Preserved Text Only

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not respond to every member. If a person’s replies are driven by personal hostility rather than substance, there is nothing productive to answer. In those cases, silence is not avoidance; it is simply recognizing that no meaningful exchange is possible.

 

[Logos1560]

My argument is that the preserved stream represents continuity, while the critical text represents reconstruction.

That may be your argument, but you do not prove your argument to be correct. You try to dismiss and ignore the facts and the substance that conflict with it. Clear documented evidence was presented that contradict your preserved line claims concerning the Syriac Peshitta and the Waldensian translations.

My replies to you are not driven by personal hostility as you incorrectly try to suggest.

 

[Logos1560]

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta have added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta.

Bruce Metzger noted that in an examination of Matthew chapters 1-14, "Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances it stands alone" (Early Versions of the N.T., p. 61). Edward Andrews wrote: “The textual character of the Peshitta New Testament frequently aligns with the Alexandrian textual tradition preserved in early Greek witnesses such as P66 (125-150 C. E.) and P75 (175-225 C.E.), and later in Codex Vaticanus (300-330 C.E.)” (Syriac Bible, pp. 12-13). Edward Andrews asserted: “The Peshitta frequently corroborates early documentary readings preserved in Alexandrian witnesses, especially in places where later Byzantine copying expanded the text” (p. 93).

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible, Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "Isaiah the prophet" and J. W. Etheridge has “Eshaia the prophet” at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have “Bethany” and Etheridge has “Bethania” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock and Kiraz have “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders” and Etheridge has “presbyters” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock, Lamsa, and Kiraz have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These five English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible’s NT have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19.

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrases "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV. At Acts 14:10, the Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz has the phrases “in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.”

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible, Bauscher’s translation, and Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.” Dean Burgon believed that this clause "raise the dead" did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (The Revision Revised, p. 108). In Edward Miller's Textual Commentary, the Peshitta, Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions are listed as not having this clause along with many Greek manuscripts (p. 75). Edward F. Hills listed this clause "raise the dead" in his list of readings where Erasmus followed the Latin Vulgate, and he also noted that this clause "is omitted by the majority of Greek manuscripts" (KJV Defended, p. 200).

 

[Logos1560]

If a person’s replies are driven by personal hostility rather than substance, there is nothing productive to answer.

Plenty of substance has been provided that directly relate to or refute some of your unproven claims and your use of a typical KJV-only argument [the two lines of Bibles argument]. You may take it personally and become hostile towards me, but that does not at all suggest that my relies to you are supposedly driven by personal hostility.

Harry Sturz asserted that “He [God] did not stipulate in the Scriptures that He would keep Christian scribes from error or that the text-type with the most copies would be the best text" (Byzantine Text-Type, p. 38). Harry Sturz noted: "To present preservation as a necessary corollary of inspiration, then to imply that preservation of the Scripture must be as faithful and precise as inspiration of the Scriptures, appears to be taking a position that is both unscriptural and impossible to demonstrate" (p. 37). Harry Sturz observed: “Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger in making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this” (p. 38). Harry Sturz contended: “If providential preservation of the Scriptures is tied to inspiration, is placed on a level with inspiration, and is understood to mean that not one jot or tittle shall pass out of the Byzantine text-type, the theory is on shaky ground due to the fact that even the Byzantine with its high degree of homogeneity is composite” (p. 39).

Wilbur Pickering noted that those “who has collated any number of MS have all demonstrated that the Byzantine bulk of MSS is by no means monolithic. There are any number of streams and rivulets. (Recall that F. Wisse posited thirty-four groups within the Byzantine bulk, with seventy subgroups.)” (God Has Preserved, p. 245). Stephen Brown observed: “The Byzantine texttype in particular can be broken into a number of groups, showing it to be anything but monolithic” (McCollum, Solid Rock Greek NT, p. 715). KJV-only author Floyd Jones acknowledged: “Numerous studies have demonstrated that the mass of Byzantine MSS are not monolithic; there are many distinct strands or strains of transmission, seemingly independent” (Which Version, 21st edition, p. 253). Frederick Scrivener, who collated several Byzantine manuscripts, noted: “I see no cause for believing such supposed Byzantine standard text had any existence, save in the imagination of certain modern theorists” (Full and Exact Collation, p. lxvii).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged: "There are some readings on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow" (KJV Defended, p. 224; Text, pp. 371-372).

D. A. Carson asserted: “The argument that ties the adoption of the TR to verbal inspiration is logically and theologically fallacious” (KJV Debate, p. 68). D. A. Carson observed: “There is only a difference of degree between the textual variants that exist within one textual tradition and the textual variants found when two or more textual traditions are compared. If verbal inspiration is tied to one textual tradition, it does not escape the kind of problems presented if more than one textual tradition be admitted” (p. 69). Ryan Wettlaufer asserted: “Clearly the TR/KJV tradition is incapable of offering any one text that could fulfil the doctrinal idea of a single preserved version of the Scriptures” (No Longer Written, p. 49).

