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

[Mike B]

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 this question, above, is the issue, I believe that Bro. Pritchard has more than adequately answered it.

It seems you are looking to debate someone who is KJV-only, and has adopted the position that the
KJV 1611 itself was as equally inspired as the original text. I don't believe anyone here has claimed that.

I've read the thread...is there another question in debate here that I am unaware of?

 

[Logos1560]

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 this question, above, is the issue, I believe that Bro. Pritchard has more than adequately answered it.

In which specific post or posts do you suggest that Anthony Pritchard proved from the Scriptures that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that can be transferred in post-NT translations?

 

[Mike B]

In which specific post or posts do you suggest that Anthony Pritchard proved from the Scriptures that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that can be transferred in post-NT translations?

I can not speak for Bro. Pritchard, however in my reading of the thread I see no place where
he stated his belief that "...........the Scriptures that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a
continuing attribute or quality that can be transferred in post-NT translations?"

You're asking the man to provide proof for a statement he never made. Read post #2

(Bro. Pritchard, my apologies for butting in to your discussion, however the endless quotes in Logos
posts assuming a KJV-only position were benefiting no one. )

 

[Logos1560]

I can not speak for Bro. Pritchard, however in my reading of the thread I see no place where
he stated his belief that "...........the Scriptures that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a
continuing attribute or quality that can be transferred in post-NT translations?"

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.

Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words.

This one thread is not the only place he has presented and stated his views. In another thread, Anthony Pritchard maintained that preservation is God's work, and he does not suggest that God failed to preserve the inspiration of His words in what Anthony claims to be the preserved text. Do his own comments not suggest that he thinks God preserved the inspiration of all His words? Does he not suggest that God gives His words to His people in their own language? Would he suggest that God gives uninspired words?

In another thread, Anthony Pritchard posted: "Psalm 12:7 is not about autographs only, nor does it restrict preservation to original‑language manuscripts. It simply states that God preserves His words. The text does not limit the promise to Hebrew and Greek, nor does it exclude the role of translators whom God raises up to give His words to His people in their own tongue."

Where has Anthony Pritchard suggested that the KJV lost or does not have the quality of inspiration or that the KJV failed to preserve any words of God?

 

[Logos1560]

the endless quotes in Logos
posts assuming a KJV-only position were benefiting no one. )

I do not assume that he holds a KJV-only position. My conclusion is soundly based on what he himself has posted. I have soundly compared what he himself states and claims to similar the claims of KJV-only authors. His own stated opposition to modern translations indicates KJV-only reasoning.

In another thread, Anthony Pritchard posted: "Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it affects the accuracy of the translation itself.

This is why I argue against modern translations. When the receptor language loses categories that the biblical languages require, the translation inevitably loses precision. Pre‑modern English carried those categories natively. Modern English does not."

 

[Mike B]

In another thread, Anthony Pritchard posted: "Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it affects the accuracy of the translation itself.

And you disagree with that sound, logical statement?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

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.

Explain how and why what I said was wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

Explain how and why what I said was wrong.

You present the same interpretation of preservation that KJV-only authors present--one that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English. You do not distinguish your interpretation from the KJV-only interpretation. You do not engage in serious discussion concerning your stated view of preservation and the stated view of KJV-only authors, proving that they differ if they supposedly do.

James Rasbeary asserted: “The primary issue underlying the King James controversy is not the inspiration of God’s Word, but the preservation of God’s inspired words” (What’s Wrong, p. 11). David Cloud declared: “We hold to the King James Bible because of the doctrine of preservation” (Faith, p. 29). David Cloud asserted: “The King James Bible is a product of preservation, not inspiration” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 8). Floyd Jones asserted: “Our authority for the infallibility of the English Bible lies in the promise of God to preserve His Word” (Which Version, 21st edition, p. 77). Floyd Jones wrote: “It is likewise faithfully preserved in the English translation of the 1611 King James Bible” (Chronology, p. 10). Marvin McKenzie wrote: “I want to appeal to the character of God as the only necessary argument for the preservation of the infallible Word of God” (Jackson, Triple Standard, p. 45). Dennis Anderson claimed: “When the King James Bible was translated, forty-seven scholarly men took that which had been given by inspiration and translated it into English. That is Preservation” (Flaming Torch, Summer, 1995, p. 6). David Sorenson commented: “Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. Those results are inerrancy and infallibility” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 211). J. A. Moorman claimed that the KJV “identifies perfectly in its underlying Text the true, inspired, preserved and once delivered (Jude 3) Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Words of Scripture” (When the KJV Departs, p. 44).

