The Extent of Corruption

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Extent of Corruption in Modern Versions from the Reconstructed Text​

From The Drift Series – The Drift of the Churches

For many years I have studied the history of the biblical text, tracing the two streams of transmission that have shaped the English Bible. One stream is the preserved text, copied, preached, and lived in by the churches across centuries. The other is the reconstructed text, assembled from a small number of manuscripts that differ sharply from the majority and were not used by the churches. Modern versions follow the reconstructed text. The King James Bible follows the preserved text.

The modern theory that “older is better” has become the foundation of contemporary translation work. It is repeated so often that many assume it must be true. Yet the history of transmission does not support this claim. Age alone does not determine accuracy. Age does not guarantee purity. Age does not guarantee doctrinal stability. If age were the only criterion, we would discard the Masoretic tradition, the Byzantine tradition, the lectionaries, the patristic quotations, and the manuscripts used by the churches. The preserved stream is preserved because it was used. The reconstructed stream is reconstructed because it was not.

The reconstructed text is rooted in the Alexandrian environment. Alexandria was not a neutral copying center. It was a philosophical school that mixed Greek thought with Christian terminology. Its most influential figure, Origen Adamantius, approached Scripture through allegory and speculation. He did not treat the biblical text as a fixed record. He treated it as material to be adjusted and harmonized according to his own system. His environment produced manuscripts that reflect abbreviation, doctrinal smoothing, speculative correction, and the incorporation of marginal notes into the text.

The extent of corruption in the reconstructed text is not small. It is extensive. Entire verses are omitted. Partial verses are removed. Doctrinal statements are weakened. Christological declarations are altered. Harmonizations are stripped away. Eschatological phrasing is changed. Soteriological wording is softened. Some omissions leave Christ’s statements unsupported, creating the appearance of contradiction. These differences arise from the character of the Alexandrian environment and the editorial habits of those who shaped its manuscripts.

The preserved stream tells a different story. It represents the text used by the churches. It appears in thousands of manuscripts across centuries and continents. It appears in lectionaries, in patristic writings, and in the ecclesiastical tradition. When a verse appears in multiple independent manuscripts, in multiple regions, in multiple centuries, and in the worship life of the churches, it is not a marginal note. It is part of the preserved text.

The scale of omission in the reconstructed text is visible on the page. When the preserved text is compared to the reconstructed text, the number of missing or bracketed verses is not small. It affects doctrine directly. These differences do not arise from careful restoration. They arise from reliance on a tiny minority of manuscripts that differ sharply from the preserved stream, the lectionaries, the patristic writers, and ancient versions such as the Peshitta. When a reading appears in multiple independent witnesses across centuries and continents, it is not a marginal note. It is part of the preserved text.

Acts 8:37 is one of the clearest examples. The preserved text records the confession of faith before baptism: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” This is not a minor detail. It is the doctrinal foundation for believer’s baptism as a confession of faith rather than a ritual performed without understanding. When this verse is removed, the doctrinal structure of baptism is weakened.

Matthew 18:11 is another example. “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” This statement of Christ’s purpose appears in the preserved stream, in the lectionaries, and in ancient versions. It is omitted in modern versions because it is absent from a narrow set of Alexandrian witnesses.

John 5:4 provides another illustration. The preserved text records the angel troubling the water at Bethesda, explaining the context of the miracle. The reconstructed text removes this verse entirely. Without it, the narrative becomes abrupt and confusing. The supernatural context is lost.

The Trinitarian witness in 1 John 5:7 is perhaps the most debated example. The preserved text contains the clear statement: “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The reconstructed text removes it from the main body of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on this single verse, but the clarity of the preserved text is unmistakable.

Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 are treated as doubtful in modern versions. These passages contain resurrection appearances, the commission of the disciples, Christ’s handling of sin and mercy, and the narrative continuity of the Gospels. The preserved stream contains them. The reconstructed stream questions them because a few manuscripts differ.

These examples show that the scale of omission is not small, they are far to numerous to list here. It affects doctrine. It affects clarity. It affects continuity. It affects the promise that every word, every jot, and every tittle would be preserved. The preserved stream reflects that promise. The reconstructed stream reflects the instability of the Alexandrian environment. The preserved text stands because it has been preserved. The reconstructed text falls because it has been reconstructed.

