word, p. 22).

Are KJV-only advocates possibly divided into three or four camps or groups in their conflicting claims concerning the Bible doctrine of inspiration? Does one camp possibly advocate retained or continuing inspiration, one camp advocate derivative inspiration, one camp advocate a new or second inspiration for the KJV, and one camp advocate no inspiration for Bible translations?

Some KJV-only advocates may seem to be in more than one of these three or four camps or groups since they make vague, unclear, or varying claims concerning inspiration. Phil Stringer acknowledged: “Virtually everyone in our movement, including me, has used the term ‘inspiration’ carelessly at one time or another” (Unbroken Bible, p. 13). Phil Stringer suggested: “Most of the leaders of the independent Baptist movement can be quoted several different ways on both the definition of ‘inspiration’ and on textual issues” (p. 20). Has that careless use of this important term inspiration possibly misled or confused many believers, contributing to a KJV-only civil war?

Modern KJV-only teaching about inspiration is not systematically consistent and coherent. God is not the author of the confusion that could result from these inconsistent, conflicting, or contradictory KJV-only claims concerning inspiration in this KJV-only civil war.

You cannot engage a point directly, so you bury the post under a landslide of quotations and try to turn every discussion into a referendum on KJV‑onlyism.

David Sorenson acknowledged

Phil Stringer concluded

William Grady wrote

Douglas Stauffer wrote

The word of man.

My statement was simple:

“Your quote stacking is essentially meaningless.”

I was pointing out a methodological flaw.

You keep mislabeling me as KJV‑only to avoid dealing with your argument. Personally my position has always been one of the preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

You need me to be KJV‑only so you can use your pre‑written material. You cannot debate my actual position because it doesn’t fit your categories. So you assign to me a position that fits your view.

Your quote stacking is a substitute for argument. It’s noise. Then you conclude: “See? Confusion.” But the confusion is yours, not mine.

Modern KJV-only teaching about inspiration is not systematically consistent and coherent.

This is nothing more than a rhetorical diversion. It has nothing to do with what I said.

KJV defenders

KJV-only advocates

KJV-only civil war

KJV-only teaching

KJV-only claims

KJV-only civil war

Rhetorical diversion. It has nothing to do with me.

Nothing in your reply has anything to do with my plainly stated position: preserved text only over reconstructed text. You are misrepresenting my view, and you know it.

You cannot engage a point directly it seems.

 

[Logos1560]

I was pointing out a methodological flaw.

You keep mislabeling me as KJV‑only to avoid dealing with your argument. Personally my position has always been one of the preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

You pointed out no actual methodological flaw. Pointing out the different views of inspiration was not noise and was not a flaw.

You fail to demonstrate that your view is not being mislabeled as you used a leading KJV-only two lines of Bibles argument. Many KJV-only advocates appeal to the preserved underlying texts while also defending only the KJV among English Bible translations. You condemn other English Bible translations that are based on the same preserved underlying texts as the KJV is, which contradicts your claim of being preserved text only. The accurate and defined term KJV-only refers to a person's view of English Bible translations, and you have not named any other post-1610 English Bible translation that you will accept as being the word of God translated into English in the same sense as you claim for the KJV.

You may not apply your undefined smear term of accusation ["reconstructed text"] consistently and justly. The KJV could be said to be based on reconstructed text since its Old Testament is not translated completely and exclusively from one Hebrew Old Testament manuscript and its New Testament is not translated completely from one Greek NT manuscript. Textual criticism [textual editing and reconstruction] was involved in the making of the KJV.

My view appeals to the preserved underlying original-language texts.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You pointed out no actual methodological flaw. Pointing out the different views of inspiration was not noise and was not a flaw.

You fail to demonstrate that your view is not being mislabeled as you used a leading KJV-only two lines of Bibles argument. Many KJV-only advocates appeal to the preserved underlying texts while also defending only the KJV among English Bible translations. You condemn other English Bible translations that are based on the same preserved underlying texts as the KJV is, which contradicts your claim of being preserved text only. The accurate and defined term KJV-only refers to a person's view of English Bible translations, and you have not named any other post-1610 English Bible translation that you will accept as being the word of God translated into English in the same sense as you claim for the KJV.