Harry Sturz asked: "If providential preservation is put on the same level with inspiration, how does it come about that the Byzantine text is composite, i.e., how could the text have differences within it? Furthermore, being composite, how is one to know what the providentially preserved reading is?" (Byzantine Text-Type, p. 43). Harry Sturz asserted: “Providential preservation, then, has not operated on a level with inspiration and been confined to one text-type. If the chain of argument had been correct, there could be no deviation” (p. 44). Harry Sturz affirmed: “Though the Byzantine text is a highly homogeneous text, it is also composite; i.e., it is made up of distinguishable strands” (p. 94). Frederick Nolan, a defender of the Received Text, wrote: "The general and doctrinal integrity of the Sacred Canon being preserved from corruption, there exists no obvious or necessary cause, that the text should be preserved immaculate" (An Inquiry, p. 310).

 

[Logos1560]

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. This stream represents continuity, not reconstruction.

Here is more evidence concerning the Syriac Peshitta and also concerning KJV-only claims about the full title "Lord Jesus Christ."

Does claiming that the full name "Lord Jesus Christ" glorifies Jesus more suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong when He "moved" or "inspired" men to write "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," "Lord," or "Lord Jesus" many times in the New Testament? If it can be contended that certain verses must have the full title "Lord Jesus Christ" or else they deny the deity of Christ, the same demand may be made with respect to every other verse with part of that title.

KJV-only advocates clearly promoted the claim that the KJV honors Jesus more as one of the main reasons for their view. If they have failed to be consistent in this most important claim, the case for their view must be very weak. A few more examples will demonstrate again the lack of consistency in the KJV-only view. At 1 Thessalonians 4:2c, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Taverner's, Great, and Whittingham's all have "Lord Jesus Christ" while the KJV has only "Lord Jesus." Where the KJV has "Christ" at 1 Corinthians 1:6, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops' have "Jesus Christ." Do these early Bibles honor Christ more than the KJV here? Does the KJV deny the deity of Christ by removing "Christ" from the "Lord Jesus" here as KJV-only advocates claim if the same thing is done in modern translations? The fact that KJV-only claims cannot be applied consistently indicates that they are invalid.

KJV-only authors list the Syriac Peshitta on their line of good Bibles. If the English translation of the Peshitta by George Lamsa is an accurate one, this Bible has the Lord Jesus Christ several times where the KJV does not. Some examples are Acts 1:1, 3:6, 5:42, 8:12, 14:10, 19:5, 21:13, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Ephesians 1:15, Philippians 2:19, Colossians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, and 1 Peter 1:13. At Romans 3:26, the Lamsa Bible has "Lord Jesus Christ," Wycliffe's Bible, Coverdale's Duoglott, and Douay-Rheims have "Jesus Christ," but the KJV has only "Jesus." Based on a consistent application of the claims of some KJV-only advocates, does this English translation of the Peshitta honor the Lord Jesus Christ more than the KJV?

Are these differences due to omissions in the TR or additions in the Peshitta or both? If the Peshitta that is placed on the preserved line and that is considered a good example of the Byzantine text has additions, does that suggest the possibility that the Textus Receptus could have additions?

 

[Logos1560]

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. 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 never disappeared, never had to be rebuilt from fragments, and never required modern editors to guess at lost readings. That is what I mean by preserved text only.

This preserved textual stream argument is a typical, leading KJV-only claim. What you mean by preserved text only is basically the same as what KJV-only authors mean.

In his tract entitled "Are your Bible's Roots Trustworthy," G. Grady Daniel, Jr. used the "two lines of manuscripts" argument. G. John Rov wrote: “There would be two lines of scripture growing, the true line and the counterfeit line” (Called of God, p. 91). James Rasbeary claimed: “There are also two basic lines of Bibles in history” (What’s Wrong, p. 55). M. H. Tabb wrote: “There are basically two lines of Bibles coming down through the church age” (Inspiration, p. 94). James Melton asserted: “There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil’s line from Alexandria, and the Lord’s line from Antioch” (Fighting Back, p. 3). James Melton claimed: “It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles” (p. 10). Greg Axe and W. Alan Shelby wrote: “Two lines of Bible originated from Antioch (good) and Alexandria (bad)” (Long Live, p. 120). Mitch Canupp also presented "two lines" of Bibles in his chart. Roy Branson referred to “the line of ancient manuscripts and documents from which the King James Version was translated” (Dear Abner, p. 242). Robert Breaker III wrote: “We therefore have two lines of texts, the pure line, and the adulterated one” (History and Truth about the Spanish, p. 13). Charles Barrier wrote: “All English Bibles were translated out of one of two lines of manuscripts” (Looking, p. 17). M. H. Tabb referred to “two different lines of Greek manuscripts” (Inspiration, p. 129). M. H. Tabb wrote: “Remember, there are two distinct lines of manuscripts and translations” (p. 151). Charles Barrier referred to “this pure line of manuscripts” (p. 19). Timothy Morton mentioned “the correct line of manuscripts” and “the wrong line of manuscripts” (From the Original, p. 7). Samuel Garcia referred to “lineage of Biblical Antioch line of manuscripts rather than Alexandrian line of manuscripts” (How to Find, p. 6).