Lloyd Streeter asserted: “The doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration necessitates the doctrine of perfect preservation of the text” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 126). David Cloud declared: “The biblical doctrine of preservation is verbal, plenary preservation” (Myths, p. 110). David Cloud claimed: “If Bible preservation is not miraculous, the doctrine of miraculous inspiration is meaningless” (p. 101). David Cloud wrote: “I don’t intend to mix inspiration together with preservation, for these are two distinct things” (What about Ruckman, p. 6). Tim Fellure wrote: “Although not every copy was perfect, I believe that through the many eras of preservation, not one single inspired word was lost” (Neither jot, p. 180). Floyd Jones declared: “God has promised to preserve His Word such that neither jot nor tittle be altered” (Chronology, p. 55). Caleb Garraway wrote: “God promised to preserve every word—we either have it or we do not have it, and those manuscripts that do not contain it are corrupted” (Pure Words, p. 117). Dave Reese asserted: “The Holy Spirit either preserved the inspired Word, in a thorough, accurate manner, or He did not preserve it at all” (The Book, p. 18). Donald Clarke wrote: “God is not the author of confusion and, therefore, He has divinely inspired and providentially preserved only ONE BIBLE” (Bible Version Manual, p. 2).

Charles Nichols claimed: “Perfect inspiration without perfect preservation would leave inspiration a worthless Biblical doctrine” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 68). Charles Nichols asked: “What value is an inspired Scripture for extended generations of human beings if it is not preserved in that inspired form?” (p. 66). Charles Nichols declared: “”The necessity of Scripture for the perfect preparation of the man of God also demands the preservation of every Word of God for every man of God in every generation” (p. 68). In the same book, Thomas Corkish asserted: “Without the guarantee of the pure preservation of Scripture, the inspiration of the originals would be of little value” (p. 151). In this same book, Thomas Strouse claimed: “The Scriptures teach both implicitly and explicitly the doctrine of verbal, plenary preservation as a fundamental truth” (p. 243). Thomas Strouse asserted: “The OT and NT Scriptures attest to the promise of verbal, plenary preservation of the Lord’s words” (p. 249). In this book that he edited, Kent Brandenburg claimed: “Scripture promises the perfect preservation and availability of all the Words of God to every generation” (p. 261). Kent Brandenburg asserted: “Perfect preservation requires a miracle” (p. 263). Kent Brandenburg claimed: “Matthew 24:35 teaches that every one of God’s Words, as He gave them of old to holy men of God, are extant and available for every generation” (p. 64). Caleb Garraway asserted: “God promises that His Word will be accessible in every age” (Pure Words, p. 83). Steve Combs wrote: “This plan of God requires His words to be available in each generation” (Magnified, p. 132). Harold Cowart wrote: “Preservation is the biblical teaching that God has faithfully kept His written Word accessible, authoritative, and unchanged for every generation” (Preservation, p. 7). Andrew Steers wrote: “This charge from Psalm 12 was to include every generation of people around the world down through the ages” (Is There Not, p. 182). Floyd Jones wrote: “God has always ‘providentially preserved’ them [the Scriptures] within and by the believing Church throughout history” (Chronology, p. 10).

Barry Burton asked: “Did God preserve His Word perfect for us today, or was it only perfect ‘in the original autographs?” (Let’s Weigh, p. 7). Samuel Gipp asked: “Why did God inspire a perfect original if He didn’t plan on preserving it?” (Answer Book, p. 85). David Cloud asked: “Of what benefit is the doctrine of verbal inspiration if it applies only to the autographs and if we do not hold to a doctrine of preservation that results in one authoritative Bible today?” (Answering, p. 23). G. John Rov claimed: “Please know that inspiration without preservation is absolutely meaningless” (Concealed, p. 37). Andrew Steers asserted: “Preservation, on the other hand, means that it does not change” (Is There Not, p. 333). Andrew Steers wrote: “The perfection of God’s Word is a necessary part of the preservation of the Word of God” (p. 335). Andrew Steers asserted: “One cannot have purified words and the preservation of His Word without inspiration, nor can one have perfection. Since these promises are echoed within the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures, the promise of preservation had to prevail in some way, thereby ensuring that, even into the present day, one could be assured, or stronger still, guaranteed of having God’s perfect, inerrant Word in one’s hands” (p. 99).