Sources: Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis, van Bruggen, Pickering, Moorman, Fuller, Garrett.

~Tony © A.K. Pritchard 1979–2021 – Free to use with proper attribution

 

[SovereignGrace]

The real question should be why did the KJV use the TR which has additions in it? The corruption is in those additions, not in the CT.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The real question should be why did the KJV use the TR which has additions in it? The corruption is in those additions, not in the CT.

You’ve made a claim about “additions in the TR,” but you haven’t provided a source, a manuscript, or a citation. If you want to discuss additions, you need to identify the specific verses, the specific manuscripts, and the specific textual witnesses involved.

The preserved stream represents the text used by the churches across centuries. It appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions. The reconstructed text is built on a very small number of Alexandrian manuscripts that differ sharply from that preserved tradition.

When we compare the two streams, the documented and measurable omissions are in the CT, not the TR. Entire verses are omitted. Partial verses are removed. Doctrinal statements are weakened. These differences arise from the character of the Alexandrian manuscripts, not from the preserved stream.

If you want to claim “additions,” you will need to show the evidence. Simply asserting it is not enough.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Sources

The history of the biblical text has been examined by many scholars across centuries, and their work provides a clear record of the two streams of transmission that shape the English Bible. The preserved text, used by the churches, appears in the vast majority of manuscripts and reflects the continuity of ecclesiastical life. The reconstructed text, used by modern versions, is built on a small number of Alexandrian manuscripts that differ sharply from the preserved stream. This difference is not a matter of opinion. It is documented by historians, textual scholars, and theologians whose work spans more than a century.

John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester, devoted his life to examining the manuscripts behind the reconstructed text. His work demonstrates that the Alexandrian manuscripts, especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, contain thousands of omissions, contradictions, and alterations. Burgon showed that these manuscripts are unstable and unreliable, and he argued that the preserved text reflects the true continuity of Scripture as used by the churches. His books, including The Revision Revised and The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, remain foundational for understanding the difference between the preserved and reconstructed streams.

F. H. A. Scrivener, one of the most respected textual scholars of the nineteenth century, documented the instability of the Alexandrian manuscripts and the strength of the Byzantine tradition. Scrivener was not a partisan writer. He was a careful historian whose work is still cited by modern scholars. His Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament explains the character of the preserved text and the weaknesses of the reconstructed text. Scrivener’s work confirms that the preserved stream is not a late invention but a stable tradition used by the churches.

Edward F. Hills, trained at Harvard, approached the subject with both scholarly discipline and theological conviction. Hills demonstrated that the preserved text is not merely a majority tradition but a providentially preserved one. His book The King James Version Defended explains why the reconstructed text is unstable and why the preserved text reflects the continuity of Scripture. Hills also exposed the fallacy of assuming that older manuscripts are automatically better, showing that age alone does not determine accuracy.

Theodore Letis contributed significantly to the modern understanding of textual history. His work distinguishes between the ecclesiastical text, used by the churches, and the academic text, reconstructed by scholars. Letis showed that modern textual criticism is driven by academic theory rather than ecclesiastical continuity. His book The Ecclesiastical Text explains how the reconstructed text departs from the tradition used by the churches and why this departure matters.

Jakob van Bruggen, a Dutch scholar, wrote a clear critique of the reconstructed text in The Future of the Bible. Van Bruggen demonstrated that modern textual criticism destabilizes Scripture by relying on a small number of Alexandrian manuscripts that differ from the preserved stream. His work shows that the reconstructed text is not a restoration of the original but a reconstruction based on a narrow set of witnesses.

Wilbur Pickering’s work, especially The Identity of the New Testament Text, provides strong evidence for the stability and antiquity of the preserved stream. Pickering shows that the Byzantine tradition is not a late development but an ancient and reliable text. His research confirms that the preserved stream reflects the continuity of transmission, while the reconstructed stream reflects the instability of the Alexandrian environment.

Jack Moorman’s books, including Forever Settled and Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, offer clear documentation of the preserved text’s continuity. Moorman demonstrates that the preserved stream aligns with early patristic quotations and lectionary evidence. His work shows that the reconstructed text is built on manuscripts that differ sharply from the preserved tradition and that these differences are extensive.