In the PCC video entitled "The Bible Preserved from Satan's Attack," Dell Johnson also used the argument of a good stream of the transmission of God's Word. In his book, David Sorenson relied a great deal upon the two streams argument (Touch Not, pp. 43-94). John Creehan also used this argument of "the stream of manuscripts that God has been pleased to use" (Maranatha Baptist Watchman, August, 1997, p. 3). In his tract entitled "Use the Bible God Uses," E. L. Bynum referred to "the pure stream that the KJV is based on" (p. 4). E. L. Bynum asserted: “There are only two streams of texts and Bible coming down through the centuries” (In Defense, p. 29). Alan O’Reilly used this “two lines of Bibles” argument, referring to “two main streams of Bibles” and then identifying them as “the Antiochan Stream” and “the Alexandrian Stream” (O Biblios, p. 11). Cody Parrott appealed to “two parallel streams of Bibles” (God’s Word, p. 96). Robert Potthoff referred to “the two main streams of biblical manuscripts: the Byzantine text-type and the Alexandrian text-type” (Why the KJV, p. 26). Kenneth Willis asserted: “The fact is that there are two streams of manuscripts from which translations come” (Every Jot, p. 27).

David Sorenson referred to “two streams of Bibles” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 188). Jeffrey Khoo presented a chart with “two streams of texts and versions” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129). Jeffrey Khoo referred to “two streams of English Bibles” (Kept Pure, p. 102). Troy Clark claimed: “There are two streams of Scripture that flow separately down through history” (Perfect Bible, p. 29). James Sightler wrote: "There are essentially only two textual streams, and these have run parallel down the centuries" (Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 12). Bob Steward used the two steams argument (Mighty Fire). Andrew Steers referred to “two streams or families of Biblical manuscripts” (Is There Not, p. 117). Ronnie Simpson appealed to a “two streams of manuscripts” argument (Twelve Lessons, pp. 7, 10). David Daniels also emphasized the two streams argument (Did the Catholic Church, p. 31; Answers to your Bible Version Questions, pp. 15-18). Jack Chick wrote: “There are two streams through history: Satan’s Bible and God’s preserved words” (Next Step, p. 11). Jack Koons claimed: “There are two families of manuscripts; the Byzantine family and the Alexandrian family” (What Is so Special, p. 19), and he asserted: “These two families of manuscripts can be traced from the second century to present day” (What Is so Special, p. 15). David O-Steen claimed: “There are basically two streams of manuscripts that flow primarily from two places. The pure stream flows from Antioch in Syria. The corrupt stream follows from Alexandria in Egypt (the western text of Rome is associated with Alexandria)” (Study Notes, p. 88). David Daniels asked: “Where, then, do these two steams of Bibles lead?” (Answers, p. 17). David Daniels wrote: “I identified two historical streams of manuscripts that produced two kinds of Bibles” (Is the World’s, p. 13). David Daniels asserted: “The first thing everybody needs to know is that there are two streams of Bibles” (p. 38). David Daniels referred to “the preserved, apostolic Antioch stream of Bibles” and “the polluted, apostate Alexandrian stream” (p. 63). Paul Devine asserted that “the first stream flows from Antioch of Syria” (Why Your Bible, p. 8). According to the title of his very brief book God’s Bible Pure River or Polluted Stream, Malcolm Trosclair also depends upon a two-streams-of-Bibles argument.

 

[Logos1560]

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.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This preserved textual stream argument is a typical, leading KJV-only claim. What you mean by preserved text only is basically the same as what KJV-only authors mean.

In his tract entitled "Are your Bible's Roots Trustworthy," G. Grady Daniel, Jr. used the "two lines of manuscripts" argument. G. John Rov wrote: “There would be two lines of scripture growing, the true line and the counterfeit line” (Called of God, p. 91). James Rasbeary claimed: “There are also two basic lines of Bibles in history” (What’s Wrong, p. 55). M. H. Tabb wrote: “There are basically two lines of Bibles coming down through the church age” (Inspiration, p. 94). James Melton asserted: “There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil’s line from Alexandria, and the Lord’s line from Antioch” (Fighting Back, p. 3). James Melton claimed: “It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles” (p. 10). Greg Axe and W. Alan Shelby wrote: “Two lines of Bible originated from Antioch (good) and Alexandria (bad)” (Long Live, p. 120). Mitch Canupp also presented "two lines" of Bibles in his chart. Roy Branson referred to “the line of ancient manuscripts and documents from which the King James Version was translated” (Dear Abner, p. 242). Robert Breaker III wrote: “We therefore have two lines of texts, the pure line, and the adulterated one” (History and Truth about the Spanish, p. 13). Charles Barrier wrote: “All English Bibles were translated out of one of two lines of manuscripts” (Looking, p. 17). M. H. Tabb referred to “two different lines of Greek manuscripts” (Inspiration, p. 129). M. H. Tabb wrote: “Remember, there are two distinct lines of manuscripts and translations” (p. 151). Charles Barrier referred to “this pure line of manuscripts” (p. 19). Timothy Morton mentioned “the correct line of manuscripts” and “the wrong line of manuscripts” (From the Original, p. 7). Samuel Garcia referred to “lineage of Biblical Antioch line of manuscripts rather than Alexandrian line of manuscripts” (How to Find, p. 6).

