Q#7 for Kent

Some people are very shocked, Kent, that the TR contains verses of Scripture that most modern Scholars would say are simply not part of the original text. For example, it is almost universally accepted that John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8 are not actually part of the autographs, but are late additions to the text.

Let's imagine something for a moment: let's imagine that this is true. It is my contention that if these verses were removed from the common printed Bible, not one doctrine of the faith would be altered in the least -- not one bit of Christian theology would have to be revised or modified.

Your opinion might differ -- what doctrine(s) essential to saving faith would be irreconcilably changed if these two emendations (arguably the two longest and most obvious changes between the NA27 and the TR) were removed from the text of the New Testament?

A#7 for Kent

As usual, I like Kent’s question. And this one is an extremely easy question to answer:

There is no question that, at the time of the Reformation, the explicit Catholic doctrine of Scripture was that the autographs for the NT were unrecoverable, and the canonical text for the NT was the Vulgate; against that, the Protestant position was that we have an authentic testimony to the NT Greek, and that text testified against the Vulgate as a ground for final dispute regarding what Scripture actually says.

If that’s not what Kent is looking for, let me say it this way:

The position of confessional Protestants was that the Greek was the authentic witness of Scripture, and the text(s) produced by Erasmus was believed to be the best testimony to the NT Greek. I doubt I could find any quotes of men of God from the 16th and 17th century that could demonstrate a denial in doctrine of perfect, original-language preservation of Scripture.

What is interesting, of course, is what the Reformers and Puritans will admit that Kent finds offensive. For example, Kent has already provided us with one insight from Richard Capel:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt.

Is that a denial of "perfect preservation"? Why no, it's not. There is no question that Kent would have us view Capel’s statement about the Greek and Hebrew are “uncorrupt” – indeed, it’s hard to miss.

But notice that to Capel, this does not mean “with no variations from the original texts” but in fact “do not vary in any matter which may stumble” -- which is a different standard. It is also useful to notice that in Capel’s view, the way we discover “God’s providence” in this matter is by observing that “what mistake is in one print, it is corrected in another” – pointing to exactly the premises of textual criticism and not some invisible process by which churches without hierarchy or councils somehow “canonize” some text family, and a text comes together without any human intervention to harmonize the variety found even in one text type.

There’s no question: the Reformers placed a high value on the original language texts because they rejected the claims of Rome regarding them. But the choice there is not between either wholly-corrupt or “jot-and-tittle perfect” texts. Indeed, the problem for the advocate of a perfect TR is that the originators of the TR itself must do what Kent has explicitly decried already. That is, they must take the extant variations and choose from among them by careful study (and, one hopes, prayerful consideration and humility) which readings they will adopt.

This is why, specifically, I have spent so much time on the matter of Erasmus’ work. I admit navigating Google books is not among my favorite internet hobbies, but here’s what it says on pg 4 of The Text of the New Testament: an Introduction to the Critical Editions:

Work on the magnificent folio volume ... began in August 1515, and since it was completed in a few months’ time, the rate of its progress can be imagined (praecipitatum verius quam editum “thrown together rather than edited” was how Erasmus described it later).

Indeed, if you read that source through the next 3 pages, you’ll find that Erasmus published 4 editions each with clear revisions, and after him Stephanus continued the work, including making some corrections supported by the Complutensian Polyglot – which has no clear text family for a pedigree. Further, the modern “Majority Text” compiled by Farstad and Hodges uses even more texts to reach its final state, and that text differs from Erasmus’ text in over 1000 places.

What Kent has asked for is support from a 15th or 16th century theologian which endorses the idea that the Greek text they had through Erasmus was not perfect in every way, down every jot and tittle. I admit it: none of them would say such a thing. But to draw the conclusions, therefore, that they believed that they had a uniform text which was identical in every way to the autographs, and that Erasmus’ TR was the final word in handling the Greek NT, is simply unfounded. The actions of those men speak loudly against such a thing; Kent’s own support of the Scrivener edition speaks loudly against such a thing as well.

What is actually true is that there is a variety of opinions among the reformers about what to say about the variations among the texts. Some would say, as Capel does, that there are no variations which would cause us to stumble (a view I would share); some would say that the Greek is authentic and sufficient (a view I would find much common ground with); some would, in fact, say that the Greek is perfect in every way – but it’s not clear that all the ones who would say that had ever actually handled the manuscript evidence.

Kent’s view must come to grips with the problem that to come to “one text”, textual critical work has to be provided because no three extant manuscripts are identical.

Q#7 for Frank

What are quotes of men of God from the 16th and 17th century that you can provide for us, Mr. Turk, that demonstrate a denial in doctrine of perfect, original-language preservation of Scripture or that show in their usage the general accessibility or acceptance during that same time period of the critical text that translated became the Revised Version of 1881?

In other words, you won't show us that your belief is a Scriptural doctrine. Could you show us if it is a historic doctrine? Please do not bring in translation and translation philosophy. As a Christian, the doctrines I believe I like to see are in the Bible and that have a historic basis of belief.

Rules of Engagement and the Debating of Frank

1. I did not break any rules of engagement posted before the debate.

Frank Responds: there are only 5 rules of engagement, and they are listed in the sidebar; let the reader decide if the rule about answering the question posed was broken or not

"Obligation to reply." That's the rule. I think answer is the best policy but I still don't think my questions were "answered."

2. Frank made up these rules as he went along.

Frank Responds: let the reader decide if the rules were changed as this exchange unfolded.

The reader decide seems to be what you expected for your misrepresentations. The reader could have continued to decide but that wasn't good enough when you felt violated.

3. Frank has already broken his own rules because he didn't answer two questions---the first one and the one about the Bible as evidence. He essentially filibustered.

Frank respond: I have put all my answers in bold, except for the first answer; to satisfy Kent's concerns about that first answer, I have reposted my answer to the question he asked. If he has a fuller question, I have also conceded to him an 11th question with which to clarify my position.

Notice Frank says "I put my answers in bold." He didn't say he answered the question. He just "put answers." Ex. What's your name Frank? I have a nice name. He put an answer in bold.

4. He still hasn't answered question one, because He put an answer in bold and then he explained them away in the following two paragraphs. He doesn't want to say that God didn't preserve His Words. He wants "words" to mean "every copyist made perfect copies down to the accent." Hmmmmm. Not an answer.

Frank replies: Actually, Kent, that's what -you- want the preservation of words to mean. You want the TR to somehow be a document that represents a preservation of all the words without any editorial process by those who possessed the documents; that is [a] a false view of the TR, and [b] not a doctrine which Scripture demands. Please ask me a question about any passages of Scripture which you say demands that some family of manuscripts is perfect.

Frank, what you are saying in this paragraph is that you purposefully avoided answering my question. Thanks for that. The affirmative in a debate defines the terms. My definition is reasonable. Words happen to mean words, which is very reasonable. You want to debate my definition of words instead of debating the affirmation. Words means something different to you, different than the history of the definition of words.

5. Frank just posted his rule break thing and then pulled my post. He didn't consult me on that first. He just did it. When I didn't think he answered my questions, I couldn't pull his post.

Frank responds: I simply wanted Kent to answer what was asked; he has, and the exchange can roll forward.

6. This is the problem with having no moderator. Frank is debating and a moderator. That doesn't happen in a real debate.

Frank responds: Kent's concern is noted for the record. Let the reader decide how badly he has been treated in this exchange.

It is bad. Just an observation.

7. When I said that the debate comes down to one question, that wasn't changing the debate. I brought that in on the first question he didn't answer. It was part of the debate. It was also rhetoric. It is obvious what we are still debating. This is how I'm debating it. Where do you think I go for a grievance about this---oh, my opponent. He just pulls my answer without talking to me first by private email.

Frank Responds: Let the reader decide what has happened here on this charge.