William Grady asserted: “Without infallible preservation, we are forced to conclude that God’s breath evaporated with the deterioration of His originals” (Final Authority, p. 17). William Grady asked: “If God’s breath rested on the very originals He intended to preserve, wouldn’t common sense dictate that the final ancestor would also have to retain inspiration?“ (p. 22). R. B. Ouellette wrote: “Verbal inspiration demands verbal preservation” (More Sure Word, p. 138). Peter Van Kleeck, Jr., claimed: “”God’s promise has not been to necessarily preserve all of His words between two covers at all times, but that He would infallibly preserve His words for and in all time” (30 Best, p. 31). Floyd Jones asserted: “God promised to preserve the text against permanent destruction. He did not guarantee within that promise the accuracy of each and every manuscript” (Ripped Out, p. 84). Ed DeVries entitled the second chapter of his book as follows: “the inerrant preservation of the Bible” (Divinely Inspired, p. 10). Taylor DeSoto wrote: “The King James Only position is that the Bible, though originally preserved in Hebrew and Greek, was finally preserved in the English language of the KJV” (Received Text, p. 45).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not assume that he holds a KJV-only position. My conclusion is soundly based on what he himself has posted. I have soundly compared what he himself states and claims to similar the claims of KJV-only authors.

I have always maintained that it is not the KJV, but the underlying text, many bibles were translated from the preserved text, earlier English and other languages as well.. Any bible that is translated from the preserved text has the right start, I reject those translated from the reconstructed text. Second, I have always maintained that modern English is degraded, that it is imprecise. It is not KJV only, it is preserved text only. You continue to misrepresent my words and my position.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

In another thread, Anthony Pritchard maintained that preservation is God's work,

Galatians 3:16

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

Even to the very letters, in this case an "s" determines the doctrine of Salvation.

Psalm 119:52

“Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.”

Forever.

Psalm 119:160

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”

Forever.

Matthew 24:35

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Shall not pass away.

Matthew 5:18

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

In no wise pass.

God preserves His Word.

There you have a quote list that is worth something.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

David Cloud wrote: “I don’t intend to mix inspiration together with preservation, for these are two distinct things”

I agree with you on this. There is no reinspiration, that would require the old inspiration to pass away, and that cannot be, it would be contrary to Matthew 24:35. Preservation, not reinspiration.

 

[Logos1560]

I have always maintained that it is not the KJV, but the underlying text, many bibles were translated from the preserved text, earlier English and other languages as well.. Any bible that is translated from the preserved text has the right start, I reject those translated from the reconstructed text. Second, I have always maintained that modern English is degraded, that it is imprecise. It is not KJV only, it is preserved text only.

Peter Ruckman and many KJV-only authors also accept the many bibles translated from the preserved text, earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1611 KJV, and translations in other languages. Your view of preservation leads to the same conclusions that the view of preservation of KJV-only authors leads.

You fail to prove that the Scriptures state or teach your subjective opinion that suggests that the word of God cannot be translated accurately into Modern English. Early Modern English was imprecise and not standardized, and you do not prove Early Modern English to be superior in all aspects to Modern English.

You fail to demonstrate that I am misrepresenting your position. Your position is basically the same position as that of several KJV-only authors that I have read. You do not seem to understand what constitutes a KJV-only view.

 

[Logos1560]

I agree with you on this. There is no reinspiration, that would require the old inspiration to pass away, and that cannot be, it would be contrary to Matthew 24:35. Preservation, not reinspiration.

Only one camp or group out of four varying KJV-only camps would seem to suggest resinspiration.

You can still agree with one of the three other views of inspiration held by KJV-only advocates. One camp possibly advocates retained or continuing inspiration, one camp advocates derivative inspiration, one camp advocates a new or second inspiration for the KJV, and one camp advocates 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.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your position is basically the same position as that of several KJV-only authors that I have read. You do not seem to understand what constitutes a KJV-only view.

