Which TR Is the Perfectly Preserved One? 

Please consider that many of your listeners including me won’t read your articles but we will listen to you talk us through this. The information, as you volunteered, is weedy but it wasn’t boring at all. Most importantly, putting in so much time and effort to put this in a digestible format for us plow boys and girls made it - available! And for that we thank you.

I like to listen to Mark's videos in public areas in the hopes that people will happen by and assume I'm smart enough to understand what I'm hearing.

This will go down as one of my all time favorite videos from our brother Dr Mark Ward . I do not think that the facts here can be reasonably argued against.

Outstanding video Mark! I found your article online and read that as well. Excellent presentation. Thank you and God bless you.

Thanks so much for this, super informative!

That was phenomenal paper! I'm glad to see that you have finally made it into a publicly available video. This should expand your audience for such an important point. Pardon the tiny critique of a phenomenal video, but Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir were uncle and nephew rather than brothers.

You nailed this one so well. Appreciating your work and it gives the laymen a deeper understanding and argument to stand up for the Scriptures. Thanks.

Thank you for spending the time producing this kind of resource. Your service to the body of Christ is greatly appreciated

Excellent work, Dr. Ward, as always.

Great video, brother!

Thank you for posting this.

This is the type of your videos I have to watch at least 5 times to get all what you are saying. But I love it!

Seriously one of your best videos IMO.

This was excellent! Thanks!

This was an outstanding summary. Well done, (and thank you) Mark!

Wow! Great video, Mark! I felt like I was back in Bible College soaking in this. I will need to watch it again and read the article you wrote, brother. Thank you for putting it together.

I have thought about my KJV onlyism a lot. I asked myself if it was a doctrine, and I believe it was at a doctrine level. It was super important. So I asked myself if I time travel to 1610, does my doctrine still work, and it was a pretty quick and final, no.... So I concluded I would have to change how I approach text preservation and assurance of the text of scripture if I lived in 1610 or prior. That troubled me a lot. The good news is that the KJV translators, and William Tyndale, left us a lot of words on the topic of scripture and text. So I essentially adopted what I saw their view to be. It's not KJV only. It's scripture only. And you know what? It works.

I'm surprised you didn't touch on 1 Tim 3:16! My only issue with this is that it doesn't really address the root of the KJV debate. The root isn't that there are variant readings in the TR, a number of KJV defenders are aware of this and have even addressed it to some degree (I'm thinking of Byran Ross with his discussion on Verbatim Identicality). With both sides having uncertainty with textual criticism in a number of places, each side is looking to some sort of authority to make those decisions MORE certain: The CT side looks to modern TC scholarship, that those scholars are God's providential way of preserving the Scriptures, the KJV/TR side looks to the KJV translators (and other scholars in the TR era) as God's providential way of preserving the Scriptures. I think the question really boils down to a theology. I think back to the debate between Kleeck and White, I would have loved to see white address the theology, but he continued to interact with manuscript evidence, I think this was the wrong approach. With that being said... I'm a Byzantine guy, so we tend to find the authority among the Byzantine Manuscripts (yes, some textual scholarship is needed too) suggesting that God had preserved the Wording amongst those. C'mon Mark, become a Byzantine guy :P

Wow. Simply stunning. Thank you!

What an OUTSTANDING lecture!!! Thank you so much for sharing!

This was awesome! Thank you! As an amateur translator, there's no love lost between me and KJOists. It's been a looooong time since someone asked me, "Hey, Shaun... why are you being so nice to the King James Onlyists today?" It always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to see them put in their place by someone smarter and less... uh... prickly than me.

I recognize your copy of Scriveners, we used that as the collation base for Dr Schneider's class on text crit back in the day. Which does raise the question, which TR has been standardized as the collation base (that seems like pertinent information in places where TRs differ). Starting well. The differences between Erasmus's 2nd and 3rd editions on 1 John 5:7 was quite influential on my own thinking back in the day (it seemed that the theology I was taught was undercut by the actual history of the TR). Good work so far.

Thanks for your scholarly intelligent work in this vital area..

Difficult but insightful. Thank you, Brother Mark.🌹🔥⭐🔥🌹

Well... this was impressive. I have struggled with this very topic for years and you have provided great examples and insight into the 'which bible is the right bible'... at least that is how I word the conflict I have had. Your video has made me sit up and reflect. Now I need to digest and rewatch this to ensure I have your points and counterpoints right in my mind. Thanks for the teaching.

Wow, this video was academic and demanding and complicated. Honestly, it was all Greek to me.😂

Thanks Mark for scholarly work that by my opinion is full of integrity!! I use the ESV the most and have come to appreciate the CSB. But…i also really enjoy reading the KJV in segments of 20 minutes or less. ROI here for listening to you for so long now 🤔…every translation has practiced textual criticism. I actually appreciate modern Bibles and KJV more now because you’ve magnified their similarities through pointing out there differences!!…many people don’t have the Word….so i appreciate the access we have to our translations…thanks again Mark!!..God Bless!