David Otis Fuller compiled essays from preserved‑stream scholars in Which Bible?, providing accessible summaries of the issues surrounding the reconstructed text. Les Garrett’s Which Bible Can We Trust? explains the Alexandrian environment and the influence of Origen, whose allegorical and philosophical approach shaped the manuscripts that modern versions rely on.

The early church writers also provide important evidence. Writers such as Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Augustine frequently quote readings that align with the preserved text. Their writings show that the preserved stream was known, used, and preached long before the Alexandrian manuscripts were elevated by modern textual critics.

The lectionaries used by the churches across centuries overwhelmingly support the preserved stream. These lectionaries represent the Scripture as it was read in worship, preached in sermons, and lived in by the people of God. Their testimony confirms the continuity of the preserved text.

The manuscript evidence itself is decisive. The preserved stream represents about ninety‑five percent of all manuscripts. The reconstructed stream represents about five percent. This is not rhetoric. It is the documented reality of textual history. The preserved text is preserved because it was used. The reconstructed text is reconstructed because it was not.

These sources provide the historical foundation for understanding the extent of corruption in modern versions and expose the fallacy of assuming that older manuscripts are automatically better. The preserved text reflects continuity, stability, and ecclesiastical use. The reconstructed text reflects instability, alteration, and philosophical influence. The difference between the two streams is not small. It is the difference between preservation and reconstruction.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You’ve made a claim about “additions in the TR,” but you haven’t provided a source, a manuscript, or a citation. If you want to discuss additions, you need to identify the specific verses, the specific manuscripts, and the specific textual witnesses involved.

The preserved stream represents the text used by the churches across centuries. It appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions. The reconstructed text is built on a very small number of Alexandrian manuscripts that differ sharply from that preserved tradition.

When we compare the two streams, the documented and measurable omissions are in the CT, not the TR. Entire verses are omitted. Partial verses are removed. Doctrinal statements are weakened. These differences arise from the character of the Alexandrian manuscripts, not from the preserved stream.

If you want to claim “additions,” you will need to show the evidence. Simply asserting it is not enough.

Sinaiticus does not have the longer ending of Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7, just to name a few. I called Dr. James White's show "Dividing Line" one time and asked him about the longer ending of Mark 16 and he admitted there is more attestation to it than John 7:53-8:11, but thought it was not written by Mark. The pericope adulterae was even found in other of the gospels. IIRC, one mss of Luke contains it. Family 13 and GA 1333 have that in Luke's gospel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Vaticanus does not have the longer ending of Mark 16, the Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37 [same with Sinaiticus], 1 John 5:7, just to name a few. And both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are way older than any mss the men used when translating the KJV.

 

[SovereignGrace]

According to Dr. White, those men who gave us the KJV used the five editions of Erasmus' GNT, Beza's, and Stephanus'. They consulted with the Latin Vulgate (hello Lucifer), Tyndale, LXX, among others. So the KJV is not solely the offspring of the TR, but has many others contained in its pages.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Sinaiticus does not have the longer ending of Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7, just to name a few. I called Dr. James White's show "Dividing Line" one time and asked him about the longer ending of Mark 16 and he admitted there is more attestation to it than John 7:53-8:11, but thought it was not written by Mark. The pericope adulterae was even found in other of the gospels. IIRC, one mss of Luke contains it. Family 13 and GA 1333 have that in Luke's gospel.

You’ve listed several places where the CT omits material found in the preserved stream. That does not demonstrate “additions in the TR.” It demonstrates omissions in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

If you want to claim additions, you still need to identify:

• the specific verse
• the specific manuscript evidence
• the specific textual witnesses

Simply pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions. It only shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ sharply from the preserved stream, which is exactly the point I made earlier.

The preserved stream appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions. The CT relies on a very small number of Alexandrian witnesses. If you want to argue that the preserved stream “added” material, you will need to show the evidence. Listing CT omissions is not evidence of TR additions.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Vaticanus does not have the longer ending of Mark 16, the Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37 [same with Sinaiticus], 1 John 5:7, just to name a few. And both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are way older than any mss the men used when translating the KJV.

Listing places where the CT omits material found in the preserved stream does not demonstrate “additions in the TR.” It demonstrates omissions in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. That is the difference between the two streams.