You may not apply your undefined smear term of accusation ["reconstructed text"] consistently and justly. The KJV could be said to be based on reconstructed text since its Old Testament is not translated completely and exclusively from one Hebrew Old Testament manuscript and its New Testament is not translated completely from one Greek NT manuscript. Textual criticism [textual editing and reconstruction] was involved in the making of the KJV.

My view appeals to the preserved underlying original-language texts.

You keep asserting that I am KJV‑only, but you have not demonstrated it. You are applying a label to me that does not match the position I have stated repeatedly. My position has always been preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

You also did not address the methodological flaw I pointed out. You shifted the discussion from the argument I made to a label you assigned.

I did not use the two‑lines‑of‑Bibles argument. I did not appeal to any KJV‑only framework. My argument was about the difference between inspiration, preservation, and reconstruction. You did not engage that distinction.

You claim that I condemn all other English translations. That is not accurate. My concern has always been underlying text, not the translation. I accept translations that follow the preserved text. I do not accept translations based on reconstructed eclectic texts. That is a textual position, not a KJV‑only position.

Your definition of KJV‑only is about English translations. My position is about the original‑language text. You are confusing two different categories and then assigning me to the one you prefer to argue against.

Your comments about the KJV being based on reconstructed text do not follow. Collation of manuscripts is not the same as reconstruction of readings that do not exist in any manuscript. The early translators used collation. The modern eclectic method uses reconstruction. These are not equivalent processes.

My position is simple and consistent. The preserved text is the standard. Translations should follow it. That is preserved text only, not KJV‑only.

And:

Your quote stacking is still a substitute for argument. It is still noise.

 

[Logos1560]

You keep asserting that I am KJV‑only, but you have not demonstrated it. You are applying a label to me that does not match the position I have stated repeatedly. My position has always been preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

Your own stated position and posted stated claims match clearly a clear definition and explanation of the term KJV-only. As clearly explained before, KJV-only refers to your position and view of English Bible translations. You have stated your position concerning English Bibles by your rejecting and condemning English Bible translations such as the NKJV that follow the same preserved texts as the KJV.

Your claimed distinction does not hold up since your preserved text line is the same as the KJV-only view's preserved or pure line, and your reconstructed line is basically the same as the KJV-only view's other line [the corrupt line]. You have used a two lines of texts [Bibles] argument. Texts are used to make Bible translations so a text line is in effect also a Bible line. Jack Koons claimed: “There are two families of manuscripts; the Byzantine family and the Alexandrian family” (What Is so Special about the King James Bible, p. 19), and he asserted: “These two families of manuscripts can be traced from the second century to present day” (What Is so Special, p. 15). David O-Steen claimed: “There are basically two streams of manuscripts that flow primarily from two places. The pure stream flows from Antioch in Syria. The corrupt stream follows from Alexandria in Egypt (the western text of Rome is associated with Alexandria)” (Study Notes on the King James Bible, p. 88).

Someone can be at the same time both preserved text only and KJV-only. David Cloud suggested that “all of these varied positions on the TR and the KJV are based upon the same promises of Scripture and the same basic theological position” and that “all emphasize the doctrine of biblical preservation” (For Love of the Bible, p. 9). Nick Sayers admitted that “Textus Receptus Only is many times the same position as KJVO” (Revelation 16:5, p. 11, footnote 20).

 

[Logos1560]

Your quote stacking is still a substitute for argument. It is still noise.

Not true. Your bogus attempts to dismiss and ignore substance and evidence is a substitute for sound reasoning.

 

[Logos1560]

Your comments about the KJV being based on reconstructed text do not follow. Collation of manuscripts is not the same as reconstruction of readings that do not exist in any manuscript. The early translators used collation. The modern eclectic method uses reconstruction. These are not equivalent processes.

This is what I stated, which is nothing like your attempted misrepresentation. Your response does not address and refute what I actually stated.