Man I’m so busy I need the “Blinkist” version of these! But I do appreciate the amount of content.

Finally competed watching this and this was brilliantly done. Thank you. If I've gotten anything from your videos since I started to watching your channel is that I can be confident that I have the word of God before me in any of the major Bible translations about today. While I read and use the ESV, it could have easily been the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, the CSB or the NLT (although barring the NIV and NKJV, I couldn't get any of the others in hard copy in my country) and it would still be the word of God and I can read it and be saved. That is what is important to me. Thank you for all the hours you put into these videos and the interviews you've done. I particularly liked the one with Maurice Robinson.

Your exhaustive research and delivery on this KJV-only issue has been and will continue to be a voice of moderation and caution the Lord, I believe, wants to sound out to the bigots who tend to almost glorify an imperfect translation and manuscript copy, and to the others who's consciences have be laden with the guilt of using "a corrupt" translation (Greek text). May the Lord continue to give you the enlightenment and encouragement your need in this endeavour. God bless you immensely.

I was privileged to read this paper soon after it was first published and it had a huge impact on me! I think this is an incredibly powerful presentation and I hope this video version will have that same impact on many others!

Thank you Dr. Ward for such an informative video. We have a saying in the deep south.. "Y'all need to take your act right". I completely understand trying to preserve the Lord's Word to the best of our abilities, however, the malicious behavior that so many have incorporated in doing so has done more harm than good. Hence, they need to take their act right.. double dosage. :)

Outstanding video. It is highly instructive. Thank you.

Very well laid out instruction to something that as you say is being used to divide believers - i thank you for all your efforts in this work and pray The Lord will use it .

Your point is well taken and significant. In making your point you do demonstrate a strength of the TR(s), being that your research shows a traceable chain of custody that is preferable to documents that are discovered with no such evidence of a chain of custody. In the TR manuscripts we can, (and you did) trace and track changes. To answer your question, "Which TR?" My answer is "Yes." Caveot: I am TR preferred not TR "only."

I'm very grateful you took the time to do this video. This was very detailed and helpful . At the same time, I can't help but be sad for portions of believers to make such a dividing mountain over what is clearly a molehill. I can't fathom the bravery and arrogance it would take not to just disagree with certain translations, but to call them 'The Devil's Bible'. While I don't think that's Blaphemy of the Holy Spirit, it's gotta be on the road somewhere.

question Mark, do you think the NT was spoken in Hebrew and translated to those in Greek so they would understand the all of the Hebrew ways of conversation, or did they (those who brought the message of Jesus) just translate in Greek what was the understanding of the message, and that's what was written. In other words was this NT written in Hebrew first by Hebrew speaking messengers, and written in a Greek translation to the Greek speaking audiences? How was the message delivered? Was a translator writing the message spoken? That would mean Paul understood Greek to effectually convey the understanding of Hebrew. Were these NT letters and script sent to churches as Greek written language as a translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic message of Jesus? Thanks for your study

I guarantee with 100% certainty that at least 8 out of every 10 KJVonlyists would have zero clue on how to answer this question. I'm not against the KJV at all as I was saved with a copy of it in my native tongue of Spanish. I still have it. I'm against the embarrassing arrogance of that cult. Excellent video my brother.

Simply... awesome video. Somehow, you (and through God's providence) have me becoming a word nerd and excited about the uncertainty of such a massive and important subject. I've always been "bad with words and good with numbers" (a saying I've used since I was a teen in the 90s), a former KJVonlyist, and (due to abuse), someone who shies away from uncertainty for "solid" views. It feels so freeing to see how little textual variations actually matter to the important doctrines of Jesus. I would definitely love to see you do more videos on textual criticism (debating and philosophies), but I fully understand why you have a policy against it on this channel. Would you have any recommendations for channels that do that on RU-vid? *edit: nvm, I see you have at least one video on it. But I'm still interested if you have any recommend channels.

Your best video to date, Mark!!!

Thanks for the favorable mention in the description! One minor comment about the video itself. Note that even Scrivener's 1881/94 does not completely align with "the KJV." The most frequently cited example is Ephesians 6:24 where Scrivener omits the terminal Amen, although both the Oxford and Cambridge editions have inserted it (the 1611 itself omitted it). There are other places where it is unclear whether the King James translators may have followed a different text from what Scrivener selected. Revelation 15:4 provides two examples: (1) contemporary King James edition have "thou" and "art" in italics and (2) the English word, "holy," could refer to at least two different Greek words. The Complutensian polyglot with its insertion of εἶ (thou art) was available to the KJ translators. The Complutensian polyglot also has a different (from Scrivener's choice) Greek synonym for holy. In the second case, it's unclear whether the King James translators would have even cared about this variant.

