Preserved Text Only

Mike B said:

If indeed an actual, rabid KJV-onlyist was exposed...what fate awaits them? Burning at the stake, perhaps?

Click to expand...

You are not engaging in serious discussion as you seem to throw out false accusations to try to smear those who disagree with your opinions.

Modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is proven to be a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of God taught in Scripture.

Are you asserting that incorrect, non-scriptural, or false teaching should not be exposed and refuted?

Mike B said:

Burning at the stake, perhaps?

Click to expand...

Did you know that two of the Church of England makers of the KJV were actually involved in having two men burned at the stake for their religious beliefs?

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11). This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Lancelot Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).

Deacon said:

Name calling is an ad hominem fallacy.
Attacking an opponent’s character undermines an argument without adding any substance.

Click to expand...

I said that Logos was "tenacious", and in the context of this discussion it's a sort of
back-handed compliment. While frustrating in regards to this subject, being tenacious
is generally considered as a positive trait.

Mike B said:

This very same debate (it's not a discussion) has raged since long before the days of
Dean Burgeon, and it's most certainly not going to be settled here.

Click to expand...

Would you agree with this statement, above? Hopefully we can agree on something...

The only "accusation" I made was that you were tenacious and aggressive in your pursuit of those
presumed to be KJV-onlyites.

Mike B said:

If indeed an actual, rabid KJV-onlyist was exposed...what fate awaits them? Burning at the stake, perhaps?

Click to expand...

Intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment, right along with the term "inquisitors".



As stated, I see no benefit in my continued participation in this discussion.

Logos1560 said:

Anthony Pritchard has been shown proper respect. Anthony Pritchard said much more than "In my opinion, I believe the King James is the best translation to use." He did more than just state his preference. He asserted that the KJV "provides that standard" [referring to a pure standard"], and he directly asserted that he holds that the KJV is "the inspired and preserved Word of God in English."

He tries to have it both ways: displaying KJV-only reasoning and denying being KJV-only.
He is not being shown disrespect when it is soundly demonstrated that (according to his very own assertions) he holds a form of KJV-only view, even if he is unwilling to associate with any other KJV-only advocates.

It is not just my personal opinion against his. I have not objected to anyone stating the opinion that they think that the KJV is the best English translation to use. I prefer the KJV.

The point is what the Scriptures state and teach, and the Scriptures do not state and teach that the KJV is "the inspired and preserved Word of God in English". His sincere belief concerning the KJV would be a doctrine of man, not taught in Scripture.

Click to expand...

AP posted:

"Most are simply vernacular. Because English is not uniform, there is a real need for a common and pure standard that does not move with those variations. The King James Bible provides that standard. It has served English speaking believers for centuries without being placed under constant reconstruction.

That is why I hold it as the inspired and preserved Word of God in English."

Click to expand...

This is KJVO talk in a nutshell. KJVO'ers say the King James Bible (its always Bible with them, when it is really the King James VERSION of the bible), and AP continually calls it the King James Bible. He's KJVO whether he admits it or not. His language betrays him.

SovereignGrace said:

This is KJVO talk in a nutshell. KJVO'ers say the King James Bible (its always Bible with them, when it is really the King James VERSION of the bible), and AP continually calls it the King James Bible. He's KJVO whether he admits it or not. His language betrays him.

Click to expand...

His own language in his posts do reveal that he uses KJV-only reasoning.

Holding that only the KJV is "the inspired and preserved word of God in English" would constitute what is accurately defined as a KJV-only view.

The truth concerning what constitutes a KJV-only view establishes that his view can accurately be understood as KJV-only regardless of whether he accepts the truth.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Mikoo, thank you for asking. I prefer the KJV for English, but I also recognize that English is not the only language that has the preserved text underlying it. I believe that God has kept His promise to preserve His words for His people, and that He has done so in a form that is stable, complete, and not subject to continual editorial revision. In English, I hold to Early Modern English as the language that carried the preserved text with full precision. I hold that the King James Bible is translated from that preserved text. My position is not based on a label or a movement. It is based on the conviction that God does what He says and that He has provided His words in a form that does not shift with changing scholarship or regional speech.

I prefer the King James Bible because it is translated from the preserved text, because it was produced when English had reached a stable and mature form, and because its translation method is formal equivalence rather than paraphrase or dynamic equivalency. English varies across the world and even across the United States. Some of those differences are true dialects. Most are simply vernacular. Because English is not uniform, there is a real need for a common and pure standard that does not move with those variations. The King James Bible provides that standard. It has served English speaking believers for centuries without being placed under constant reconstruction.

That is why I hold it as the inspired and preserved Word of God in English.

Click to expand...

Thank you for detailed opinion of why you beleive what you do about the KJV.

I typically prefer the NASB and NIV, but the KJV is no less God's preserved Word.

I must be sheltered.