8. Frank posts the contents of a private email without permission. Do you like those ethics?

Frank: can anyone point to anywhere in this exchange where I have posted the contents of an e-mail from Kent? I said we had an e-mail exchange, and posted an apology because of it. Not one word of Kent's e-mail was posted here.

9. Frank broke his own rules, the hindsight rules---by not answering the two questions. Yes, I know I already said that, but I didn't say that Frank can break his own rules because he is above the law here.

Frank: let the reader decide

10. Frank has misrepresented clear, concise points or statements I made 8-10 times. I mean eight to ten, not 8. Just like I mean 2-300 if I say 2-300, not 200. I would say that should be a rule, but it isn't because the moderator wants to do it in his own debate.

Frank: let the reader decide

11. I'm going to answer his question. I already had one written up for both points. I had actually already answered his question too, but if he wants to keep concentrating on Erasmus as a major point. We can.

Frank: I appreciate you answering the question I asked and not the question you preferred to answer. Thank you for continuing you participation here. For the information of anyone reading, it seems obvious to me that if the TR is perfect, the work of the man originally responsible for the TR ought to bear some weight on the matter -- especially when he himself has said things like the work was "more thrown together than edited".

It's fine if you want to go that direction. Did Erasmus use the words "thrown together?" I don't think so. That's rhetoric. You can make this about Erasmus. I don't happen to think he fooled all the believers who thought they had available every Word and said the Holy Spirit was responsible.

For the sake of clarity and charity

I have had a private e-mail exchange with Kent about this matter, and let me first do something publicly: Kent believes I have handled my reaction to his last response poorly, and I have done him wrong in some way. That was not my intention, and I apologize for doing anything which he receives as ill-will or as intended to be unfair.

He has asked me to re-answer his Q#1 in order to move forward. For those who have forgotten what that question was, here it is:

Does God in the Bible promise His people the preservation and general accessibility of every Word of God to every generation of believers in the language in which He gave them?

My answer, very frankly, is no, God does not make this promise in the Bible. If Kent's concern is that somehow I have not done any exegesis in this answer, I cannot exegete passages I do not believe exist; feel free to use the extra question I have already suggested you use to ask a question about one or two passages of Scripture so we can therefore deal with those passage.

Here are the only qualifications I would make about that answer:

[1] This statement does not deny the miraculous origin of the books of the Bible.

[2] This statement does not deny the divine origin of the Bible.

[3] This statement does not deny the authority of the Bible.

What this statement denies is that the Bible in any way has made a promise about the complete integrity, down to the accent marks, of any particular copy of Scripture, and also about any family of copies of Scripture.

Here's the thing, however: like any translation made in good faith (that is, with adequate integrity, not some sprinkling of "saving faith"), I would affirm that God's word is present and active in the TR, as it is in the other text families, and that when we compare all of them, and account for the origins and idiosyncrasies of all of them, we can -- as Erasmus did among the texts he had -- discern the places where scribes have made errors and receive an eclectic text which represents, to the best of our human ability, both the words and the substance of the original texts.

I cannot be any more clear than that. I leave it to Kent to discuss Erasmus' view of his own work and whether or not that ought to effect our view of his work.

Time Out: two fouls

For the record, Kent's Q#7 is taken back to the draft status because Kent's A#6 has committed two fouls. I usually don't get too aggressive about insisting on the rules for these exchanges, but they are here for a reason.

The D-Blog exchanges are usually 5 Questions each, with a 500 word limit for answers, with the requirement that each side answer the questions posed to it. This exchange has been broadened to 10 Q's for each side and a 1000-word limit for answers, and Kent has taken a lot of liberty to inject his own running commentary. That's fine, btw, as long as he actually answers the questions posed to him.

Clearly, in the last answer, Kent has frankly refused to answer unless I answer some other question for him first. Well, he has had 6 Q's so far to ask anything he wants, and in all but the first A from me, I have put my succinct answers in bold text. If he wants to ask other questions, he has 4 more Q's in which to do so.

However, it is a requirement to answer the questions posed to him. I have answered 6 questions so far, and he has my 6th question to answer. If he doesn't want to answer any more question, he can withdraw -- but he can't pretend that his questions here aren't getting answers.

His other foul, frankly, is changing the thesis of this debate well after the mid-point. His claim (as he lead off the last A to me) is this:

This debate is one question: Did God do what He said He would do or did He not?

Well, in fact, this debate is one question, but it is the question of whether this statement is true or false:

The Greek Textus Receptus text of the New Testament is God's verbal, plenary preserved Word of God (of the New Testament).

I have posed that particular question to Kent in my Q#6, based on a citation from Kurt Aland refering to Erasmus' view of his own work -- and Kent has declined to actually spell out how what Erasmus thought about his editorial work in sorting out the differences between manuscript texts in the 16th century.

So I call on Kent to return to the actual thesis of this exchange and play by the rules we agreed on from the start. Please answer Q#6, and I will be glad to answer your Q#7 -- and in fact, I will be glad to also give you an addition Q#11 so that you will have gotten to ask more questions, receive more answers, get the last word in, and post the closing statement in order that you can adequately frame your own position.

A#6 for Frank

Answer to Q6

Here's the answer for Erasmus in Revelation 22. Textual scholar Herman C. Hoskier argued that Erasmus did not go Latin to English. Instead, he suggests that Erasmus used other Greek manuscripts such as 2049 (which Hoskier calls 141), and the evidence seems to support this position. Hoskier collated all the manuscripts for the book of Revelation. Manuscript 2049 contains the reading found in the Textus Receptus including the textual variant of Revelation 22:19. To this we can also add the Greek manuscript evidence of 296, and the margin of 2067 (Herman C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929, p. 644).

Aland may disrespect what Erasmus did, but, first, he doesn't know Erasmus' state of mind. It amazes me what Mr. Turk is willing to believe when someone says it about something someone did hundreds of years before, but he won't believe when God said He would preserve every Word for every generation. It's also interesting the selective belief---ignoring the quote that the TR was the text of the NT. So second, Aland says that Erasmus didn't come up with the received text, but that it was already the standard text, already received. Third, Erasmus wasn't the basis for the King James Version. I've said that numerous times. Many men had an opportunity to look at all the work on many opportunities. Erasmus edition wasn't the basis of the KJV.

Aland says the TR was considered to be the text at that time. He doesn't believe in preservation. However, if you do believe in preservation, the historic position, this says something. This was what the church received. It was the Bible therefore up to 1500 and then continued to be. It was the only text available for at least 500 years---before the printed edition, during the printed edition, after the printed edition.

And so I have an answer, so Mr. Turk is happy because he can believe the NT is perfect. No, he goes back to the drawing board to ensure there are errors. Only then can he be happy.

This debate is one question: Did God do what He said He would do or did He not? If He did, which He does, you must believe He did a miracle. God said He would preserve Israel against immeasurable odds—a miracle—and He did it. God often said who would be His tool hundreds of years before He use it—like Cyrus—and then He used it. Over fifty miracles were performed in the Incarnation of Christ, interwoven in an impossible providence. Mr. Turk seems to have no problem believing that God could and did inspire every single Word despite fallible men often dictating to fallible amanuenses—no wrong strokes of the instrument with inspiration though. The very writings, letters and words, appeared exactly how God wanted in inspiration, making us think it was the words that mattered. Mr. Turk can believe in inspiration even though he didn’t see it. That was an impossible that God could do. Preservation, however, is beyond the faith of Mr. Turk. "Little faith" in Scripture is faith that will not overcome obstacles ("little"="short-termed")—it can’t get beyond certain hindrances of human reasoning. Consequently men assigned an office nowhere found in Scripture, the textual critic.