Great information. You covered the range of differences. Maybe do a shorter one on the major ones. Only other thing I would suggest you actually have a copy of both, it would add extra credibility.

thanks very much for this video. Also really enjoyed reading your paper. Would it be possible to point out some reasons that the critical text would be the de facto alternative to a TR text? Is it possible to have another session with Tim Berg (or Mr. Robinson) on the topic of why the source texts which became the critical text have authority? I hope I haven't overlooked this explanation in other videos or content you've shared. Please point out content to review on this topic if already there... it's hard to keep up with your prolific output but it's very much appreciated.

Brother Mark: The original KJV contained, and a few KJV's still do have, the KJV Translators' study notes. These are in a narrow central column, in the ones I have. The TRANSLATORS' STUDY NOTES include: 1) CROSS-REFERENCES; 2) ALTERNATE TRANSLATIONS! QUERY: To be consistent, do any of our TR-only brethren say these alternate translations are ALSO "the perfectly preserved word of God"? :--}>

Finished it. Praise the Lord. That was so good. Thank you. Soli Deo Gloria!

Brilliant!

It is well-spoken. My favorite English Bible is the NKJV, followed by the WEB British Edition, especially for their New Testament. I favor the "Byzantine" textual stream, but consult many of the modern translations no matter their textual basis (e.g. BSB, CSB, NET, ESV, MEV, NIV, NASB, LSB, MKJV, KJ3). We all need to operate in the spirit of the KJ Preface and be gracious. Thanks!🙏📖 (P.S. I don't understand why the KJV translators chose Beza's conjectural emendation of Revelation 16: 5.)🤔😊

Thank you for this presentation of your research, @markwardonwords. You have left me wondering how Scrivener 1894 came to be published by TBS, apparently without the Preface, variants in the RV, and the Appendix of deviations from Beza (some, as you say, back to the Vulgate). Scrivener is still published by Cambridge University Press. What is the story? Why did TBS pick Scrivener if they had a choice but did not make their edition closer to the KJV (those non-Greeek Vulgate readings)?

I went through the 7th-9th section verse-by-verse and was interested to find that in about half of the examples, Scrivener matched Beza 1588/89. I John 2:23 matches Beza as well, so I assume the KJV italicized the 2nd half of the verse (my Bible is also italicized) to acknowledge that it isn't found in some editions of the TR.

Easily one of the best discussions of the KJVOnly issue I've ever seen in 35yrs of debating it.

Very well put, sir! This makes a dent for me, for sure. I pray, pray, pray that King James Onlyists will get a hold of this essential information

TR onlyism is King James Onlyism once removed

This really is the nail on KJV-onlyism's coffin if we wanna pretend it's all about the TR rather than the KJV specifically. When I was younger I got confused by TR only people online. Never joined their rank, and after I went back to reading the bible and about the bible more a lot their claims of wilful corruption started to become suspicious, but this channel sealed the deal. Watching Dan Wallace's textual criticism vídeos next. This subject is actually quite interesting and appealing to me now that I see people dealing with it seriously rather than with conspiracy theories and calling everyone a heretic/corrupter

It took me a long time to realize how the TR Only position really is KJVO not just in its similarity but in its foundational argument. An honest advocate would style himself as Scrivener TR Only; to wit, all variants are adjudicated by the King James Version. Culminating in 1611, God miraculously re-preserved the Greek text (and of course in a way that can never occur again).

Some people simply don't trust late modern and contemporary German critical text scholarship brother Mark. I would love to see a series of interviews done with the text scholars in Munster. Ask them about what they are doing with the text and why. Ask them what they believe about Christ and the Gospel. I think this would be enlightening. Perhaps this could eliminate distrust? Perhaps it would cause a total loss of trust? Anyway, it would be interesting to know what they believe.

@35:38 Did you mispronounce οικοδομιαν? The accent is on the last iota, but it sounds like you emphasized δομ. Or was this intentional to point out the only letter difference between the two words?

Another well-done video, Mark! In KJV-onlyism, textual criticism really amounts to -- does it agree with the KJV or does it not. That is basically the sole criteria for determining between TR readings. Two big problems with that are (1) there was no perfectly preserved text or translation available for God’s people until the KJV came into existence, and (2) which version of the KJV is definitive, because there are multiple KJV’s just like there are multiple TR’s. The answer I’ve heard is the 1769 Cambridge version, as opposed to the Oxford version (cf., Jer 34:16, “whom he” vs “whom ye”). Not sure which version Scrivener used. Also not sure how Christians are to know which one, based on what God has revealed to us in the Bible, other than bald assertion. Or how we know God wanted us to use an English version as the standard to judge the TR’s rather than a Dutch, German, or other translation.