In the PCC video entitled "The Bible Preserved from Satan's Attack," Dell Johnson also used the argument of a good stream of the transmission of God's Word. In his book, David Sorenson relied a great deal upon the two streams argument (Touch Not, pp. 43-94). John Creehan also used this argument of "the stream of manuscripts that God has been pleased to use" (Maranatha Baptist Watchman, August, 1997, p. 3). In his tract entitled "Use the Bible God Uses," E. L. Bynum referred to "the pure stream that the KJV is based on" (p. 4). E. L. Bynum asserted: “There are only two streams of texts and Bible coming down through the centuries” (In Defense, p. 29). Alan O’Reilly used this “two lines of Bibles” argument, referring to “two main streams of Bibles” and then identifying them as “the Antiochan Stream” and “the Alexandrian Stream” (O Biblios, p. 11). Cody Parrott appealed to “two parallel streams of Bibles” (God’s Word, p. 96). Robert Potthoff referred to “the two main streams of biblical manuscripts: the Byzantine text-type and the Alexandrian text-type” (Why the KJV, p. 26). Kenneth Willis asserted: “The fact is that there are two streams of manuscripts from which translations come” (Every Jot, p. 27).

David Sorenson referred to “two streams of Bibles” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 188). Jeffrey Khoo presented a chart with “two streams of texts and versions” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129). Jeffrey Khoo referred to “two streams of English Bibles” (Kept Pure, p. 102). Troy Clark claimed: “There are two streams of Scripture that flow separately down through history” (Perfect Bible, p. 29). James Sightler wrote: "There are essentially only two textual streams, and these have run parallel down the centuries" (Testimony Founded For Ever, p. 12). Bob Steward used the two steams argument (Mighty Fire). Andrew Steers referred to “two streams or families of Biblical manuscripts” (Is There Not, p. 117). Ronnie Simpson appealed to a “two streams of manuscripts” argument (Twelve Lessons, pp. 7, 10). David Daniels also emphasized the two streams argument (Did the Catholic Church, p. 31; Answers to your Bible Version Questions, pp. 15-18). Jack Chick wrote: “There are two streams through history: Satan’s Bible and God’s preserved words” (Next Step, p. 11). Jack Koons claimed: “There are two families of manuscripts; the Byzantine family and the Alexandrian family” (What Is so Special, p. 19), and he asserted: “These two families of manuscripts can be traced from the second century to present day” (What Is so Special, p. 15). David O-Steen claimed: “There are basically two streams of manuscripts that flow primarily from two places. The pure stream flows from Antioch in Syria. The corrupt stream follows from Alexandria in Egypt (the western text of Rome is associated with Alexandria)” (Study Notes, p. 88). David Daniels asked: “Where, then, do these two steams of Bibles lead?” (Answers, p. 17). David Daniels wrote: “I identified two historical streams of manuscripts that produced two kinds of Bibles” (Is the World’s, p. 13). David Daniels asserted: “The first thing everybody needs to know is that there are two streams of Bibles” (p. 38). David Daniels referred to “the preserved, apostolic Antioch stream of Bibles” and “the polluted, apostate Alexandrian stream” (p. 63). Paul Devine asserted that “the first stream flows from Antioch of Syria” (Why Your Bible, p. 8). According to the title of his very brief book God’s Bible Pure River or Polluted Stream, Malcolm Trosclair also depends upon a two-streams-of-Bibles argument.

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

 

[Logos1560]

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

It is your pointless responses that are noise that do nothing towards engaging in serious discussion.
You close your eyes to seeing that KJV-only advocates make a similar argument to the one that you make.

 

[Logos1560]

The differences among TR editions are minor and do not reflect reconstruction.

The marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV pointed out some of these possible textual differences in the Textus Receptus editions. One resource that pointed out several of these differences, giving a claimed source or reason for them, was the book The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament by Irena Backus.


Matthew 1:11 "Jacim. And Jacim begat" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible are not in the 1611 KJV] [see also 1611 edition's marginal note]


Matthew 1:20

Joseph the son of David, [1560 Geneva Bible]

Joseph, thou son of David, [1611 KJV] [“thou”--possible Luther’s German Bible influence]

David Norton asserted: “The most obvious sign of Luther is ‘thou son of David’, which has no warrant in the Greek” (KJB: A Short History, p. 36). Norton claimed: “The retention of Coverdale’s (and Luther’s) ‘thou son of David’ might be carelessness. It is untrue to the Greek” (p. 39).