Saying God did the miracle of preservation by using fallible men isn’t new. It’s the historic, Christian position. Saying that He didn’t preserve His Words is the recent position. To persuade us, Mr. Turk must exterminate whoever/whatever he must—the usual suspects, Erasmus, etc. He must see inconsistencies, so he finds them where they don’t exist. Then the Words themselves aren’t Scripture, but His General Word, His Truth, His Ideas, His Concepts. We still have a miracle, just a different one. God does something He wouldn’t do, will errors in Scripture, so we are left with a leap into living and exposing God’s "concepts." The logical conclusion of this is deep uncertainty with and mounting disobedience to Scripture.

Mr. Turk has yet to answer anything about what Scripture says about preservation. He hasn’t demonstrated that the Bible doesn’t teach its own perfect preservation to the very words and the letters of the language in which it was written unto every generation of believers, the historic Christian position. Men recently deny Scriptural preservation. Mr. Turk doesn’t possess originals to discredit the TR; he chooses error over perfection despite verses which reveal those grammatical promises he says don’t exist—Psalm 12:6-7; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35. Revelation 22:18-19 requires a certain, settled text.

Mr. Turk misrepresents me by saying that I haven’t said what edition of the TR I believe, and yet I have. It is the Greek text behind the KJV, found in Scrivener’s. If you don’t think it was available, I can direct you to the text men preached in printed sermons for hundreds of years from the beginning of the 16th to the end of the 19th centuries. Mr. Turk misrepresents me again when he says that I believe there is no settled text because of 252 variations within the thirty TR printed editions, when I already mentioned canonization of Words and the common faith of believers guided by the Spirit to the Greek text behind the KJV. Why not accept that I have already said that I believe the Holy Spirit through the churches guided churches to a perfect text and so doing corrected the few errors that existed in the printed editions? He misrepresents me third about my relating the 252 variants of the TR only to their effect on translation, when I was simply quoting that statistic. Mr. Turk relegates into simpletons all the Bible translators who made numbers of versions into their languages from the Words at the end of the TR in Revelation and the countless believers who received those Words and preachers Who preached them.

I’ll be happy to provide detail for the Revelation and LXX issues as soon as he explains how the above Scriptures and others are not "grammatical promises." Since Mr. Turk himself doesn’t have certainty, what does it matter if Erasmus did translate something from Latin anyway? Isn’t the "general idea" all that matters? According to Mr. Turk, we don’t need the right words anyway, do we? Isn’t it just the "message?" How does one avoid the curse of Revelation 22:18-19 if he agrees with the UBS on Revelation 5:9, which follows one Greek MSS against all others, and Revelation 18:2 and Luke 3:32, which have wordings that are not found in any MSS known on earth.

Comments to A6

Mr. Turk misrepresents a fourth time in one post when he says that I reject an entire text because of its variants, when I have said more than once that I reject only the errors. Mr. Turk himself, however, has no certainty on which Words are God’s.

The gaping chasm between Mr. Turk and me on this issue splits between his rationalism and my presuppositionalism. The men of the 16th century who received the TR, believed in a sure and pure text. They believed they had every Word identical to the originals. They believed that errors in one copy were corrected in another. They believed in providential Divine preservation. They believed that the Holy Spirit could and would guide them to verbal perfection in fitting with His nature. At the beginning of the 17th century the corrections were finished and the text was settled. The Words had been preserved and available and now they were amalgamated into one perfect pure text of Scripture. On the other hand, a handful of text critics continue in an ongoing task of changing the text along with solitary eclectic men unilaterally canonizing new words. Mr. Turk doesn’t want to come right out and say, so instead writes things like "no scribal perfection in the manuscripts that we have." People don't operate today from a hand-written manuscripts. Mr. Turk doesn’t believe that we have a perfect NT identical in Words to what God inspired in the originals.

Q#6 to Kent

I'm a little disappointed, Kent, that you can't actually say which edition of the TR is the "perfect" one -- only that you are willing to admit that there are someplace between 38 and 252 variations in the various editions. However, there's one gross variation that needs to be addressed: Erasmus' rendering of the last 6 verses of Revelation.

You have cited the Alands already, but that same text makes it clear that Erasmus knew very frankly that his "textus receptus" was "thrown together rather than edited", and that he created a rendering of the end of Revelation by translating the Vulgate Latin into the Greek.

If this is Erasmus' view of his own work, how can we say with any seriousness that the TR is a uniform, received text which is "perfect" in the sense that it represents "every jolt and tittle" of the autographs of the NT?

A#6 for Kent

Well, Kent, you have already provided the answer to this question:

According to Scrivener’s extensive comparisons, only 252 places in the editions disagree sufficiently to affect the English translation. The editions of Beza differ from the 4th edition of Stephanus only 38 times in the entire NT. We shouldn’t treat error lightly, but 252 differences in thirty different editions could hardly be called "evolution."

You have already made it excruciatingly-clear that any variation makes the text in question unreliable -- yet you have identified someplace between 38 and 252 variations among the texts in question.

And here's an interesting part of your argument: you want to gage "variation" by whether or not it would render differences in an English translation. While that's a significantly lower standard than the so-called "Biblical" mandate that "not one jot or tittle" shall be changed in all of time, it also stands in pretty serious contrast to your position on the implicit authority of translations.

But here's the thing: we know factually that there are scores of texts, in families far earlier than the family to which the TR belongs, which were cited by the earliest church fathers as the actual words of Scripture, and these texts vary from the TR in literally hundreds of places.

Those variations in those texts cause you to reject those texts. Why? In your opinion, any variation indicates imperfection, and any imperfection disqualifies a text from being God's word. Yet these texts were the texts the church used for at least two centuries as witnessed by their citation in the earliest writings of the church.

The readers will have to decide whether or not, Kent, you are using a double standard -- and they will also have to decide if you understand what happened from Erasmus going forward, specifically the work which all those men did to determine by evidence the best reading among variants.

For example, you want to interpret a whole anti-christian worldview of chance and circumstance when I implement the word "evolve" in describing what happened to the text of the TR over time -- that somehow only chance and accident caused it to migrate from one form to another as faithful men sought to deliver what ultimately Schrivener reported. But in fact it is exactly the opposite thing: the edited text, it is unquestionable, changed, but through comparison and study in order to judge from among variants which reading was most likely.

The word "evolve" here unequivocally and unapologetically means "to improve over time", but not by accident: by study. By seeking evidence. The work of textual critics -- those men who scoured the various texts, seeking to return them to their original forms -- has been invaluable to the church over time. In the same way this action overturned the Vulgate for sources in the original languages, and Jerome's study of the Hebrew text overturned the use of the LXX, it also benefits us to take a critical view of the various text families and use tools like archeology to help us understand the history of the transmission of the text.

The question is simply not, as Kent would have us consider, the stark contrast between one uniform text and all others -- that is, the TR vs. all "non-uniform" text types. The question is whether any thoughtful consideration has to be made when assembling a Greek NT based on the manuscript evidence available.

Because the autographs do not exist, that work is always being done -- even if it is only a choice to assemble an eclectic text from only one manuscript family. And in doing that, one admits what is frankly undeniable: there is no scribal perfection in the manuscripts we have.

I have a closing caveat to make here, but let me answer Kent's question unequivocally, lest he say I have avoided answering: The textual history of, and examples of diversity in, the TR itself demonstrate more than adequately that we do not have any Greek manuscripts which are identical to the original manuscripts.

However -- and this is critical -- this does not logically lead to gross religious skepticism about the Bible. Kent will demand that my view leads us inexorably to the conclusions of Bart Ehrman (or worse skeptics). I think that exactly the opposite is true: understanding the history of the texts, and grasping the limits and sources of the textual variants, in fact fortifies our confidence in the reliability of the Greek NT we receive to tell us what the original documents actually said.

I'll be glad to expand on that if Kent cares to ask directly what that means.

EDIT: I almost forgot -- my source for the claim of the use of the LXX as the OT used by the apostles in the NT is H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, revised by R.R. Ottley, 1914; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989. I have a second source for that claim, but apparently my book case ate it. When I find it, I'll update this post.