You may not apply your undefined smear term of accusation ["reconstructed text"] consistently and justly. The KJV could be said to be based on reconstructed text since its Old Testament is not translated completely and exclusively from one Hebrew Old Testament manuscript and its New Testament is not translated completely from one Greek NT manuscript. Textual criticism [textual editing and reconstruction] was involved in the making of the KJV.

The varying printed Textus Receptus editions contain readings found in no known Greek NT manuscripts and some readings found in a minority of Greek NT manuscripts. The KJV follows some reconstructed readings introduced in the varying Textus Receptus editions that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

KJV-only author J. A. Moorman claimed: “Certainly in Revelation, and to a extent in the rest of the New Testament, we must occasionally look to the Latin West for corroboration on a disputed Greek reading” (When the KJV Departs, p. 43). R. B. Ouellette claimed: “While there are some readings not found in existing Greek manuscripts, they are found in early Latin” (More Sure Word, p. 148). Jakob Van Bruggen wrote: "Even the Greek text editions of the sixteenth century contained readings that actually originated in the Latin Vulgate rather than in the Greek manuscripts" (Future of the Bible, p. 123). J. A. Moorman asserted: “We do not expect to find the Traditional Text in the Latin Vulgate, for that version was locked away in Catholic churches, kept from the people, and read by only a very few priests” (When the KJV Departs, p. 9). Did any of these authors acknowledge any points or facts that other KJV-only advocates may try to avoid or even deny?

Did Edward Hills, David Cloud, or other KJV-only or TR-only authors possibly contradict part of their own typical argument concerning preservation by in effect suggesting that imperfect copies of a translation in Latin could in effect be used to correct or restore the preserved Greek NT in a few places? Does an appeal to imperfectly-copied manuscripts of an imperfect Latin translation fly in the face of the providential divine preservation of the same actual original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Does human KJV-only or TR-only reasoning in effect suggest that a portion of the word of God was lost and had to be restored by translation from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Would KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates in effect approve an eclectic method where textual critics such as Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza would be permitted arbitrarily or as it suited their fancy to have selected among varying readings based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of a minority of Greek NT manuscripts and on imperfect Latin Vulgate texts, and based on their inconsistent use of their textual principles including conjecture?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Not true. Your bogus attempts to dismiss and ignore substance and evidence is a substitute for sound reasoning.

You keep repeating the KJV‑only label, but repetition is not demonstration. You have not shown that the label fits my position. You are asserting a category, not proving one. My position remains preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

You are still confusing two different categories. KJV‑only is a position about English translations. Preserved text only is a position about the original‑language text. You keep treating those as identical so you can assign me to the category you prefer to argue against. That is the methodological flaw I pointed out.

You claim I reject all English translations that follow the preserved text. That is not accurate. I reject translations based on reconstructed eclectic texts. That is a textual distinction, not a KJV‑only distinction. You have not addressed that distinction.

You also claim that my preserved text line is the same as the KJV‑only line. That is an assertion, not an argument. You quote authors who use two‑line terminology, but quoting them does not prove that I used their argument. I did not use the two‑lines‑of‑Bibles argument. You are importing a framework I did not use and then judging me by it.

Your comments about the KJV being based on reconstructed text still do not follow. Collation is not reconstruction. Collation compares existing manuscripts. Reconstruction introduces readings not found in any manuscript. These are not equivalent processes. You did not address that distinction.

You cite authors who discuss Latin influence on printed editions. Quoting them does not prove that the KJV translators used reconstruction in the modern eclectic sense. You are stacking quotations instead of demonstrating equivalence between collation and reconstruction. They are not equivalent.

My position is simple and consistent. The preserved text is the standard. Translations should follow it. That is preserved text only. It is not KJV‑only.

Your quote stacking is still a substitute for argument. It is still noise.

 

[Logos1560]

You keep repeating the KJV‑only label, but repetition is not demonstration. You have not shown that the label fits my position. You are asserting a category, not proving one. My position remains preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

You are still confusing two different categories. KJV‑only is a position about English translations. Preserved text only is a position about the original‑language text. You keep treating those as identical so you can assign me to the category you prefer to argue against. That is the methodological flaw I pointed out.