What you are doing now is textbook bad‑faith escalation: reframing my position, assigning me to a camp I explicitly reject, and declaring my arguments “unproven” without engaging them. Bad‑faith arguing is marked by misrepresentation, pivoting, and volume attacks rather than engagement. Quote‑stacking often misrepresents context and becomes part of the “record” even when inaccurate.

You not only misrepresent my position and my words, but you insist on asserting things I have never claimed and assigning me to positions I have explicitly rejected. That is misrepresentation, not argument. My position has been consistent: preserved text only, not KJV‑only, not reinspiration, not derivative inspiration, but preserved inspiration. You keep repeating that my view “leads to the same conclusions,” but repeating a claim is not proving it. You have not demonstrated equivalence, you have not engaged the linguistic argument, and you have not shown where I ever affirmed the positions you are attributing to me.

Here is the clean distinction:

• Me: Inspiration is a past act; preservation carries that inspired text forward.
• KJV‑only reinspiration camp: Inspiration happens again in 1611.
• Derivative inspiration camp: The KJV receives a new, secondary inspiration.
• Retained inspiration (KJV‑only version): The KJV itself retains inspiration uniquely.

My position is preserved text only, not KJV‑only. You keep trying to collapse those categories, but they are not collapsible.

At this point, you are arguing against a version of my position that exists only in your description of it. When winning matters more than truth, clarity, or honest engagement, it is time to shut it down. I will not engage in bad‑faith discussions, and I am not continuing in that frame. This conversation serves no further purpose and is over.

 

[Mike B]

You fail to prove that the Scriptures state or teach your subjective opinion that suggests that the word of God cannot be translated accurately into Modern English.
You fail to demonstrate that I am misrepresenting your position. Your position is basically the same position as that of several KJV-only authors that I have read. You do not seem to understand what constitutes a KJV-only view.

Having followed these discussions, aside from the endless quotes from KJV-only authors you
have failed to prove much of anything, and yet here you claim some type of "victory", and appear
to be quite proud of yourself.

I have yet to find a modern English translation that I am satisfied with, and have looked at a great
many. I wouldn't call them bad translations, but they just don't engender the same trust as I
find in the KJV. By your standard, I guess that makes me a "KJV-only" person.

If that's what it is, I can live with that.

 

[Logos1560]

Having followed these discussions, aside from the endless quotes from KJV-only authors you
have failed to prove much of anything, and yet here you claim some type of "victory", and appear
to be quite proud of yourself.

That is what Anthony Pritchard and you seem to be doing. Does he claim the victory, asserting that I have supposedly proven nothing? I did not claim some type of "victory" as you try to put words in my mouth and allege incorrectly. I am not interested in "winning" as you seem to assume and attack my motives. My effort is to present and defend the Scriptures and to present and defend the truth. I present a different perspective than a typical KJV-only one. Anthony Pritchard accuses me of "bad faith", seeming to question my honesty or integrity.

He condemns me for stating that his assertions are unproven while he repeatedly claims that my research and documented evidence do not prove my supported points. I have engaged his stated arguments and points. He suggests his assertions are proven without actually being proven to be true and scriptural. Here is an example of where I directly addressed his claim that "the differences among TR editions are minor" and presented facts that would prove that claim to be not true, but he merely dismissed the verifiable facts as "noise".

The Textus Receptus is not a single edition. It is a family of printed Greek texts that represent the preserved stream. The differences among TR editions are minor and do not reflect reconstruction.

Actual verifiable facts from the twenty to thirty varying Textus Receptus Greek NT editions would prove that the differences are not all "minor."

Are textual differences involving whole verses or entire clauses very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant?

The printed TR editions differ in whether or not they have four whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 21:26 along with one half of 1 John 2:23. Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, Revelation 5:11b, and Revelation 18:23a.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills maintained that the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the “majority of the Greek manuscripts” have their purification at Luke 2:22 (KJV Defended, p. 221; Text, p. 367). Many of the Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the TR editions and several TR editions have the reading his father at Luke 2:33. Theodore Beza altered the actual wording of the Greek text of Erasmus at Luke 2:33. In the case of Luke 10:22, an edition of Stephanus has a reading [“and turning to his disciples he said”] followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible that Backus reported where Beza “remarks that the phrase appears in many ancient MSS” although he omits it from his text (Reformed Roots, p. 85). At the beginning of John 14:1, Erasmus’ text has a reading (“And he said unto his disciples”) that is not found in Beza.