Q#6 for Frank

What historic document do you have that proves the words of Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (essentially 1598 or the Greek words translated into the KJV) are not identical to the words in the original manuscripts of Scripture?

A#5 for Frank

Answer to Q5

Mr. Turk continues to avoid the Scriptural doctrine of preservation. It’s no wonder—Scripture does stand as final authority in all truth tests, so the Bible itself sinks his position. He resigns to contort "reasons" for errors in God’s Word that defy Scriptural bibliology.

The textus receptus is uniform. Mr. Turk misleads on this. He describes the TR like "it" has a mind of "its" own, using "evolved" to describe the refinement that occurred before the end of the printed edition phase of the Greek NT, attempting, it seems, to lump himself into the Darwinism of the 19th century textual critics. According to Scrivener’s extensive comparisons, only 252 places in the editions disagree sufficiently to affect the English translation. The editions of Beza differ from the 4th edition of Stephanus only 38 times in the entire NT. We shouldn’t treat error lightly, but 252 differences in thirty different editions could hardly be called "evolution."

What is not uniform are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which are the basis for the UBS, unavailable to believers for over 1000 years, which couldn’t fall within the understanding of "preservation." Dean John William Burgon personally collated Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and states that they "differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS . . . but even from one another . . . . 8972 [times]. . . . It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

Mr. Turk knows I didn’t say, "the ‘200 years’ in which it was the accepted text of the NT." First, I quoted the Alands twice and Kenneth W. Clark to say something entirely different than that—he contradicts them without ever showing anything to prove them wrong. My exact statement was: "The textus receptus was the Words that were accessible to God’s people up to and during the period of the printed edition and continued for the next 2-300 years, not another text." I was dealing with accessibility. No other text was even accessible for at least 200-300 years after the end of the printed edition period.

So I finally get to Mr. Turk’s question while eating up words dealing with his gamesmanship. Edward F. Hills worded the answer as well as I would want:

The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). . . . The King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. . . . But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of his approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

How does someone know every Word of the NT preserved as God gave it? He starts with Scriptural presuppositions about preservation just like we read in Turretin, Owen, Capel, and many others. As I have already referenced, God’s Word is pure, accessible, and received by His churches through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Comments to A4

Mr. Turk hasn’t provided a specific example where I have differed from the historic belief about preservation represented by Turretin—I don’t.

I much enjoyed his A#4. He wrote: "These books have been received by the churches since the earliest times -- the first generation of Christianity." Now he boldly writes: "God alone decides what words are His -- not the church." OK, so the church decides on what the books are but not what the words are? Mr. Turk has a contradiction here. He thinks whole books should be decided by the church but not individual Words; God must do that. I have already shown how that God uses the churches to canonize His Words, His Books, the text of Scripture. The church rejected certain books; it also rejected certain texts—all guided by the Holy Spirit. How do we know? Scripture says so. Again, what difference does it make if one adds or takes away from an amoeba-like critical text? Eclectic text men today regularly swap words of Scripture on the spot in violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

I won’t have enough space left to give adequate time to Mr. Turk’s Septuagint argument here, but I will answer it. Understand, however, that he argues for a corrupt text of Scripture. When he’s done, he wants corrupt text in play, against a Scriptural and historical position, which I have laid out still unanswered. How corrupt? 5%? 10%? The UBS differs at least 7% from the text received by the churches, or in other words, nearly 50 pages of text. At what point would it be too corrupt? Mr. Turk would say that it is up to God to decide how corrupt His Word can be and still be His Word, which of course reflects on the attributes of God as well.

I said Jesus and the Apostles translated the Hebrew. Mr. Turk says that the Apostles and Jesus "leaned heavily" on the LXX. The NT is Greek and Mr. Turk knows that out of the 320 quotations of the OT in the New, we can’t say that a Septuagint was their Bible. He wants to, but he can say only "leaned heavily." I will begin to show (and hopefully finish) that Jesus and the Apostles did not rely on a LXX, but translated on their own. No one should assume that Jesus and the Apostles endorsed a corrupt text and translation of Scripture in contradiction of teaching on inerrancy and verbal preservation.

Q#5 for Kent

I've given you a pretty wide berth for the first 4 questions, Kent, but the next 6 questions will be a little more particular.

One interesting attribute of the textus receptus, in spite of your affirmation that it is some kind of uniform text, is that it underwent at least 2 revisions during Erasmus' lifetime, and that it continued to evolve over the period you have described as the "200 years" in which it was the accepted text of the NT. Of particular interest would be the text of Rev 22:16-21 in those first three editions, and the subsequent work by Robertus Stephanus in Paris and the Elzevir brothers in Amersterdam.

Which edition of the textus receptus is (in terms you have selected) the “perfect” edition, and how would anyone -- layman, churchman, or scholar -- know this? That is, what act of the church or of God makes that edition (in your words) perfect?

A#5 for Kent

Well, Kent, it's a little early to be declaring what I have and have not proven or not disproven in this debate. What I have done in respect to my questions is to allow you the opportunity to say some things unequivocal about regarding your position -- and I think you have provided a mixed bag at best. For example, you have affirmed something called "canonization", but you have decried the things Turretin decried against the "papists" in his day -- and these things contradict each other.

To answer your Q#5 directly, God alone decides what words are His -- not the church, not the individual, and certainly not the textual critic. I'd cite passages like Jer 23:16-22 to underscore this. But in this, we have the problem which arises when we look at your answer to Q#4: translation.

In the first place, you asserted in your A#4 that "Christ and the Apostles endorsed translation by translating the Hebrew OT into the koine Greek, as seen in at least 300 places in the NT". This is simply, factually wrong. The OT used by the writers of the NT -- all apostolic witnesses -- leaned heavily on the LXX. We have covered this briefly in Turretin's remarks about the LXX, but what we have in the NT is undoubtedly the testimony that the earliest church used the LXX as its source for the OT. How can Paul say that “it is written” when what he is citing is the (as you would say) “corrupted” LXX rather than the genuine, never-adulterated Hebrew?

This brings up the second point: the use of the LXX as a source for the NT indicated that even a badly-impaired translation received apostolic acceptance as God's word. If any of your arguments have any substance at all, why were the apostles so unconcerned about the clear inaccuracies of a translated text?

Third: God's purpose in revelation is not thwarted by man's fallibility. I would agree, on the one hand, that God is very clear that the words of His law are perfect -- but He is equally clear that His word accomplishes what He intends, and it is utterly untenable to say that a sovereign, omniscient God did not know what that men would make errors in copying and translating His words. The question is only if any of those errors, such as they are, are material and sufficient to inspire the level of skepticism you have demanded of other eclectic texts but not of the TR.

Last in this list of concerns, Kent's philosophy of textual transmission has to do more than simply reach for the most convenient affirmation to present a coherent argument. For example, Kent has just posited that the TR was the text relied upon by "God's people" for almost 200 years -- yet Kent has completely ignored the history of texts for non-Western believers, and the fact that the Vulgate was actually the text preferred by the church for almost 1000 years. If issues like "canonization" (a process of the church, apparently) are valid, one can't just duck away from them when they point to a different answer than what one would prefer to be true.

In other news:

[1] Kent wants all issues to point to the TR, and in that, favorably. He and I do not disagree on the infallibility of God or His word, yet it does not follow from this agreement that the TR is a wholly-preserved Greek photocopy of the autographs. Be attentive to his reasoning, or the lack thereof, in making these claims as we go forward.

[2] Kent wants to equate Christ's affirmation that the Law will not pass away until it is fulfilled with a promise by Christ that all the words of the Greek NT will always be available to all generations. I think the reader can see for himself at least two serious flaws in that reasoning, and if Kent wants me to flesh them out he has 5 more questions to use in order to ask.