I don't think I've ever heard the term "Preserved text" to refer to only the textual stream of the documents used to translate KJV.
Tony defined what he meant by the term, 'Preserved text':

Anthony Pritchard said:

Preserved Text Only

There has been some confusion in recent discussions about what I mean when I use the term “preserved text only.” I want to clarify this carefully, because I am not speaking about a translation, nor am I speaking about English alone. I am speaking about the textual stream that God preserved through history.

When I say “preserved text only,” I am referring to the continuous, providentially preserved line of transmission that runs through the Byzantine Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, the Old Latin, the Waldensian line, the Majority Text, and the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.
[snip]
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. They reflect orthographic normalization, printer corrections, and refinement within the same preserved line. The TR tradition is stable, not eclectic.

My position is simple. I reject Alexandrian reconstruction, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, and the idea of a lost text restored by modern editors. I affirm continuity of transmission, providential preservation, linguistic maturity, and doctrinal stability.

That is what I mean by preserved text only.
[snip]

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.

Click to expand...

Tony, to me, the use of the term "Preserved text" displayed a bias even before any facts were presented.
The foundation for the belief rests upon an assumption that its widespread circulation and endurance indicates its reliability and its closeness to the original text.

When I think of the preservation of Scripture, I think of all the various documents collected through time, transmitted through a variety of textual streams.
Every manuscript we find was once God's word, to theose who studied them and to the congregations who were taught from its pages.

I have attended Bible studies by friends that had a variety of views about this issue. Some hold views about the topic along the same line as you might. It's never been much of a problem.

[Once during our study each of us was asked to read one verse of a long but familiar passage of Scripture. An old college friend of mine, a missionary temporarily visiting from France, began reading his verse; I didn't recognize the version he was reading from and asked him later. He said he brought his French Bible to the study and was translating on the fly. His own version!]

I'm humble enough to admit that God's methods often confound me. God is not bound by our expectations or reasoning.
Regarding the textual purity of Scripture, what Christians have in this age is more pure, more complete, more accurate, than most of Christianity ever had...whatever main version of the Scriptures they have before them.

We need to apply and do the Word

Rob

I like the KJV. I read it a lot. It is very accurate. But it is not perfectly preserved. It has a few errors in Text and Translation. But it is still a very accurate edition of The Word of God. It is just not perfectly preserved. Highly accurate, just not absolutely perfect. That is why we should have more than just one Bible. It is ok to consult other Bibles, including William Tyndales Translations. He was the pioneer in English Bible Translation in Greek and Hebrew. Almost all Bibles up to WW2 stand on Tyndales original Bible Translations. Coverdales Bibles, Matthews Bible , Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops, KJV, RV, AS, RSV, ASV. NKJV and others.

Logos1560 said:

Holding that only the KJV is "the inspired and preserved word of God in English" would constitute what is accurately defined as a KJV-only view.

Click to expand...

There are a great many IFB churches that hold the KJV as "the inspired and preserved word of God in English". If
one of their members were to join the site and express this same belief, would they be banished from the site, or
treated as a heretic? Would they be accepted in the way an Arminian is by a Calvinist, or harassed until they left
the site in frustration, or surrendered?

It's a fair question.

Mike B said:

There are a great many IFB churches that hold the KJV as "the inspired and preserved word of God in English". If
one of their members were to join the site and express this same belief, would they be banished from the site, or
treated as a heretic? Would they be accepted in the way an Arminian is by a Calvinist, or harassed until they left
the site in frustration, or surrendered?

It's a fair question.

Click to expand...

If they make an idol of the KJV that is idolity. If they say it is perfectly preserved they are misleading others.

Mike B said:

There are a great many IFB churches that hold the KJV as "the inspired and preserved word of God in English". If
one of their members were to join the site and express this same belief, would they be banished from the site, or
treated as a heretic? Would they be accepted in the way an Arminian is by a Calvinist, or harassed until they left
the site in frustration, or surrendered?

It's a fair question.

Click to expand...

As a staff member I will answer.

Not for that statement.

Most here believe that the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, HCSB, etc is the inspired and preserved word of God in English.

In fact, if a member said that the KJV or NASB (NIV, ESV, etc) was NOT the inspired and preserved word of God in English they would be banned for denying God's Word and slandering Scripture.

Now, if a member said the KJV is a special revelation of God then they would probably be labeled a heretic (that is the idea of Mormons). But without believing other translations are less than the KJV they would not be banned.

Words are symbols. They are symbols for ideas and thoughts. Every translation has strengths and weaknesses. The error KJVO people make is in not understanding translation.


Hope that helps.

Mike B said:

There are a great many IFB churches that hold the KJV as "the inspired and preserved word of God in English". If
one of their members were to join the site and express this same belief, would they be banished from the site, or
treated as a heretic? Would they be accepted in the way an Arminian is by a Calvinist, or harassed until they left
the site in frustration, or surrendered?

It's a fair question.

Click to expand...

We just ask to be given the same grace from them we show to them. If they grow by studying the KJV, use it. But they disparage us by saying we are using a modern perversion. The grace we show them is not reciprocated.