Age alone does not determine accuracy. Older manuscripts can omit material just as easily as later ones can. The preserved stream appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions across centuries and regions. The CT relies on a very small number of Alexandrian witnesses that differ sharply from that preserved tradition.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” you still need to identify the specific verses and the specific manuscript evidence. Simply pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Listing places where the CT omits material found in the preserved stream does not demonstrate “additions in the TR.” It demonstrates omissions in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. That is the difference between the two streams.

Age alone does not determine accuracy. Older manuscripts can omit material just as easily as later ones can. The preserved stream appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions across centuries and regions. The CT relies on a very small number of Alexandrian witnesses that differ sharply from that preserved tradition.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” you still need to identify the specific verses and the specific manuscript evidence. Simply pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions.

Seeing the earliest mss the TR used is around 12th century, and the ones the CT used are closer to the originals, around the 4th century, should show you there is less chance with corruptions.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You’ve listed several places where the CT omits material found in the preserved stream. That does not demonstrate “additions in the TR.” It demonstrates omissions in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

If you want to claim additions, you still need to identify:

• the specific verse
• the specific manuscript evidence
• the specific textual witnesses

Simply pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions. It only shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ sharply from the preserved stream, which is exactly the point I made earlier.

The preserved stream appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions. The CT relies on a very small number of Alexandrian witnesses. If you want to argue that the preserved stream “added” material, you will need to show the evidence. Listing CT omissions is not evidence of TR additions.

Seeing that the Pericope Adulterae is found in both Luke and John in differing mss should raise red flags everywhere. Then the longer ending of Mark tying baptism with salvation, drinking poison and handling serpents, Jesus appearing to them in a different form, should also raise red flags.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You’ve listed several places where the CT omits material found in the preserved stream. That does not demonstrate “additions in the TR.” It demonstrates omissions in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

If you want to claim additions, you still need to identify:

• the specific verse
• the specific manuscript evidence
• the specific textual witnesses

Simply pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions. It only shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ sharply from the preserved stream, which is exactly the point I made earlier.

The preserved stream appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions. The CT relies on a very small number of Alexandrian witnesses. If you want to argue that the preserved stream “added” material, you will need to show the evidence. Listing CT omissions is not evidence of TR additions.

You keep saying they omit verses. Oddly, it is actually later additions in the mss used to compile the TR that is the culprit.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

ou keep saying they omit verses. Oddly, it is actually later additions in the mss used to compile the TR that is the culprit.

You’ve repeated the claim of “later additions,” but you still haven’t identified a single verse, manuscript, or textual witness. Age alone does not determine accuracy. Older manuscripts can omit material just as easily as later ones can, and the Alexandrian witnesses demonstrate that repeatedly.

Pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions. It only shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ sharply from the preserved stream, which appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions across centuries and regions.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” you will need to show the specific verses and the specific manuscript evidence. Until then, the claim remains unsupported.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You’ve repeated the claim of “later additions,” but you still haven’t identified a single verse, manuscript, or textual witness. Age alone does not determine accuracy. Older manuscripts can omit material just as easily as later ones can, and the Alexandrian witnesses demonstrate that repeatedly.

Pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions. It only shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ sharply from the preserved stream, which appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions across centuries and regions.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” you will need to show the specific verses and the specific manuscript evidence. Until then, the claim remains unsupported.

And why do you repeatedly call it the "preserved stream"? Upon what basis can you make such a claim?

 

[SovereignGrace]

You’ve repeated the claim of “later additions,” but you still haven’t identified a single verse, manuscript, or textual witness. Age alone does not determine accuracy. Older manuscripts can omit material just as easily as later ones can, and the Alexandrian witnesses demonstrate that repeatedly.

Pointing to CT omissions does not prove TR additions. It only shows that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ sharply from the preserved stream, which appears in thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic quotations, and ancient versions across centuries and regions.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” you will need to show the specific verses and the specific manuscript evidence. Until then, the claim remains unsupported.

And don't think for one second if the roles were reversed and the TR had the earlier mss tradition that you wouldn't throw that in our faces. Y'all make the claim that older does not necessarily mean more accurate. In middle school a teacher whispered something into a girl's ear, and she whispered into someone else's ear and so on and so forth. By the time it got back to her, it was not even remotely close to what she first whispered. I know that is not ironclad proof, but the point remains, the further you get from the original(s) the greater likelihood of error taking place.