With that, let's get serious about the central matter of this exchange, which is what Kent is calling the "textus receptus".

Q#5 for Frank

Based upon Scripture, who should decide which words are the Words of God---the individual, the textual critic, or the church?

A#4 for Frank

Answer to Q4

Mr. Turk wrote: "I like it when you call me "neo-orthodox", Kent." In A#3, after a quote from Capel, I wrote that it strongly contrasted "with Mr. Turk's neo-orthodox conceptual Word of God." I didn’t call Mr. Turk neo-orthodox but a "conceptual Word of God" he has proposed in this debate.

Someone who does not read koine Greek can trust a translation of the Divinely preserved Words of the NT for at least these reasons: (1) Christ and the Apostles endorsed translation by translating the Hebrew OT into the koine Greek, as seen in at least 300 places in the NT, (2) On the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, God revealed His will for men to hear His Words in their own tongue, (3) God has promised throughout Scripture the perfect preservation of His inspired, canonical Words, (4) God has promised in His Word to believers the perspicuity of Scripture, and (5) Sufficient testimony exists that the church has throughout history confirmed translations of Scripture. The Lord’s church through His Spirit has agreed with this teaching over centuries, so it is not a private interpretation. Therefore, history has not precluded God’s people from an authentic understanding of His inspired, canonical Words. In other words, we can know what the Greek Words and grammar mean so that as long as we amply know the receptor language, we can translate the Greek NT into a formally equivalent other language.

Comments to A4

I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Turk’s assessment that no verses inform how many books were to be the NT canon; none say to expect 27 books. We do know that there were other epistles of Paul—to Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:9) and to Laodecia (Colossians 4:16). Besides those epistles, many others have been found since the canon was settled through the churches. We have depended upon certain truths in Scripture for an understanding of canonicity—John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Timothy 3:15; Colossians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 2:9-13. Not only have 27 books been received by churches, but many have been rejected by the churches as not inspired by God.

Since the canonization of the NT, especially in modern times, many men have claimed more or less than 27 books of the NT based upon either science, tradition, or history. They have challenged the number received by the churches. Churches have rejected their challenges because of faith in the principles of canonicity found in Scripture.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Turk’s statement that "these books have been received by the churches since the earliest times -- the first generation of Christianity." God through the churches canonized the 27 Books of the NT. On the other hand, the church hasn’t tolerated adding to or taking away from the Books of the NT (Jude 1:3; Revelation 22:18-19). Marcion rejected canonical Books based upon extra-scriptural, hellenistic, platonic criteria. Churches rejected his testimony.

Scripture says little/nothing about canonicity of Books so we see Books under the category of the canonicity of Words. Believers received Words (John 17:8; Acts 2:41; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). From the biblical teaching on Words, we assume Books.

We know from the very nature of God that He is infallible (Psalm 18:30). Since this infallible God has revealed Himself to man in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures must also be infallible. Inerrancy means that there are no mistakes in the Scriptures. Even though the men wrote the words, their imperfection did not enter into the Scriptures because their writing was not of their own will but moved by God (2 Peter 1:20-21). Faith is the basis of our understanding of inspiration—so should it be for preservation.

Several times we are warned against adding or taking away from the Words [not concepts or ideas] of the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19). In that warning is the assumption of a settled, sure, perfect, pure text. Kurt and Barbara Aland wrote:

[W]e remember that in this period [the textus receptus] was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

The textus receptus was the Words that were accessible to God’s people up to and during the period of the printed edition and continued for the next 2-300 years, not another text. Scripture doesn’t leave the decision of what God’s Words are to a self-appointed committee of scientists, one bishop, or a think-tank.

Was canonization supernatural divine intervention? In canonizing Scripture did God the Holy Spirit work through the churches, directing them to the Words inspired by God? The leading of the Spirit in identifying His Word to the believer and protecting His Words from error has been the operation of God by which He preserved His Words. To discredit this mighty, gracious activity of the Almighty, some have questioned this doctrine, accusing it of recent origins. Believers have historically applied this to the Word of God, even as we read in the Westminster Confession:

[O]ur full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The brand new "doctrine" is the "science" of textual criticism, leaving the doubtful care of God’s Word to a handful of man-made criteria, crafted by men who rejected the doctrine of divine preservation. We shun this novel humanistic approach for God-ordained reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Among what Mr. Turk has left unrefuted in this debate:
1. The Scriptural teaching of the verbal plenary preservation of the Words of God in the language in which they were written.
2. The Scriptural teaching of the general accessibility of those Words to God’s people.
3. The reliance upon Scriptural presuppositions to guide what we believe about preservation of Scripture.
4. The TR was the Greek NT received by the churches up until the time of the printed edition.
5. Scripture teaches preservation of original language.
6. Every word matters in preservation.

Q#4 for Kent

I like it when you call me "neo-orthodox", Kent, because it makes your view about things very clear. However, I think you have to say something explicitly for this exchange to go forward.

You said this in your last answer:

Translations are not equal to preservation because they are not the words that God gave. They are a human effort. God doesn't ever promise a perfect translation.

But you have also conceded that "it is ludicrous to abandon a translation because it has more words in it than the original text."

How can anyone who does not read Greek or Hebrew trust their KJV Bible to deliver to them something other than a corrupt message which has displaced God's words with fallible, human substitutes? Please define the word "accurate" (or its synonyms) if you use it in your answer.

A#4 for Kent

Ah shoot -- I accidentally pasted my Q#4 over my A#4.

There are no verses of Scripture which affirm the number of books in the Bible.

Since the scope of our debate is the NT, I affirm that there has never been any question about the list of books which comprise the NT, except for the Marcionites who rejected the OT and any part of the NT which agreed or affirmed the OT. These books have been received by the churches since the earliest times -- the first generation of Christianity.

Q#4 for Frank

What passage of Scripture declares the canonicity of sixty-six books of the Bible, and, if none, why do you believe that there are sixty-six and not more or less?

A#3 for Frank

Answer to Q3

We need to get this settled immediately, even though it's the actual affirmation of this debate, what I have written everywhere, and in the first question I asked—I believe that every Word of God is preserved in the languages in which they were written. Worded another way: I don't believe that preservation of Scripture comes through a translation. A translation at best can accurately represent Greek and Hebrew words; it isn't those words though. Since we do have translation occurring in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles, we know that translation is God's will and can sufficiently communicate God's Word, but it isn't what God preserved.

You are correct that Turretin is speaking about translations in your quotes—I agree with him. Translations are not equal to preservation because they are not the words that God gave. They are a human effort. God doesn't ever promise a perfect translation. Turretin, like me, believes that preservation occurs in the original languages because that is what Scripture teaches. This is where Mr. Turk would do well first to study what the Bible says about its own preservation and then enter into a debate with set Scriptural presuppositions. God inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. He didn't breathe out English words. He promised that "jots" and "tittles" would not pass from the law (Matthew 5:18). Those were Hebrew letters—the jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet and the tittle (keraia) is the vowel point according to Gill and Owen. God promises to preserve the letters and words that He actually gave. You cannot defend an English preservationist view using Scripture. You can defend that God preserved the actual Words He inerrantly revealed to mankind in His Holy Word. I can hold up a translation and confidently say, "This is the Word of God," but it does not Scripturally represent the doctrine of preservation.

Comments for A3

Mr. Turk writes: "Kent wants to imply that unless all the words are present, none of the words are validly considered God's word." In my answer to his question #2, I write: "Neither the KJ translators, nor many others, would say that a translation in the places where it is faulty is the Word of God." I already implied that any translation is the Word of God where it accurately translates the preserved original language text.

Mr. Turk's "11 Greek words" versus "24 English words" illustrate the above point exactly. With a translation, we get as close as possible to the meaning of the original words in a formal equivalence, so we regularly use more words in the receptor language.

