Preserved Text Only

[Logos1560]

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.

Perhaps this Greek grammar rule was known much earlier since Theodore Beza seems to have known it. Several of the pre-1611 English Bibles seem to have followed this grammar rule at 2 Peter 1:1.

At Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ. John Wesley translated it as “the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Joseph Benson observed that Theodore Beza maintained “that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ” (New Testament, II, p. 472). Granville Sharp noted that Beza “insists, however, that these two titles do not refer to two distinct persons, because the article is omitted before the second” (Remarks, p. 22).

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions. Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in a sermon printed in 1722, Edmund Calamy maintained that “the very construction of the words seems plainly to intimate that Jesus Christ is our God, as well as our Saviour” (Thirteen Sermons, p. 41).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

.

You are entirely wrong about my position, which is opposed to the Critical Text and in favour of what Dean John Burgon called "the Traditional Text.". My post was intended to demonstrate that where the Received Text differs from the Majority or Byzantine Text, it fails to be the 'Preserved' text. The point I was making is that there is no preserved line of Greek texts in Acts 8:37. There are no Uncial MSS, early or late, and the Byzantine texts do not contain the verse. It appears only in a few miniscule MSS dating only from the 9th to the 14th Century. The Latin Vulgate contains it, but that is a translation, not an text.
It is true that the Received Text is generally much closer to the Majority Text than the Critical Text, but there are differences, especially, but not exclusively, in Revelation. The Received Text is not in every place the Preserved text or Burgon's 'Traditional' Text.

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.

Well I agree with William Tyndale, who wanted a Bible that even the ploughboy could read. I have preached many times from the KJV, and I have found that I have to break off constantly to explain the text, which affects the continuity of what I am trying to preach. Bowel movements (SoS 5:4, KJV) have a very different meaning today, and reins (Psalm 16:7 etc., KJV) are now what we use to guide horses.
Your view of modern English does not accord with the facts. Modern English has a huge vocabulary, far larger than ancient Greek or Hebrew. Certainly we don't want a Bible written in slang, but slang existed in Shakespearean times as well as today. Where I am sure we will agree is that we need to be very careful about turning singulars into plurals to satisfy the feminist lobby. Otherwise we shall end up with God as our 'heavenly parent' and the Lord Jesus as the 'one and only child' and the feminists will still not be happy. But I am not going to foist 17th Century language upon my congregation and insist that they learn it before they can read the Bible. To use a neologism, No Way!

 

[Logos1560]

You are misrepresenting what I said.

Incorrect. Asking a question is not misrepresenting what you said. You ended up misrepresenting me with your bogus accusation.

 

[Logos1560]

How does the new Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 fit with a claim of continuity of transmission?

Jan Krans noted that “in most cases the information provided by Beza agrees exactly with Stephanus’ critical apparatus” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 211), and in his footnote [3] Krans asserted that Beza “even faithfully reproduces Stephanus’ errors.” Jan Krans wrote: “Beza often refers to readings derived from Stephanus in ways that suggest that he actually consulted the manuscripts himself. However, this impression is deceptive, at least in case of Stephanus’ manuscripts” (p. 213). Jan Krans observed: “It may be safely concluded that most of Beza’s text-critical information was second-hand, that is, derived from Henri Stephanus’ collations and Robert or Henri Stephanus’ editions” (pp. 242-243). Laurence Vance noted: “Beza relied on the critical apparatus of Stephanus’ 1550 edition as well as the manuscript collations made for that edition by Stephanus’ son Henri” (Text of the KJB, p. 393). In his article entitled “New Testament Conjectural Emendation: Folly or Duty,”Jan Krans wrote: “At Rev. 16:5, probably through a misunderstanding, Beza printed o esomenos instead of o hosios from his 1582 edition onwards” (Wallace, Pen, p. 173, footnote 21). In notes under correspondence from Francis Huyshe in the March, 1834, issue of The British Magazine, this is stated concerning Revelation 16:5: “But having discovered in the book of collations, the reading, …, (which is ever used on similar occasions), as he [Beza] says, ‘ex vetusto bonae fidei MS. Cod.,’ he restores it” (Vol. V, p. 287). Did Theodore Beza possibly assume that the new reading he introduced at Revelation 16:5 was found in an old manuscript because it was in an imperfect, recent book of collations where a young collator could have looked at the wrong place in a manuscript that did not have verse divisions?

Do the known facts indicate that Henri Stephanus’ imperfect book of collations may possibly have misled Beza in some cases including this one? Isn’t it amazing that the claimed reading of one supposedly missing or lost NT manuscript 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). 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 new 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?