Revelation 16:5
and Holy [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus, Stephanus]
and shalt be [1611 KJV] [reading introduced by Beza in his Greek text] [This new Beza reading is found in no known Greek NT manuscripts]


In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.

 

[Logos1560]

I have yet to find a modern English translation that I am satisfied with, and have looked at a great
many. I wouldn't call them bad translations, but they just don't engender the same trust as I
find in the KJV. By your standard, I guess that makes me a "KJV-only" person.

Perhaps you do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which you would approach the Geneva Bible or the KJV. Do you approach the NKJV and other modern English Bibles as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation?

Perhaps you may come to inspect a mirror [the NKJV] (perhaps using a magnifying glass) instead of coming to see yourself in this mirror of the Scriptures translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Do you only look inconsistently and critically at this mirror and refuse to look in it? Would you read the NKJV as the word of God translated into English and with a willingness to obey and apply the scriptural truths in its verses to your own life? Because you may come to the NKJV solely as a critic or because you may read against it, you may be unable to see that it would belong in the same family of Bible translations as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.

You may not respect, accept, or believe the NKJV as a good Bible translation which can communicate to you the words of God translated into English.

 

[Logos1560]

you have not engaged the linguistic argument,

I did engage your unproven linguistic argument, and I countered it. Your seeming "bad faith" dismissal of that engagement is wrong.

The Scriptures do not state or teach any opinion that suggests that the word of God cannot be translated accurately into Modern English. Early Modern English was imprecise and not standardized, and you do not prove Early Modern English to be superior in all aspects to Modern English.

The lack of standardization of grammar and spelling in Early Modern English does not suggest that it is a more precise and accurate English than Modern English. Jack Lynch quoted the following from Samuel Johnson’s 1755 preface to his dictionary: “When I took the first survey of my undertaking, I found our speech copious without order, and energetick without rules: wherever I turned my view, there was perplexity to be disentangled, and confusion to be regulated; choice was to be made out of boundless variety, without any established principle of selection; adulterations were to be detected, without a settled test for purity; and modes of expression to be rejected or received, without the suffrages of any writers of classical reputation or acknowledged authority” (Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, p. 25).

David Crystal noted: “The King James Bible looks backward in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English, p. 65). David Crystal maintained that the KJV translators “often opted for older forms of the language, when modern alternatives were available” (Ibid.). David Crystal wrote: “The -eth [ending] was already dying out in Shakespeare’s day, and a century later wouldn’t be seen at all, other than in writers being deliberately archaic – or, as with the taxman cometh, being jocular” (Making Sense, p. 181). David Crystal wrote: “The third person singular of the present tense of verbs is always –(e)th. In other texts of the period, it is being replaced by -s” (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English, p. 65). Concerning the KJV, David Crystal pointed out: “In particular, the modern use of do with negatives and in questions is missing: we find they knew him not instead of they did not know him. By contrast, both old and new constructions are used in Shakespeare, and the do construction became standard by about 1700” (Ibid.).

April Mahon wrote: “As thou slips away moreover, it takes along the matching verb ending – (e)st of forms such as thou goest, thou thinkest, thou seest, which in turn contributes to that general reduction of overt inflectional morphology which, as we have seen, had been under way since the Old English period. In the same vein, the earlier – (e)th verbal marker for the third person singular present tense first comes to alternate with the originally northern –(e)s, and is gradually displaced by it” (Mugglestone, Oxford History of English, p. 182). April Mahan wrote: “In syntax, the furthest-reaching development in early modern English involves the use of do” (p. 183). In this same history of English, Terttu Nevalainen mentioned “two important processes of change in Tudor English: one that affected the third-person singular verbal ending (e.g. he knoweth, which was gradually displaced by he knows), and one that introduced the auxiliary do into English (so that structures such as they know not were gradually displaced by they do not know)” (p. 221). Tertu Nevalainen wrote: “The rise of do is a grammatical development which is, in histories of the language, particularly associated with Tudor English” (p. 244). Tertu Nevalainen referred to “the Tudor period from the late fifteenth to the early seventeenth century (1482-1603)” (p. 222). Terttu Nevalainen wrote: “Most speakers now associate –(e )th with archaic usage” (p. 226).