The nature of the word "preservation" says something was originally there that was kept intact. God didn't start with Spanish or Latin or English. Something had to be there first before it could be kept. Mr. Turk says that God kept ideas and concepts and no sweat on exact wording. That doesn't jive with Scripture.

Mr. Turk is right that it is ludicrous to abandon a translation because it has more words in it than the original text. However, we should abandon a text that has different words than what God has preserved. In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, we know that impostor text was being offered up as genuine Scripture. Revelation 22:18-19 warns very seriously about adding or taking away from the Words of the book—not the ideas or the concepts, but the Words.

Mr. Turk writes—"even if the words of the Greek and Hebrew were not perfectly handled." Copyists made errors but that does not nullify Divine preservation. A good explanation of how a pure Word was maintained is written in 1658 by puritan Richard Capel:

[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.

This represents the historic position of NT Christianity on the doctrine of preservation, simply fleshing out what Scripture says on this doctrine but sharp contrasting with Mr. Turk's neo-orthodox conceptual Word of God. Neither does it fit with this monologue:

That's a convenient view. The idea that there's some idea, concept, religious notion there that may or may not be connected to the words, but the Bible claims to be the very words of God. First Corinthians 2:13 . . . . John 17:8 . . . . The message was in the words, there is no message apart from the words, there is no inspiration apart from the words. More than 3800 times in the Old Testament we have expressions like "Thus says the Lord," "The Word of the Lord came," "God said," it's about the words. There are no such things as wordless concepts anyway. When Moses would excuse himself from serving the Lord . . . . God didn't say, "I'll give you a lot of great ideas, you'll figure out how to communicate them." God didn't say, "I'll be with your mind." God said to him this, "I will be with your mouth and I will teach you what you shall say." And that explains why 40 years later, according to Deuteronomy 4:2 . . . . God did not give ideas without words but in some cases He gave words without complete ideas.

Q#3 for Kent

Here's another Turretin quote:

Conformity to the original is different from equality. Any version (provided it is faithful) is indeed conformable to the original because the same doctrine as to substance is set forth there. But it is not on that account equal to it because it is only a human and not a divine method of setting it forth.

Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources even as the word which the minister of the gospel preaches does not cease to be divine and infallible and to establish our faith, although it may be expressed by him in human words. Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions.

Turrentin said this about translations into common languages.

Why can we not apply what Turrentin said here about translation and apply it to the human method of copying the text by hand? That is, why is this true for the more difficult work of translation, but not the less difficult work of scribal copyists?

A#3 for Kent

See: I like Kent's questions in spite of their insinuations that brief, clear answers of only a few sentences are somehow evasive.

What is utterly fascinating about this current question is that Kent wants to imply that unless all the words are present, none of the words are validly considered God's word -- so for Kent, only the words which, for example, Luke wrote down when he scribed the phrase "Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων" (that's Luke 1:1 as we account for it) can be God's word.

Or can it? Because Luke 1:1 in the KJV reads, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us," including the comma, which indicates that Luke 1:1 is not a complete sentence. Apparently, words are missing from that sentence -- so citing that verse by itself, if we are to take Kent seriously in his argument so far, is not citing God's word, but corrupting it.

Worse still for Kent is the gross problem that the phrase "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us" is not what Luke wrote back in the day: that's a translation of what Luke wrote. Since these are not the words that Luke wrote, they must be a corruption of the text.

And I say this because, frankly, I have met many ex-KJV guys who would say so -- because they believe that since the KJV is not the original manuscript but some kind of transmitted text, it can't be God's word. It's a common ploy for these men, who are usually atheists, to try to discredit the Scripture because it comes in translation. How can we possibly know those words are right?

So we have to decide something up front: is translation a legitimate pursuit when it comes to Scripture? The Muslim, for example, would say "no". You can read the Qu'ran in English, but that's not Scripture. But the clear fact is that the KJV translators believed that translation is a legitimate pursuit for the church of the text for the sake of the common man.

For those men, translation was in fact a necessary duty of the church in order to teach the Scripture -- even if the words of the Greek and Hebrew were not perfectly handled.

Now, here's the kicker -- the place where we can answer Kent's question without any stipulations. Is the question of translation a matter of making sure the right number of words are being used? In the example of Luke 1:1, Luke wrote 11 words -- yet in English, the phrase is translated using 24 words! If what is at stake is that the very words must be transliterated, I propose that we must conclude that Scripture has been utterly adulterated by the KJV translators, and we must abandon that work because it uses more words than Luke did in Luke 1:1.

But that proposition is ludicrous on its face -- because even the most novice of Bible students knows that New Testament Greek is a very different language than Renaissance English. Verbs are formed differently; tenses are built in a different grammatical way; Nouns operate differently; sentence structure is very different. It is inevitable that translating from Greek to English will render different words. That is actually the point of the exercise.

In that, it is transparently clear that any text is more than just a list of words. The text uses structures like idioms and metaphors to express meaning not evident in the mere words -- and in many cases, those sorts of structures have to be handled carefully and not merely in a wooden literal sense by the translator to convey the meaning of the author.

So to answer Kent's question plainly:

I reject the idea that Scripture is merely a list of words in a magical order which, when recited, somehow has an effect which one might call "perfection". While we honor and revere the fact that God breathed out the very words of Scripture, I deny that the words, considered individually, are somehow so fragile that human operations like listening, reading, copying, translating or memorizing -- which inevitably make errors in transmitting these words -- will somehow invalidate what God has intended in this special revelation.

If that's too complicated for Kent to receive as an answer, I'll softball him this answer instead:

Because we receive the NT in translation (for example, in the KJV), we must insist that the perfection of Scripture today is found in the message and not the words. The words in which we receive Scripture (that is, English words) were never written by an apostle or prophet.

Since I have some, um, words left, let me reiterate my answers so far:

[1] God's promises to preserve His word do not include any grammatical or scribal promises.

[2] Scripture is not merely "evidence" but in fact "testimony" -- God's revelation of Truth. Because of where those texts come from -- not because of the words or the languages used -- that testimony is not merely a report of truth: it is the authoritative statement of the truth.

[3] The text itself is not so fragile that it must be received as the original autograph; like any text, and as clearly affirmed by Turrentin, "an authentic writing is one in which all things are abundantly sufficient to inspire confidence". This would include scribal copies of autographs which are not identical to the autographs and valid translations.

Q#3 for Frank

Of course, I don't think that Mr. Turk is answering my questions and is definitely not answering my comments, unless you count "no grammatical promises," "ontological reliability" and "metaphysical authority" as answers. Nonetheless, to keep with our format, here is the third question:

Is the perfection of Scripture found today in its words or only in its message?

A#2 for Frank

Answer to Q2

I do wonder if Mr. Turk believes that the Septuagint is God’s Word in the places it comes from corrupt text or is translated incorrectly. With that in mind, I also wonder if he believes that the modern versions are the Word of God when they, for instance, say that Isaiah wrote the book of Malachi (Mark 1:2-3). If Mr. Turk kept reading a little further in the uninspired preface, he would have arrived at this—

[T]hey joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.

—which explains the reason for the KJ translators’ Septuagint illustration. Contradicting the Romanists, they believed in the translation of the Hebrew and Greek text into known languages. They weren’t using their conjecture about the Septuagint to endorse a poor translation. Neither the KJ translators, nor many others, would say that a translation in the places where it is faulty is the Word of God. How would that point of their preface apply to modern translations? The KJ translators would support translations into known languages, i.e., ones other than Latin.

Comments to A2

Perhaps Mr. Turk could just say what he believes about the preservation of Scripture, what God did preserve, and why, so we can stop speculating on what "grammatical promises" are. If he means that God didn’t promise to preserve His Words; i.e. no verbal, plenary preservation, and so he enters this debate with that presupposition, it’s no wonder our conclusions differ. Just saying that preservation isn’t in Scripture doesn’t count as debate—we could both say, "He’s wrong," and we’d be done.

