It has to do with what I'll call the difference between the "preservationist" ( as one member here put it recently ) and "reconstructionist" mindsets.
I've found are at least marginally on the side of God allowing imperfect men to ultimately lose track of and then to re-discover His words, instead of Him using infallible men ( and especially His own children ) to preserve it perfectly through various "witnesses" down through the centuries.
I advocate a consistent view of Bible preservation that would apply before 1611, in 1611, and after 1611.
Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning in effect advocates an inconsistent view of Bible preservation and a so-called "reconstructionist" mindset as it suggests that some of the word of God was rediscovered, reconstructed and restored in either the varying Textus Receptus editions, in the KJV, or in both.
Isn’t it amazing that the claimed reading of one supposedly missing or lost NT manuscript at Revelation 16:5 can be advocated over the reading of all known accessible and preserved Greek NT manuscripts? Is it being suggested that the Greek NT text has not been preserved at Revelation 16:5 in the vast majority of NT manuscripts? Ron Minton asserted: “One should never base a reading on the evidence of only one Greek manuscript” (
Making and Preservation, p. 37). Wilbur Pickering wrote: “It should also be evident that a variant in a single MS, of whatever age, is irrelevant – it is a false witness to its family archetype, at that point, nothing more” (
God Has Preserved, p. 245). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote: “Sometimes a certain reading exists in only one Greek manuscript and no other. Such singular readings—and there are thousands of them—have little claim to be the original text and therefore are irrelevant in assessing the reliability of the manuscript tradition” (
Heresy, p. 216). Edward F. Hills asked: “Has the special providence of God over the New Testament Text done no more than to preserve the true readings somewhere, that is to say in some one or other of the great variety of New Testament manuscripts now existing in the world?” (
KJV Defended, p. 109;
Text, p. 195).
Is this Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 found in multiple reliable Greek NT manuscripts and in a preserved line of continuity of transmission? Is there any clear, sound historical evidence that this new Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 was handed down and widely accessible to each generation of believers and was in the texts and translations commonly and continually used by churches in every generation during the 1500 years from A. D. 100 until A. D. 1600? Are we to believe that part of the NT text was lost to most congregations and believers for over 1000 years until discovered and restored by Beza?
Jonathan Arnold asserted: “We may conclude that to assert that any portion of Scripture as having been lost is effectively to deny access to the whole counsel of God” (Hooper,
It Is Written, p. 313). Generations of English-speaking believers did not have this Beza reading in their English Bible translations from Wycliffe’s Bible until the Bishop’s Bible [1380’s to 1610].
According to KJV-only advocates, are we to believe that until almost A. D. 1600 God left His church with a reading at Revelation 16:5 that was wrong? Did German-speaking believers have this Beza reading in Luther’s German Bible for its first 100 years? Did Spanish-speaking believers have this Beza reading in their early Spanish Bibles? Does this Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 clearly measure up to John William Burgon’s consistently Christian principles or methods of NT textual criticism? Is the KJV-only defense of the Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 consistent with the KJV-only view’s doctrine of preservation?
According to KJV-only reasoning, did God promise that the correct reading at Revelation 16:5 would disappear or be lost for a long period of time and finally reappear and be restored hundreds of years later? Is faith being placed in textual critic Theodore Beza to restore the correct text at Revelation 16:5?
christianpublishinghouse.co
However, the question was asked and so I briefly