I see the greater issue about casting dispersion on translations other than the KJV being such statements are demeaning God's Word.

I do not matter. I do not care if somebody thinks I am a heretic, am ignorant of Scripture, or am one ugly dude.

Demeaning God's Word because it is a translation they do not like not only creates a stumbling block by placing Christians in a bad light (the Christian making the claims), is not only divisive, but it is actively slandering God's Word. It is anti-Christian regardless of intent.

The sudy of Scripture requires the student know a few things.

1. The first thing to know is that what you hold in your hand when you hold the Bible is a translation. It is not a perfect translation because there are no perfect translations.

2. The second thing to know is you hold God's Word regardless of translation or source manuscripts. God's words is not the English words on the page. Words are symbols for thoughts. God's words are what those English words represents.

3. God preserves His Word. His words endure. His Word transcends human translation.

4. If you read the KJV, the NASB and the NIV and feel only one is God's Word then you have not read God's Word. You have merely read English words as if they were a textbook.

5. God's Word is alive. His Word is active. What changes our lives is not English words on paper but the words of God living in us, alive through the Spirit as we live in Christ and Him in us.

JonC said:

I see the greater issue about casting dispersion on translations other than the KJV being such statements are demeaning God's Word.

I do not matter. I do not care if somebody thinks I am a heretic, am ignorant of Scripture, or am one ugly dude.

Click to expand...

My point in the thread has been simple. Scripture speaks of God preserving His words, not merely the thoughts behind them. That does not demean translations, nor does it elevate English above the originals. It simply affirms that God preserves what He inspired. Recognizing distinctions between translations is not slander, it is not demeaning to uphold the Word of God, it is part of handling the text with care.

So why was the one stream considered preserved but the stream that the MV's used is not? What is the litmus test for all of this?

Anthony Pritchard said:

My point in the thread has been simple. Scripture speaks of God preserving His words, not merely the thoughts behind them. That does not demean translations, nor does it elevate English above the originals. It simply affirms that God preserves what He inspired. Recognizing distinctions between translations is not slander, it is not demeaning to uphold the Word of God, it is part of handling the text with care.

Click to expand...

Using that standard the KJV would not be God's Word (the KJV does not accurately represent each Greek and Hebrew word). There are words that cannot be accurately represented in English.


By the way, you are wrong about God's Word. You are using the English as your definition (like words in a dictionary).

The actual New Testament phrase you are dealing with is Logos tou Theou (λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) - the Word of God.

λόγος is translated "word" in English. But in the words used in Scripture it has a much broader meaning. λόγος is the reason, the expression, that goes forth.

Jesus as the Word (λόγος) does not mean Jesus is marks on paper or papyrus. The English "word" is insufficient for λόγος. But it is the best we have.


God's Word is not the man-made letters on paper. His Word is communicated through the words on paper.

We can see this in practice by reading the New Testament use of God's words, quoting the Old Testament. The quoting of God's Word is often not the exact words. In fact, it is never the exact words given in the OT Scriptures.

The jots and tittles matter. But the context is not litreal ink marks. God's Word is spiritual truth. His Word is alive, active.

God's Word is not marks men have made on paper but the Word behind those symbols.

Anthony Pritchard said:

I am speaking about the textual stream that God preserved through history.

This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction. It is the line of manuscripts that were copied, used, preached, and received by the believing church for centuries.

It is a family of printed Greek texts that represent the preserved stream.

Click to expand...

The preserved stream argument is a typical KJV-only argument.

After referring to “the overwhelming evidence of the two routes in textual history,” H. D. Williams asserted: “One route is like a river and wherever you sample along the river, the many samples are the same, whether it is the Received Greek, The Textus Receptus, or Hebrew Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 82). D. A. Waite asserted: "The Traditional Text (the Textus Receptus) is like a river; wherever you take a sample, it is virtually the same text" (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 81).

Seeming to contradict his own claims about “a type of text known as the Traditional Text” and his own "river" illustration, D. A. Waite had asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). D. A. Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). D. A. Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98). Waite asserted: “Each manuscript is a lone and independent document” (p. 50). Waite acknowledged that “nobody on this earth has examined all the manuscripts that we have” (p. 121).

John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42).

D. A. Waite asserted: “There are no such things as ‘families’ of Greek manuscripts” (Fundamental Deception, p. 56). Waite declared: “I do not believe there are any ‘text-types’ of Greek manuscripts, only individual manuscripts” (Bob Jones University’s Errors, p. 11). Waite claimed: “Each manuscript is like an orphaned child with no ability to say where it came from” (p. 41). Waite asserted: “Manuscripts of the Greek language are simply manuscripts. None are related to each other” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 53). Waite declared: “”Every manuscript is independent of all others,” and Every manuscript stands alone” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 64, 72).

[Most of the bold type added by this poster]

A treasure trove of knowledge given by Dr. White in this video. It’s ~ 63 minutes long, so I doubt many, if any, watch it. But you’ll be blessed and gain knowledge of how we got our bibles.