I am not confusing two different categories as you incorrectly allege. I clearly and directly refer to your own assertions and statements concerning English Bible translations. Your assertions concerning English Bible translations are not consistent. I clearly noted that I consider your view to be KJV-only based on your very own statements or comments relating to English Bibles.

The KJV-only view of many KJV-only advocates is also preserved text only or Textus Receptus-only, showing that someone can be both preserved text only and KJV-only.

 

[Logos1560]

Your comments about the KJV being based on reconstructed text still do not follow. Collation is not reconstruction. Collation compares existing manuscripts. Reconstruction introduces readings not found in any manuscript. These are not equivalent processes. You did not address that distinction.

You incorrectly claim that my accurate comments do not follow because you misrepresent or twist them as saying something that I did not state. I did not claim that all the KJV's underlying text is a reconstructed text as you seem to try to suggest or imply.

The truth remains that the KJV's Old Testament is not translated completely and exclusively from one Hebrew Old Testament manuscript and its New Testament is not translated completely from one Greek NT manuscript. The truth remains that textual criticism [textual editing and reconstruction] was involved in the making of the KJV. There was more than just incomplete and imperfect collation involved in the making of the KJV. The KJV's underlying varying printed Textus Receptus editions contain readings found in no known Greek NT manuscripts and some readings found in a minority of Greek NT manuscripts. The KJV follows some reconstructed readings introduced in the varying Textus Receptus editions that are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.

Jan Krans acknowledged: “As is well known, some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Jan Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Jan Krans maintained that “Erasmus’ text appears as an unsteady bridge between the Byzantine and the Vulgate text, but a bridge nevertheless” (p. 108). Donald Brake noted that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93). In their second edition’s preface, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote: “Some early printed editions (usually Textus Receptus) and English translations include words or phrases that are not part of the Byzantine Textform” (The New Testament, p. xx).

Edward Andrews maintained that “there are some twenty readings in his [Erasmus’] Greek text not found in any Greek manuscript” (Complete Guide to Bible Translation, pp. 132, 324; King James Bible, pp. 22, 184, 222). James Edward Snapp asserted: “The Textus Receptus contains both longer readings and shorter readings that are non-original” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 327).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Jan Krans acknowledged:

Edward Andrews maintained

Jan Krans asserted:

Jan Krans maintained

Donald Brake noted

Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote

Your quote stacking is still a substitute for argument. It is still noise.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You incorrectly claim that my accurate comments do not follow because you misrepresent or twist them as saying something that I did not state. I did not claim that all the KJV's underlying text is a reconstructed text as you seem to try to suggest or imply.

You are still asserting a label instead of proving it. You keep repeating that I am KJV‑only, but repetition is not demonstration. You have not shown that the label fits my stated position. My position remains preserved underlying text, not KJV‑only.

You claim you are not collapsing categories, but you are. KJV‑only is a position about English translations. Preserved text only is a position about the original‑language text. You keep treating those categories as identical so you can force my position into the one you prefer to argue against. You have not justified that collapse. You have to conflate the two positions for your argument to survive.

Your claim that some KJV‑only advocates also hold a preserved text position does not prove that everyone who holds a preserved text position is KJV‑only. That is a basic category error. You are asserting equivalence without demonstrating it.

You repeat that I reject English translations that follow the preserved text. That is not accurate. I reject translations based on reconstructed eclectic texts. That is a textual distinction, not a KJV‑only distinction. You have not addressed that distinction.

Your comments about the KJV being based on reconstructed text still do not follow. Collation compares existing manuscripts. Reconstruction introduces readings not found in any manuscript. These are not the same process. You have not shown that they are the same. Quoting authors who discuss Latin influence on printed editions does not demonstrate equivalence between collation and reconstruction. You are stacking quotations instead of proving your point.

You also continue to avoid the central issue. My position is about the preserved underlying text. You keep shifting the discussion to English translations so you can maintain the KJV‑only label. That shift does not answer the argument I actually made.

My position is simple and consistent. The preserved text is the standard. Translations should follow it. That is preserved text only. It is not KJV‑only.

 

[Logos1560]

Your quote stacking is still a substitute for argument. It is still noise.

Your efforts to dismiss substance and evidence is the noise.