So I have zero problem saying mss in the 4th century AD are closer to the original in accuracy than mss from the 12th century.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And why do you repeatedly call it the "preserved stream"? Upon what basis can you make such a claim?

I call it the preserved stream because the readings appear consistently in the vast majority of manuscripts, across multiple centuries and regions, in the lectionaries used in worship, and in the writings of the early fathers. That is the historical basis.

The sources I listed earlier document this, Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis, van Bruggen, Pickering, Moorman, Fuller, Garrett, along with the patristic writers and the lectionary tradition. These are the witnesses to the preserved stream.

A reading supported by thousands of manuscripts, broad geographic distribution, centuries of continuity, lectionary use, and patristic quotation reflects preservation. A reading supported by a very small number of Alexandrian manuscripts reflects reconstruction.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” the discussion still requires specific verses and specific manuscript evidence. Listing CT omissions does not demonstrate TR additions.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And don't think for one second if the roles were reversed and the TR had the earlier mss tradition that you wouldn't throw that in our faces. Y'all make the claim that older does not necessarily mean more accurate. In middle school a teacher whispered something into a girl's ear, and she whispered into someone else's ear and so on and so forth. By the time it got back to her, it was not even remotely close to what she first whispered. I know that is not ironclad proof, but the point remains, the further you get from the original(s) the greater likelihood of error taking place.

So I have zero problem saying mss in the 4th century AD are closer to the original in accuracy than mss from the 12th century.

I call it the preserved stream because the readings appear consistently in the vast majority of manuscripts, across multiple centuries and regions, in the lectionaries used in worship, and in the writings of the early fathers. That is the historical basis.

The sources I listed earlier document this: Burgon, Scrivener, Hills, Letis, van Bruggen, Pickering, Moorman, Fuller, Garrett, along with the patristic writers and the lectionary tradition. These are the witnesses to the preserved stream.

A reading supported by thousands of manuscripts, broad geographic distribution, centuries of continuity, lectionary use, and patristic quotation reflects preservation. A reading supported by a very small number of Alexandrian manuscripts reflects reconstruction.

If you want to claim “additions in the TR,” the discussion still requires specific verses and specific manuscript evidence. Listing CT omissions does not demonstrate TR additions.

 

[Logos1560]

​

For many years I have studied the history of the biblical text, tracing the two streams of transmission that have shaped the English Bible. One stream is the preserved text, copied, preached, and lived in by the churches across centuries. The other is the reconstructed text, assembled from a small number of manuscripts that differ sharply from the majority and were not used by the churches. Modern versions follow the reconstructed text. The King James Bible follows the preserved text.

Your study is mostly from KJV-only sources which have misled you. The two streams of transmission argument is a leading KJV-only argument, confirming my observation that you are using a KJV-only argument. You do not prove your KJV-only argument to be true.

Verifiable facts would prove that there were not two completely separate streams of manuscripts each from a different original source and without any assumed mixing of the two. All the readings followed in the KJV are not found consistently in the vast majority of manuscripts across multiple centuries and regions. According to a consistent application of your claims, do any readings followed in the KJV supported by zero known Greek NT manuscripts reflect reconstruction? You choose to ignore or dismiss the evidence that you contradict your argument.

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). Jan Krans asserted: “In the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7)” (p. 61, footnote 36). 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” (p. 11).

After including Acts 8:37 in his list of Latin Vulgate readings followed by Erasmus, KJV defender Edward F. Hills maintained that “in his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading [Acts 8:37] from the margin of [manuscript] 4ap” (KJV Defended, pp. 200-201; Text, p. 337). Edward F. Hills, one of your own sources, listed Latin Vulgate readings that were added by Erasmus to his Greek text. Do you try to keep that fact hidden?

H. A. G. Houghton noted that “some of the extra phrases present in the Latin tradition were incorporated by Erasmus and feature in the Greek Textus Receptus” (Latin NT, p. 168).

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).

 

[Logos1560]

The sound, compelling evidence of the direct and significant influence of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV could be soundly considered a serious or even a devastating problem for a KJV-only view and its preserved stream claims and arguments. It is a serious problem for their purified seven times argument.