I asked if the Bible was evidence. Mr. Turk implies "Yes" with "merely evidence." I ask if it is superior to other forms of evidence—no answer. A "plain" answer would include a "yes" or "no." "Ontologically reliable" and "metaphysically authoritative" aren’t plain. Those two descriptions are about as nebulous as one could get, especially in light of what Scripture says about itself. I think by "ontologically reliable," he means that the reliability of Scripture is found in its essence and unique nature, but not in the actual, accessible words. I think by saying "metaphysically authoritative" he separates Scripture from the available, physical text itself. If the text of the Bible has no integrity of its own, then readers can have their own way with it—disregard what it says and say what it means to them. Mr. Turk’s answers read like definitional gobbly-gook to allow belief in error in Scripture.

Mr. Turk should have seen that what I believe about preservation doesn’t contradict what Turretin said. Neither Turretin nor I believe that copyists were without error. I even gave a Scriptural basis for errors in copies. God said there would be errors. Both Turretin and I believe that those errors were always corrected. Both Turretin and I believe in perfect preservation based upon God’s promises, including a great defense of 1 John 5:7.

I still call on Mr. Turk to tell me what he believes about preservation of Scripture and to prove it. While I’m waiting, here are references that among others promise the perfect, Divine preservation of Scripture: Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalm 12:6-7; 111:7-8; 119:152, 160; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 5:18-19; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 4:4; 16:17; 21:33; John 12:48; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 3:2. These cumulatively give a stronger testimony for perfect preservation than the Bible even gives for its own inspiration. If you believe the latter, then you should believe the former. In addition, among the above verses and others, we have testimony to the general accessibility of God’s verbally, plenarily preserved Words: Deuteronomy 30:11-14; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4. Implied in the ability to keep all the Words of God is their availability: Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:2; 12:28; 27:26; 28:14; 28:58; 29:9; 31:12. The Bible affirms that people will be held eternally accountable for disobeying the Words contained therein: Psalm 50:16-17; Luke 24:25; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

In addition to Turretin, John Owen also wrote in the 17th century,

The whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining. . . . In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word.

G. I. Williamson, writes in his 1964 commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith (pp. 14-17):

This brings us to the matter of God’s ‘singular care and providence’ by which He has ‘kept pure in all ages’ this original text, so that we now actually possess it in ‘authentical’ form. And let us begin by giving an illustration from modern life to show that an original document may be destroyed, without the text of that document being lost. Suppose you were to write a will. Then suppose you were to have a photographic copy of that will made. If the original were then destroyed, the photographic copy would still preserve the text of that exactly the same as the original itself (emphasis his). The text of the copy would differ in no way whatever from the original, and so it would possess exactly the same ‘truth’ and meaning as the original. . . . How then could the original text of the Word of God be preserved? The answer is that God preserved it by His own remarkable care and providence.

E. D. Morris for decades taught the Westminster Confession at Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1893, Morris wrote for The Evangelist:

As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty to make a special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as have I done for twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no one who is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, would dare to risk his reputation on the statement that the Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of the Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.

Q#2 for Kent

It seems, Kent, that you have overlooked something in the KJV translators' preface, which I will cite here:

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, ...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.

And so on -- to help me to obey my word count, you can read it at this link.

True: not a comment on the question of variant Greek texts of the NT, but a clear comment on their view of the apostolic use of a plainly-aberrant text.

How should we apply the KJV translators' view of the LXX to modern translations of the NT?

A#2 for Kent

I don't want to contradict Kent so early in this exchange, but when I said, "God didn't make any grammatical promises to anyone in the Bible," I did in fact answer his question. If his concern is that I didn't cite any Scripture to support this affirmation, you can't cite what isn't there.

To answer the first half of his second question plainly, I would say this:

The Bible is not merely evidence, but it is in fact testimony, and as testimony it falls into the unique category of revelation.

I make this qualification to point out that the Bible is not merely a list of true things, or a place where truth resides among other things, but it is in fact Truth. As we work forward in this 10-question exchange, we'll find that this is a very significant problem for the KJVO advocate.

To answer the second part of Kent's question plainly:

When we reference the Bible, we are referencing the only text which God Himself has breathed-out. Ontologically, this makes the Bible not only reliable, but metaphysically authoritative.

The issue of "evidence" is of course an interesting category, given Kent's first answer. For example, Kent has cited Turrentin as an alleged supporter of his (Kent's) view of the TR, but let's double-check the link Kent has supplied for us, because Turretin also wrote this:

Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired (theopneustous), but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault (anamartesia) of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approve manuscripts....it will be wiser to acknowledge our own ignorance than to suppose any contradiction.

And also again, that same link said this:

An authentic writing is one in which all things are abundantly sufficient to inspire confidence; one to which the fullest credit is due in its own kind; one of which we can be entirely sure that it has proceeded from the author whose name it bears; one in which everything is written just as he himself wished. However, a writing can be authentic in two ways: either primarily and originally or secondarily and derivatively. That writing is primarily authentic which is autopiston ('of self-inspiring confidence") and to which credit is and ought to be given on its own account....The secondarily authentic writings are all the copies accurately and faithfully taken from the originals by suitable men....

While Kent may want to appeal to some parts of Turretin as somehow a part of his reasoning, it turns out Turrentin didn't believe anything like what Kent believes about the texts of the NT which we possessed either in his day, or today -- the real irony being that Turrentin was not a native-language English speaker, probably didn't read the King James, and lumped it in with the various "veracular translations" as "not authentic formally ... yet they ought nevertheless to be used in the church because if they are accurate and agree with the sources [notice the plural], they are always authentic materially and as to the things expressed."

Let's keep that distinction between "formally authentic" and "materially authentic" in mind as we discuss this matter.

Q#2 for Frank

Frank still hasn't answered question number one, but here is number two.

Is the Bible evidence, and if so, is it superior to all other possible or potential evidence from all other sources?

A#1 for Frank

To Answer Q1

The KJV translators in their preface do not disclose the quality of the original language text from which they translated, only the caliber of their translation. We cannot logically assume their belief about the condition of that text by their mere silence concerning it. In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is often summed up in epigrams such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Does the preface say anywhere that the textus receptus is different than the original text? Their silence could as well be interpreted as the assumption of the purity of the text, since men in that day believed in the perfect preservation of God’s Words. Francis Turretin wrote:

For if once the authenticity . . . of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? . . . It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it free from serious corruptions, but not from minor. . . . Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired . . . men, would not take care of their entire preservation.

Mr. Turk’s question itself defies accurate definitions. The KJ translators did not use a singular "volume of the textus receptus," nor did they rely upon a "volume produced by Erasmus." No single edition of the textus receptus was the basis for the KJV even though Bezae 1598 is identical with relatively few exceptions.

Mr. Turk errs in his representation of the work of Erasmus. He says Erasmus "produce[d]" the Greek NT. Kenneth W. Clark asserts:

We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of a "received text," but only the transmission from a manuscript text, already commonly received, to a printed form, in which this text would continue to prevail for three centuries.

UBS editors Kurt and Barbara Aland themselves admit:

[W]e remember that in this period [the textus receptus] was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

Even though evidence reveals that Erasmus had a wealth of manuscripts at his disposal, we do know that confessing Christianity did not settle on any of his editions of the TR. Since God has promised certainty in His Word, we have no basis for receiving a reading that was, for instance, in Erasmus’ second edition and then never appeared again, versus a reading that is in practically every TR in print.

History shows that God’s people received the canonical Words of the textus receptus (John 17:8), based upon God’s promises of preservation and accessibility (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 24:35; Psalm 12:6, 7).