Matthew 2:11
found [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus, Beza] (see Backus, pp. 45-46)

saw [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]


Matthew 2:13

After their departure [1560 Geneva Bible]

And when they were departed [1611 KJV]


Matthew 4:10

Avoid Satan [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]

Get thee hence, Satan [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 4:12

John was delivered up [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 48)

John was cast into prison [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 5:21

said unto them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]


Matthew 5:21

shall be culpable of judgment [1560 Geneva Bible] [early Beza]

shall be in danger of the judgment [1611 KJV] [later Beza]


Matthew 5:27

said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:29

right eye cause thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 51)

right eye offend thee [1611 KJV] [possible Vulgate] [see 1611 marginal note]


Matthew 5:30

right hand make thee to offend [1560 Geneva Bible]

right hand offend thee [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:33

said to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

said by them [1611 KJV]


Matthew 5:47

what singular thing do ye [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 52)

what do ye more than others [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 6:34

for the morrow shall care for itself [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate] (Backus, p. 54)

for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 8:18

to go over the water [1560 Geneva Bible]

to depart unto the other side [1611 KJV]


Matthew 8:23

into the ship [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]

into a ship [1611 KJV]


Matthew 9:4

But when Jesus saw their thoughts [1560 Geneva Bible]

And Jesus knowing their thoughts [1611 KJV]


Matthew 9:26

And this [1560 Geneva Bible]

And the [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]


Matthew 10:9

Possess not gold [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 58)

Provide neither gold [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 10:18

in witness to them [1560 Geneva Bible]

for a testimony against them [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 11:28

I will ease you [1560 Geneva Bible] [Latin Vulgate]

I will give you rest [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Matthew 14:2

great works are wrought by him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 59-60)

mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [1611 KJV] [see 1611 margin]


Matthew 18:19

Again, verily, I say unto you [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 61)

Again I say unto you [1611 KJV]


Matthew 18:26

and besought him [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, p. 62)

and worshipped him [1611 KJV] [Beza] [see 1611 marginal note]


Matthew 21:32

were not moved with repentance afterward [1560 Geneva Bible]

repented not afterward [1611 KJV]


Matthew 26:15

And said [1560 Geneva Bible]

And said unto them [1611 KJV] [Latin Vulgate] [“unto them” in italics in later KJV’s]



Matthew 26:26
and when he had given thanks [1560 Geneva Bible] (see Backus, pp. 64-65)
and blessed it [1611 KJV] [see 1611 marginal note]

 

[Logos1560]

The marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV pointed out some of these possible textual differences in the Textus Receptus editions. One resource that pointed out several of these differences, giving a claimed source or reason for them, was the book The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament by Irena Backus.

The number of textual differences in the varying TR editions are too many to list in one post. Many of them may be minor, but at least some of them [see Luke 10:22 and Luke 17:36] are not.

Luke 1:28

thou that art freely beloved [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, pp. 79, 91)
thou that art highly favoured [1611 KJV] [Erasmus]

Luke 6:16

Judas [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
And Judas [1611 KJV]


Luke 7:28

then John [1560 Geneva Bible]
than John the Baptist [1611 KJV]

Luke 8:14

bring forth no fruit [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus] (see Backus, pp. 83-84)
bring no fruit to perfection [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Luke 8:29

was carried [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus & Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 84)
was driven [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 9:22

and the third day rise again [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
and be raised the third day [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Luke 10:19

nothing shall hurt you [1560 Geneva Bible]
nothing shall by any means hurt you [1611 KJV]


Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?


Luke 11:3

for the day [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 86)
day by day [1611 KJV] [Erasmus] [see 1611 marginal note]

Luke 12:56

the face of the earth, and of the sky [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
the face of the sky and of the earth [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]


Luke 15:13

So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]

And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

[David Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]


Luke 15:26

one of his servants [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
one of the servants [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)


Luke 20:32

And last of all, the woman died also [1560 Geneva Bible]
Last of all the woman died also [1611 KJV]

 

[Deacon]

When I say that the critical text assumes discontinuity, I am referring to the underlying reconstructionist philosophy, not to the quantity of manuscripts consulted. The critical text treats the continuous Byzantine line as secondary, assumes that the earliest manuscripts represent a purer form, and reconstructs the text by selecting readings from fragmentary witnesses. That is what I mean by discontinuity. It is a methodological claim, not a mystical one. If that sounds like magic, then it must be magic indeed.

The preserved stream, by contrast, is defined by continuity of use, transmission, reception, and ecclesiastical stability. It is not defined by the age of manuscripts, but by the fact that the believing church copied, preached, and received that line for centuries. That is why I use the term “providentially preserved.” It is not prejudicial; it is descriptive of the historical reality that the church’s Bible was continuous, not reconstructed.