Edward F. Hills surprisingly acknowledged: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208; Text, p. 345). Jan Krans claimed: “There is a remarkable paradox in Beza’s editions: though he professes time and again not to change the text lightly out of mere conjecture, he offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures” (Beyond What is Written, p. 247). Jan Krans maintained that Beza’s emendations “had not been based on a sound and consistent text-critical method” (p. 198). Jan Krans suggested that Beza “used Erasmus’ technique of inferring [Greek] readings” based on the Latin Vulgate and even also “on the basis of Erasmus’ Latin translation” (p. 240). Jan Krans maintained that “the existence of versional ‘evidence’ for a reading does not exclude its being a conjecture when adopted into the Greek text” (p. 90). Jan Krans also noted that “Beza’s harmonistic approach [preferring readings that bring the gospel accounts closer together] sometimes led to conjectural emendation” (p. 241). Would these conjectural emendations be textual reconstructions?

 

[Logos1560]

The updated and revised edition of David Rose's 2026 book is entitled Ending the King James Debate.

David Rose appeals to "the doctrine of divine preservation" [title of chapter 2 in this book]. In chapter 3, David Rose appeals to "the principle of continuous usage" (p. 31). David Rose wrote: "Preservation points toward historical continuity" (p. 184). In chapter 4 entitled "The Rise of Modern Textual Criticism," David Rose entitled one heading as "the problem of reconstruction" (p. 44). In chapter 16, he had one heading entitled "A theory built on reconstruction" (p. 166). This term "reconstruction" is one of his repeated accusations against modern English Bibles.

The arguments and assertions of this KJV-only author David Rose remind me of the similar arguments and assertions of a certain poster here.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You are entirely wrong about my position, which is opposed to the Critical Text and in favour of what Dean John Burgon called "the Traditional Text."

My misunderstanding and my apologies.

 

[Dave G]

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.

I am not referring to Nestle-Aland, UBS, eclectic reconstruction, conjectural emendation, or Alexandrian priority. Those represent a reconstructionist philosophy, not a preservation philosophy. They assume that the text was lost and must be restored by modern critical methods. I reject that approach entirely.

Amen.

 

[Dave G]

Preservation is not English-only. It is text-only. There are faithful translations in Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Romanian, and other languages that follow the preserved stream. These are not KJV equivalents. They are preserved-text equivalents. The issue is not English. The issue is the stream of transmission.

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.

Again, Amen.

However, I think you'll find, as I have, that most of today's professing Christians have bought into the idea that God has not providentially preserved His words for all of the generations of His children ( from whatever tongue, tribe and nation that they are called ) to read, to preach from, to quote from and to take comfort in....
But in place of this, we, as God's people, are somehow on a ( practically ) never-ending journey of not only re-discovering what those words are, but where they can be found.

Contrary to this, I know that I can hold the inspired and perfectly preserved words of God in my very hands without doubting where they come from, or whether or not they were only "perfect in the original manuscripts"...
Because God Himself has preserved those words for me and others like me down through the centuries and through a multitude of witnesses.


I wish you well, sir, and may God bless you.

 

[Mikoo]

Again, Amen.

However, I think you'll find, as I have, that most of today's professing Christians have bought into the idea that God has not providentially preserved His words for all of the generations of His children ( from whatever tongue, tribe and nation that they are called ) to read, to preach from, to quote from and to take comfort in....
But in place of this, we, as God's people, are somehow on a ( practically ) never-ending journey of not only re-discovering what those words are, but where they can be found.

Contrary to this, I know that I can hold the inspired and perfectly preserved words of God in my very hands without doubting where they come from, or whether or not they were only "perfect in the original manuscripts"...
Because God Himself has preserved those words for me and others like me down through the centuries and through a multitude of witnesses.


I wish you well, sir, and may God bless you.

And in what version would that be?

 

[Logos1560]

Contrary to this, I know that I can hold the inspired and perfectly preserved words of God in my very hands without doubting where they come from, or whether or not they were only "perfect in the original manuscripts"...
Because God Himself has preserved those words for me and others like me down through the centuries and through a multitude of witnesses.

You can believe what you wish, but your sincere belief does not make your assertion true and scriptural.


Do you close your eyes to the verifiable fact that what you claim God Himself has preserved for you in your very hands differs in many places from what English-speaking believers had in their hands before 1611 had and what German-speaking believers had in their hands in the 1534 Luther's German Bible?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

today's professing Christians have bought into the idea that God has not providentially preserved His words for all of the generations of His children

I absolutely agree, and it is no small matter. A solid foundation is essential to proper transmission. Once a generation accepts the idea that God has not preserved His words, everything downstream becomes unstable. Doctrine, preaching, confidence in the text, even the way believers read their Bibles, all of it begins to shift. If the foundation is uncertain, the structure built on it will always wobble.

That is why I keep pressing the point. Preservation is not a side issue. It is the ground on which every other issue stands.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

However, I think you'll find, as I have, that most of today's professing Christians have bought into the idea that God has not providentially preserved His words for all of the generations of His children ( from whatever tongue, tribe and nation that they are called ) to read, to preach from, to quote from and to take comfort in....