To Comment on A1

Mr. Turk did not answer my question, one that did not make any assumptions, contrary to his accusation. In assertion-[1] he admits that we do not have and have not had one copy of the Greek NT with all of God’s Words in one place at one time. That uncertainty contradicts the second part of his own assertion. He separates "errors" from the "wrong words," that is, the Greek NT could have the wrong words and yet be without error. What if he applied this same view to inspiration? He would reject verbal inspiration.

In assertion-[2], he embraces some kind of preservation of concepts, theology, or history. He still won’t believe that we know what all the Words of Scripture are, even though God expects us to live by all of them (Matthew 4:4). He doesn’t believe that God has preserved the letters of Scripture, despite God’s explicit promise in Matthew 5:17-19. Based on the only possible usage of "grammatical promises" out of the four on the entire world-wide web, Mr. Turk would be saying that God didn’t make any promises to anyone in the Bible (Genesis 12:1-3?).

In his last paragraph he writes that Scripture has no theological or historical errors in it, which he separates from actual words, so that in his estimation, the words can be non-Divine and yet still give inerrant theology and history. Essentially, he is saying that the Bible is God’s theology and history but written in man’s own words. Based on that definition, unless "Word" means something different than "Word," Mr. Turk opens "Man’s Word" to find God’s theology and history.

A comparison of the TR with the UBS indicates something different than Mr. Turk’s disconnect of theology/history from words. When someone changes words, he changes theology/history. For example, in Matthew 1:7-8 the KJV/TR reads, "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat," etc. The UBS changes "Asa" to "Asaph," and thus takes king Asa out of the line of Christ to put the Levite Asaph, the author of some of the Psalms, in instead. This is a clear historical/theological error.

The last line of my opponent’s "answer" says that he doesn’t believe that God kept every copyist of Scripture from making errors (strawman I too reject). The Bible warns about adding and taking away from God’s Words (Revelation 22:18-19) because men add to and take away from God’s Word (2 Corinthians 2:17). However, men can’t add or take away words from an unsettled and uncertain text. Because copyists make errors, we depend on God for the preservation of His Word. Of course, that shouldn’t make any difference to Mr. Turk—based on his last assertion he believes that biblical theology and history are actually separate from words at least and perhaps from grammar too.

Since verbal inspiration is required for Scriptural authority, then verbal preservation is also mandated. Bart Ehrman understood and pushed the eject button on Christianity. Daniel Wallace understands, so he simply denies Scripture teaches its own preservation and then he relegates inerrancy of Scripture to a tertiary doctrine. My opponent presently evades the question. Rather than believing what the Bible teaches about its own preservation, he chooses as "evidence" the uncertainty spawned by modern criticism of Scripture.

Q#1 for Kent

Let me apologize that I haven't been available to answer your first post in a more timely fashion. I am travelling for work this week, and I have limited internet access.

Many people have never read the KJV Translators' 1611 preface to their work. I link to it here for everyone's information.

Does this preface say anywhere that the Textus Receptus -- the volume produces by Erasmus from a small variety of dissimilar texts -- is without any differences from the original text of the books it represents?

A#1 for Kent

Kent --

Through your opening statement, you have made a series of logical leaps which aren't warranted, but we have 10 questions and answers through which to uncover the worst of them. Let me answer your question with two assertions, and I'm sure they'll give you some room to run.

[1] It's a false assumption to link "inerrancy" with one eclectic text. I wholly reject the idea that God's word has any errors in it, but I think that means something other than what you intend here.

[2] I reject the claim that God has promised to preserve a singular text of all the books of the NT down to matters like scribal spelling errors and emendations. God didn't make any grammatical promises to anyone in the Bible.

So God's word has no theological and no historical errors in it, but that does not imply any kind of promise to make sure every scribe always copies every word perfectly.

Opening Statement and First Question from the Affirmative

On day one God spoke and there was light. When God spoke, whatever He said would come to pass. After creating Adam, God made a covenant with him (Genesis 2:16-17):

Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Then God created for Adam the perfect companion, his wife Eve. Shortly thereafter, in his first act Satan tempts her to doubt God’s Word (Genesis 3:1), "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" And then, "Ye shall not surely die."

He changed a few of God’s Words, caused uncertainty in Eve, so that what God said wasn’t authoritative to her any longer—you know the rest of the story.

Satan continues using the same strategy. Modern agnostic, Bart Ehrman, illustrates this by testifying of his apostacy in his Misquoting Jesus:

This was a compelling problem. It was the words of scripture themselves that God had inspired. Surely we have to know what those words were if we want to know how he had communicated to us. . . . I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by scribes---sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs . . . were inspired? We don't have the originals! . . . This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place.

Satan wants us to think that God’s Word has errors, so that we don’t trust it. Should we or can we juxtapose a perfect, holy, majestic, non-contingent, immutable God with an errant Word? Yet, that is the position that Mr. Turk takes in opposition to my affirmation. And if we have a Bible with errors, what authority does Scripture have? These present some great difficulties to the orthodoxy of my opponent.

John Feinberg writes:

[I’m not] able to understand how one can be justified in claiming absolute authority for the Scriptures and at the same time deny their inerrancy. This seems to be the height of epistemological nonsense and confusion. . . . Suppose that I have an Amtrak railroad schedule. In describing its use to you, I tell you that it is filled with numerous errors but that it is absolutely authoritative and trustworthy. I think you would be extremely dubious. At least the schedule would have one thing going for it; it declares itself to be subject to change without notice.

If God’s Word supported the doctrine of errant Scripture we should believe and expect it. However, Scripture does not espouse that. The Bible advocates first its verbal, plenary inspiration and then its own perfect, Divine preservation and general accessibility to every generation of God’s people. Only the textus receptus of the Greek NT fulfills this Scriptural pattern. The text behind the modern versions we know wasn’t always available and it is still, according to its own proponents, a work in progress.

Professing believers have historically held to perfect preservation and general accessibility. Not only will I show this in the debate, but Mr. Turk already has on his own blog with links just to the right, when he references the Westminster Confession (1646) and the London Baptist Confession (1689), which both state:

The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . , and the New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.

I ask, why not just believe his own posted statement? The debate would be over. The confessors were convinced that God’s promises were true, as should Mr. Turk. I am confident that my opponent will reveal greater trust in merely human statements of history and science than he does what God’s Word says about its own preservation. I anticipate that he will eagerly lean upon works by or about Erasmus as sufficiently infallible and proclaim that not one Greek manuscript of the NT is identical without himself or even the ones who make that claim possibly being able to see the manuscripts relied upon for the printed editions of the textus receptus.

Mr. Turk might say, "But the confessions don’t say which words were God’s perfect ones." Yet the writings of the confessors themselves reveal that they believed a text identical to the original manuscripts was accessible to them. In the NT, those words were the textus receptus. Why do professing believers now reject a position of perfect preservation and general accessibility of God’s Word? Rather than the Bible as sufficient, sole authority, they depend on their history and external evidence. In short, toward God’s promises of preservation and accessibility, they aren’t like Abraham, who "staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God" (Romans 4:20). Instead, they are Thomas in John 20:25: "Except I see . . . , I will not believe." They’ll use terms like epistemology, but what they mean is that they don’t believe what God said He would do.

I expect many to come to aid Mr. Turk in rebuttal of my affirmation to give him more history and supposed examples of errors in Scripture. And when they are finished, what will be their result? More certainty? No. No, the consequence will be more doubt about God’s Word. Does that sound like the product of God? Of the Holy Spirit? Of course not.

Question: Does God in the Bible promise His people the preservation and general accessibility of every Word of God to every generation of believers in the language in which He gave them?

King James Only?

yeah, wow. Kent Brandenberg from TeamPyro Comments wants to defend one aspect of the KJVO position in this affirmation:

The Greek Textus Receptus text of the New Testament is God's verbal, plenary preserved Word of God (of the New Testament).

It will be interesting to say the least; extended format with 300 word questions and 1000 word answers. Kent will post his opener and then his first question.

Welcome back.