Regarding your point about the TR being “eclectic,” I agree that the printed editions contain refinements and corrections. But that is not eclecticism in the modern critical sense. The TR tradition is conservative refinement within a preserved stream. The modern critical text is reconstruction from disparate witnesses under a different set of assumptions. The two methods are not equivalent.

As for your final point, yes, I do trust the transmission decisions of the believing early churches. That is precisely the point. I trust the continuous stream that God preserved through the hands of the churches, rather than the reconstructionist model that assumes loss and recovery.

So my argument is not that older manuscripts do not exist, nor that modern editors lack skill. My argument is that the preserved stream represents continuity, while the critical text represents reconstruction.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that the argument about what constitutes "The Preserved text" is not necessarily about what manuscripts were used but about the methods used to 'reconstruct' ... uhhh ... develop ... it?

The Textus Receptus is an 'eclectic' text, something Logos1560 has repeatedly documented.

The titles Critical Text (because of the detailed evaluation of manuscripts) and Eclectic Text (because it is derived from a combination of multiple manuscripts) are often applied [to the modern Greek text]. In reality, all published texts are both critical and eclectic. Even the TR is based on evaluation of several manuscripts, though admittedly only a small number.
Williams, James B., and Randolph Shaylor, eds. 2003. God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us. Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International.

Rob

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The number of textual differences in the varying TR editions are too many to list in one post. Many of them may be minor, but at least some of them [see Luke 10:22 and Luke 17:36] are not.

Luke 1:28

thou that art freely beloved [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, pp. 79, 91)
thou that art highly favoured [1611 KJV] [Erasmus]

Luke 6:16

Judas [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
And Judas [1611 KJV]


Luke 7:28

then John [1560 Geneva Bible]
than John the Baptist [1611 KJV]

Luke 8:14

bring forth no fruit [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus] (see Backus, pp. 83-84)
bring no fruit to perfection [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Luke 8:29

was carried [1560 Geneva Bible] [Erasmus & Latin Vulgate] (see Backus, p. 84)
was driven [1611 KJV] [Beza]

Luke 9:22

and the third day rise again [1560 Geneva Bible] [Vulgate]
and be raised the third day [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Luke 10:19

nothing shall hurt you [1560 Geneva Bible]
nothing shall by any means hurt you [1611 KJV]


Luke 10:22 "Then he turned to his disciples" [these words in 1560 Geneva Bible from an edition of Stephanus are not in 1611 KJV's text] [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, pp. 85-86)

Did the makers of the KJV remove words from the text of a pre-1611 English Bible and put them in a marginal note?


Luke 11:3

for the day [1560 Geneva Bible] [Beza] (see Backus, p. 86)
day by day [1611 KJV] [Erasmus] [see 1611 marginal note]

Luke 12:56

the face of the earth, and of the sky [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
the face of the sky and of the earth [1611 KJV] [Complutensian]


Luke 15:13

So not long after [1560 Geneva Bible]

And not many days after [1611 KJV] [Latin—non post multos dies]

[David Daniell maintained that the “KJV followed the Latin” (Bible in English, p. 363)]


Luke 15:26

one of his servants [1560 Geneva Bible] [Stephanus]
one of the servants [1611 KJV] [Beza]


Luke 17:36 [this verse in the KJV is not in the 1560 Geneva Bible and some other pre-1611 English Bibles]
The 1560 Geneva Bible has a verse 36 but it is what is verse 37 in the KJV. [see 1611 marginal note] (see also Backus, p. 88)


Luke 20:32

And last of all, the woman died also [1560 Geneva Bible]
Last of all the woman died also [1611 KJV]

Finally, a quote list worth actually considering.

You wrote that “the number of textual differences in the varying TR editions are too many to list in one post.” That is not accurate. What your own examples show is that translations and some printed editions sometimes departed from the preserved reading. The instability is in the translators and editors, not in the preserved text itself. This fidelity to the preserved text is why I insist on it.

The differences you listed do not show the KJV translators removing Scripture. They show the translators correcting earlier English editions back to the preserved text. The translators compared previous English Bibles, but they did not copy them. They examined them, weighed them, and corrected them wherever the English did not match the preserved Greek text.

The translators said in their preface that earlier translations “contain the word of God,” but that they still needed to be “examined” and “weighed.” They also said, “We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing.” These statements show that they did not treat any English Bible as the preserved text. They treated the Greek text as the preserved text, and they corrected the English accordingly.

This is why the KJV sometimes differs from the Geneva Bible. When the Geneva Bible followed a Greek edition that did not reflect the preserved text, the KJV translators corrected the English. They did not preserve the English tradition. They preserved the text itself. The preserved text is not what the translators perceived. The preserved text is what God kept. The translators compared the available Greek editions and followed the preserved reading. When an English rendering did not match that preserved reading, they corrected it.