Dave, thank you for this. Your words carry weight because they come from conviction, not from argument. You are exactly right. The idea that God has not providentially preserved His words has taken deep root in the thinking of many professing Christians today. It is present in the seminaries, in the pulpits, and even here on this forum. Once that idea is accepted, believers are left with a Bible that is always in motion, always under review, and always subject to the next round of editorial reconstruction. At best they are left with a Bible that only contains God's Word.

In place of confidence, they inherit uncertainty. In place of continuity, they inherit a never-ending search for what God actually said. That mindset affects preaching, teaching, discipleship, and the daily reading of Scripture. It creates a generation that trusts the editors more than the text.

Your testimony is the antidote to that. You know that you can hold the inspired and preserved words of God in your hands without doubting their origin or their stability. That confidence is not arrogance. It is faith in the God who promised to keep His words for His people in every tongue, tribe, and nation.

I appreciate your clarity, your steadiness, and your willingness to speak plainly. May God bless you as well, brother.

 

[Logos1560]

Do some KJV-only advocates in effect permit their subjective feelings and experience [mysticism] to mislead them and overrule scriptural truth in their view of faith?

KJV-only author Wally Beebe described and condemned a mystical view of faith and inspiration. Wally Beebe noted that the neo-orthodox say: "Only what speaks to me is the real Word of God." Wally Beebe added: "I don't believe that, and I know of no one who is a fundamentalist who does" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1997, p. 3). KJV-only author Robert Sargent pointed out: "Theology based upon such a view of inspiration can only be emotive and mystical and again makes man the authority" (English Bible, p. 27). Robert Barnett also stated: "We are quick to spot the error of Neo-orthodoxy for saying the Bible is only the Word of God when the Holy Spirit subjectively applies the Word to our hearts" (Word of God on Trial, p. 24). Robert Barnett also wrote: "Neo-orthodoxy would say that the Bible is only the Word of God when an individual experiences the Word through the work of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 37). The mystical view has also been called "flash" inspiration. David Norris maintained that mysticism “is found in the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner, ‘the bible is God’s word when it speaks to me’ brigade” (Big Picture, p. 95). David Norris observed: “The Bible does not mean what it means to me, it means what God gave it to mean quite apart from me” (p. 236). In mysticism, he noted that “authority is determined subjectively by the reader and not by God” (p. 256). David Norris asserted: “The Bible, though often apparently in a central position, is in fact sidelined in all mysticism (p. 96). KJV-only author H. D. Williams claimed that “contemplative mysticism about the Words of God is a product of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and trust in man” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 106). KJV-only author H. D. Williams maintained that “belief in a perfect translation ‘given by inspiration of God’ is the result of a tendency towards ‘mysticism’” (Ibid.).

Gail Riplinger announced: "The KJV is the Bible through which God speaks to me" (Language of the KJB, p. xviii). Mickey Carter asserted: "The King James Version has the awe of the Holy Spirit on it" (Things That Are Different, p. 92). Michael Hoggard asked: “As you read the words of the King James can you not perceive the very breath of the Holy Spirit?” (King James Code, p. 2). William Grady claimed: "These counterfeit Bibles were void of Holy Spirit endorsement" (Final Authority, p. 277. Hugh Pyle stated: "The new versions leave me cold. I've tried to read some of them and there's something missing--the vitality, the life, the warmth, the power just isn't there" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1995, p. 18). D. A. Waite also contended: "Many of these new versions do not even sound like the 'Bible' to those of us who love the King James Bible" (Burgon's Confidence in the KJB, p. 16). Brandon Peterson wrote: “I know that I didn’t feel any ‘authority’ when I read from modern versions in my first 5 years as a babe in Christ. Reading those bibles felt like reading dry, dead textbooks” (Sealed by the King, p. 300). John Rov wrote: “How many read and read and read and gained no power of conversion from dead Bibles?” (Concealed, p. 177). James Rasbeary claimed: “The new versions are deader than doornails. They do not have any life. They do not speak to people with the voice of the Shepherd” (What’s Wrong, p. 122). Ian Paisley contended: "The very expression of the truths of the Bible in the Authorized Version carry with them their own intrinsic power and godliness" (Plea, p. 96). Bruce Cummons claimed: "I believe the Bible to be the Authorized Version or the King James Version. If I had no evidence at all, I would still believe it, because of the way it speaks to my heart" (Foundation, p. 46).

Another author seems to use a similar mystical argument to support the use of the Douay-Rheims. Thomas A. Nelson wrote: “Personally speaking, this writer has been reading the Douay-Rheims Bible for over 30 years and can attest that it literally bristles with meaning, that it is replete, verse after verse, with wonderful shades and nuances of meaning, such that no human being could possibly have written without being aided by Almighty God” (Which Bible, p. 5). Thomas A. Nelson also claimed: “This writer has never experienced anything similar while reading any other version. In comparison, all other versions seem prosaic and flat” (p. 5).

Have many KJV-only advocates been persuaded by unproven premises, bad or illogical arguments, circular reasoning, mysticism, and eisegesis to accept a KJV-only view?