In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Chris Sherburne declared: “If you translate or teach from a broken (unpreserved) Scripture, or knowingly accept bibles prepared by those who don’t believe ‘the record’, you are therefore calling God a liar” (Enough, p. 106). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 Douay [Rheims] on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). Benjamin Wilkinson listed the Rheims on his corrupted stream of Bibles, and he referred to it as the “Jesuit Bible of 1582” (Our Authorized Bible, p. 43). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2).

Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). Michael Maynard asserted: “As a whole, the 16th century Vulgate edition was regarded as agreeing strongly with Vaticanus” (Historical Defense, p. 9). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20).

Terence McLean alleged: “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate came directly from the fifty Bibles made up by Eusebius from the deity-denying text of Adamantius Origen” (History of Your Bible, p. 32). Greg Axe and W. Alan Shelby wrote: “A Catholic monk named Jerome took the corrupt line from the library of Origen and produced the ‘Latin Vulgate’ version” (Long Live, p. 98). Greg Axe and W. Alan Shelby asserted: “Then Jerome translated the false line from the library of Origen into the Latin Vulgate version” (Ibid.). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160). David Daniels asserted that the Jesuits “made the Rheims-Douay” (Did the Catholic Church, p. 111). Kevin Christy referred to “the corrupt satanic Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims bible” (Meaning, p. 3). David O’Steen claimed: “The Catholic Rheims Bible of 1582 was an English translation based on the corrupt Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome” (Study Notes, p. 97).

In his commentary on the Psalms, Peter Ruckman wrote: “A pure Bible couldn’t come from an impure source” (Vol. II, p. 979). D. A. Waite claimed: “If the SOURCE be corrupted, the PRODUCT likewise must be corrupted” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1979, p. 2). Caleb Garraway declared: “You cannot get pure words from a polluted source” (Pure Words, p. 251). Thomas Corkish asserted: “God does not associate with something impure” (Bradenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 151). Thomas Corkish claimed: “Purity requires every and all words in the correct order” (p. 152). Thomas Corkish declared: “To continue qualifying as God’s Word, the Bible must remain pure” (Ibid.). David O’Steen declared: “If a Bible has an error, it cannot be the scripture” (Study Notes, p. 61). Al Lacy contended: “If it [a Bible translation] has even ONE error, it is NOT the Word of TRUTH! You cannot trust it” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy asserted: “If we do not have a perfect translation, we do not HAVE the Scriptures” (p. 101). Terence McLean claimed that “the Bible of the true Christians never cross-pollinated with the corrupted texts until the nineteenth century” (History of Your Bible, p. 33). Paul Devine asserted: “You can’t mix these streams and call them both ‘God’s Word’” (Why Your Bible, p. 57). Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? (Job 14:4). And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean (Lev. 10:10).

The following questions are based on a consistent application of assertions made by KJV-only authors. Would KJV-only advocates claim that the 1582 Rheims was an absolutely clean, holy, and pure source from which the makers of the KJV could borrow renderings? Is the 1611 KJV directly associated and connected with a corrupt Bible (the 1582 Rheims) that is not pure and that is not scripture according to a consistent application of some KJV-only claims? According to a consistent, just application of some KJV-only reasoning, when some contaminated or impure water from the 1582 Rheims was poured into the 1611 KJV, what would the result be? Why should the pre-1611 word of God in English be brought into line with the 1582 Rheims in the KJV? Does the verifiable fact of the influence of the 1582 Rheims on the English text of the KJV demonstrate that the KJV is not the seventh in succession of those which influenced its text? Is the 1582 Rheims a fundamentally different Bible than the 1611 KJV? Does leaven from the unholy 1582 Rheims harm the KJV? Was the pre-1600 Bible of true Christians cross-pollinated with a corrupt text when the KJV’s makers borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims? Do the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims make the KJV a compromise English Bible translation? Were even the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible absolutely clean and pure sources with every and all words in the correct order? Did the KJV translators call God a liar by borrowing any renderings from the 1582 Rheims? Is it in effect being suggested that the KJV cannot be absolutely pure and perfect when it came from any compromised, imperfect sources with some impurities?

Can KJV-only advocates name and identify any one OT source and any one NT source with every and all pure words in the correct order on which the KJV is based?

 

[Deacon]

So Tony, are you calling my Bible corrupt?

Rob