Your list is simply the normal result of comparing Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Complutensian, along with comparing Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, and the Great Bible. When you compare sources, you must choose. When you choose, you must differ. The KJV translators were revisers, not reproducers. They corrected the English back to the preserved text.

 

[Logos1560]

This is why the KJV sometimes differs from the Geneva Bible.

One reason why the KJV differs from the 1560 Geneva Bible would be the many renderings that its Church of England makers borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In a few cases, it was indicated that the KJV translators were following Jerome's Latin Vulgate text instead of one of the varying Greek Textus Receptus editions.

How is borrowing from a non-Textus Receptus translation correcting the English back to the preserved text?

A very few of the many renderings that the makers of the KJV may have borrowed from the 1582 Rheims include “austere” (Luke 19:21), “malefactors” (Luke 23:19), “malefactor” (John 18:30), “vesture” (John 19:24), “clemency” (Acts 24:4), “principal” (Acts 25:23), “malignity” (Rom. 1:29), “emulation” (Rom. 11:14), “illuminated” (Heb. 10:32), “seduce” (1 John 2:26), and “incense” (Rev. 8:3).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that the argument about what constitutes "The Preserved text" is not necessarily about what manuscripts were used but about the methods used to 'reconstruct' ... uhhh ... develop ... it?

The issue of the preserved text is not about how many manuscripts someone can gather or how many readings can be blended together. It is about the method. The preserved text is the continuous stream that God kept through the churches. The critical text assumes discontinuity and attempts to reconstruct a lost text by selecting readings from fragmentary witnesses. That is reconstruction. The preserved stream is continuity. The printed TR editions contain refinements, but they are refinements within one preserved line, not eclectic reconstruction from competing lines. The instability belongs to translators and editors who departed from that preserved line, not to the preserved text itself. So the question is not whether someone can call the TR “eclectic” in a broad academic sense. The question is whether the method is continuity or reconstruction. The preserved text is the continuous stream, not the reconstructionist model.

The Textus Receptus is an 'eclectic' text, something Logos1560 has repeatedly documented.

The statement that “the Textus Receptus is an eclectic text” only works if the word eclectic is used so broadly that it loses all meaningful distinction. In that sense, every printed text in history could be called eclectic. That does not make the TR equivalent to the modern critical text.

The issue is not whether an editor ever compared readings. The issue is the source of those readings. The TR tradition is conservative refinement within one preserved stream. The modern critical text is reconstruction from multiple competing streams under a different set of assumptions. These are not the same category.

The preserved text is the continuous line that God kept through the churches. The TR editions print that line. When Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza made refinements, they did so within that single preserved stream. They did not blend Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine witnesses into a reconstructed composite. They did not assume loss and recovery. They did not treat the continuous line as secondary. Their work was transmission within continuity, not reconstruction after discontinuity.

So the question is not whether someone can apply the word eclectic in a general academic sense. The question is whether the method is continuity or reconstruction. The preserved text is the continuous stream, not the reconstructionist model. Calling both “eclectic” does not erase the difference between conservative refinement within one line and reconstruction from multiple competing lines.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

How is borrowing from a non-Textus Receptus translation correcting the English back to the preserved text?

You are misrepresenting what I said. My point was about comparing previous editions to correct the English back to the preserved text, not about never using a Latin‑derived word in English. Borrowing an English term like “austere” or “malefactors” from Rheims is not the same thing as borrowing a textual reading from a non‑TR source. The preserved text is the Greek, not the English vocabulary. An English translator may choose a word that also appears in Rheims, in Tyndale, or in any other version, without changing the underlying Greek reading. Your examples are lexical choices, not textual departures.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Logos1560 @Deacon

You are not really struggling against my wording. You are struggling against the distinction itself. The issue is preserved versus reconstructed texts. When that distinction is stated plainly, picking apart my phrasing is not enough, so the reply shifts to misrepresenting what I said. My point has been consistent. The preserved text is the continuous stream. The reconstructed text is the discontinuous model. No amount of redefining my words changes that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I disagree strongly with the idea that the Byzantine text accumulated “additions” through copying. That is not a historical observation; it is a reconstructionist assumption. The longer readings in Romans 8:1 and Acts 8:37 are not late expansions. They belong to the preserved stream that the churches trusted, received, preached, and transmitted for centuries.

I am in general agreement with Anthony concerning his agreement with the 'Preserved Text,' but the question has to be asked, what exactly comprises this text. Romans 8:1 seems to be contained within in the majority of the extant Greek texts, including some early ones but the same cannot be said for Acts 8:37. My source here is the UBS 4th edition (revised) Greek N.T. It indicates that there are no Greek papyri or uncials which contain the verse. The earliest Greek MSS are miniscules dating no earlier than the 9th Century. All the earliest MSS, including the 3rd Century P45 papyrus, leave out the verse, and the majority of the Byzantine MSS also omit it. To be sure there are Latin versions, including the Vulgate, which include the verse, and some ancient writers that also include it (though others omit it).

Yes. the English language is not maturing, it is flattening. Precision is collapsing, distinctions are disappearing, vocabulary is shrinking, and syntactic complexity is eroding. We would be foolish to follow that downward trend in Bible translation. Scripture requires a mature linguistic vehicle, not a degraded one.

What actually are you suggesting here? Do we revert to 17th Century English? Surely not! 1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow’ in all but a very few specialist areas. Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’

Some of the language in the K.J.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezekiel 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.

Supporters of the K.J.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the K.J.V. does not.

Titus 2:13, K.J.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).

2Peter 1:1b, K.J.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).

This has to do with the famous 'Granville Sharp' rule, which was not known when the K.J.V. was written. The only modern translation that supports the K.J.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, look at 2 Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves K.J.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.

There is also another place where the K.J.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the K.J.V. would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .

I am not saying that the K.J.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions, especially the new 2011 edition. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. If the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the K.J.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. has introduced a new revision still based on those texts. Quite right! If the A.V. had been carefully and sympathetically revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I am in general agreement with Anthony concerning his agreement with the 'Preserved Text,' but the question has to be asked, what exactly comprises this text. Romans 8:1 seems to be contained within in the majority of the extant Greek texts, including some early ones but the same cannot be said for Acts 8:37. My source here is the UBS 4th edition (revised) Greek N.T. It indicates that there are no Greek papyri or uncials which contain the verse. The earliest Greek MSS are miniscules dating no earlier than the 9th Century. All the earliest MSS, including the 3rd Century P45 papyrus, leave out the verse, and the majority of the Byzantine MSS also omit it. To be sure there are Latin versions, including the Vulgate, which include the verse, and some ancient writers that also include it (though others omit it).

Martin, I appreciate your tone, but your argument rests on the reconstructionist assumption that the earliest extant manuscripts must represent the original text. That assumption is not historically demonstrable. It is simply the foundation of the modern critical method. The preserved text position does not begin with the earliest surviving manuscripts. It begins with the Scriptures that the churches received, used, preached, copied, and transmitted in continuity. The churches did not treat the text as a puzzle to be reconstructed. They treated it as a trust to be preserved.

Acts 8:37 is not an expansion. It is part of the preserved stream that the churches carried forward. The fact that it appears in the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac tradition, and in the Greek minuscule tradition is evidence of preservation, not invention. The absence of the verse in a handful of early papyri does not prove that the churches added it later. It proves only that those particular manuscripts did not contain it. Preservation is measured by continuity, not by the age of surviving fragments.

Regarding language, I am not suggesting a return to seventeenth century English. I am pointing out that English is flattening. Precision is collapsing. Distinctions are disappearing. Vocabulary is shrinking. Syntactic complexity is eroding. Scripture requires a mature linguistic vehicle, not a degraded one. The solution is not to chase the downward drift of modern English. The solution is to preserve the categories of meaning that Scripture requires. That is what the preserved text tradition has done.

As for Granville Sharp, the rule itself is not inspired. The text is inspired. The preserved text renders Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 in a way that is consistent with the broader testimony of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ. The deity of Christ does not stand or fall on a grammatical rule formulated in the eighteenth century. It stands on the entire witness of Scripture. The preserved text affirms that witness without ambiguity.

The question is not whether the English language has changed. The question is whether the churches should follow that change when it collapses categories necessary for accurate translation. The preserved text position says no. Scripture governs language. Language does not govern Scripture.

That is why I hold to the preserved text. It is continuity. It is not archaism. It is preservation. It is not resistance to change. It is resistance to degradation. The churches received a text. They preserved that text. I intend to stand with them.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What actually are you suggesting here? Do we revert to 17th Century English? Surely not!

I agree that some language in the early bibles are difficult for modern readers. That is not a flaw in Scripture. It is a flaw in us. God’s Word is worthy enough that we should elevate our understanding to meet its precision, not lower the text to match the flattening of modern English. When a word has shifted in meaning, the solution is not to replace the text. The solution is to learn the meaning. That is why God has given the churches teachers, commentaries, lexicons, and helps. Scripture is worth the effort.

The preserved text position does not claim that every reader already understands every word. It claims that the text itself is stable, faithful, and worthy of study. When the bible uses a word whose meaning has shifted, we look up the meaning. We learn the category. We grow into the language. That is not a burden. It is discipleship.

The alternative is to chase the downward drift of modern English, where precision collapses, distinctions disappear, vocabulary shrinks, and syntactic complexity erodes. Scripture requires a mature linguistic vehicle. It does not require a degraded one. The churches of the past did not demand that Scripture conform to their language. They conformed their language to Scripture.

So yes, some passages require study. Some words require definition. Some structures require attention. That is not a defect. That is the nature of Scripture. God’s Word is deep enough to require learning and clear enough to reward it. The preserved text is not inaccessible. It is simply not simplified. And I believe the Word of God deserves that level of reverence.