This video is brilliant.

Only 20min into the video but I am assuming this argument is where pastors (like in that viral clip) claim they can correct the Greek with the KJV? That actually makes sense from their perspective and in that context doesn't sound like quite as insane of a statement. (but it's still oozing with hubris.)

"Which version of the TR" is my favorite question to ask people. Not so much because I want to stir up and cause problems, but simply as a way to try and capture a persons interest, and encourage them to expand their understanding of the history of the Greek text we have today.

To whoever reads this, I'm curious if there is a translation that has the following goal that is taken from the BibleProject when they occasionally do their own translation. "To use words and phrases that convey the same meaning but give new vitality to phrases that have become overly familiarized. Some words might sound strange, but these translation choices are a more literal rendering of the Greek text into English."

The KJV was the bible given to me at my first Christmas, by my Sunday School teacher when I turned six, at my baptism, and several other occasions. I never read any of them. THEN came the TEV (Good News for Modern Man), first paperback NT, and later the complete bible in hardback. THEN, I began reading the bible, even as my pastor preached from J.B. Phillips' translation. I went to seminary and the translation of choice was the RSV. I have preached (and still do) from the '84 NIV for 40 years. Having said all that, I had never even heard of KJVonlism until about two years ago. Wow!! Yes, I have read it through, along with 6 other translations, and boy am I glad we them. Just thought I'd share. Thanks Mark!

I laughed out loud at “Beelzeboub”

I have actually heard the KJV referred to as the _true_ Textus Receptus.

Love the comparisons and the logic behind them. I occasionally read the 1611 marginal notes and make comparisons also. Much of the reason for men being harsh on other translations seems to be them having diverse weights and showing partiality. They use a different measuring tape. They will openly preach that often times fathers and mothers will do this with their child when the child gets caught up in sin, and they'll leave the church, but yet they do the same thing when they are proved wrong. Truth is truth, whether it's dealing with sin or textual criticism....Christians should stand for truth.

this is one of the best and by far most in depth but concise video on this subject. I am so thankful for this. I think this younger generation responds greater to truthfulness instead of absoluteness. When people act like this book is perfection, then just one small mistake, or the appearance of a mistake for most of the time, and it gives that person permission to leave as if they have slain a giant. More leave christianity by pushing absoluteness which eventually feels like we have been lied to. This presentation is provides answers and allows for common ground and more will follow the faith because of this approach.

Well, you can debunk King James Only-ism here, but what about the Majority Text faction that claims that Kr or Family 34, because of the great agreement among that group of manuscripts, contains the perfect text?

"We" (i.e., KJVO/TR-only folks, a group to which I don't belong) recognize that Ruckman was kind of a kook, so we don't want to sound like him, so we don't want to say that the KJV corrects the Greek text. We don't want to say that the KJV translators were miraculously guided in their work, or that their work was reinspired. Well and good--those are truly outlandish positions, and they should indeed be avoided. Instead we say it was "providentially preserved," which sounds nice and sensible, especially to those of a Calvinistic bent. But here's the problem, which any Calvinist (in which category I consider myself) will, or should, recognize: everything that happens is a result of God's providence. As Sproul famously said, there are no stray molecules in the universe. The _Texti Recepti_ are as they are as a result of God's providence, this much is true. And it's equally true that the NA28 is as it is as a result of God's providence--the one no less than the other. And for that matter, it's equally as a result of God's providence that the Queen James "Bible" exists. God's providence, true as it is, proves nothing with respect to the accuracy of any given text, manuscript, or translation; that question must be addressed by other means. But a very good job nailing down a critical question: how much, and what kind, of variation is acceptable among texts? And its necessary follow-up: on what principle do you draw the line where you do?

Bro, what do you say to those who don't use the KJV but are TR advocates? Those who use MEV, YLT, or if they do go old school, they go Geneva? Are you still gonna say they are KJVO basically too? Also, many TR advocates aren't make the claim that we should pick one but trust the general group of pre- 1900 methods and choice of priority text selection. There are some broad statements there. There are those of us who stand in contrast to this "KJVOism" that you address; but I guess no one in any "camp" cares much for us.

It’s funny to me that there is probably a KJ advocate sitting around somewhere saying man I wish this guy would go away… but I think they want opposition.. at least in my experience they tend to like the argument. 🤷‍♂️

27:21 I saw on a website about nt Greek try to claim the verb in the maidens and the lamps parable “going out” is wrong compared to the KJVs “are run out” (they weren’t kjv only). It’s a ridiculous claim that somehow the amount of oil has to do with the Holy Spirit or some weird interpretation. I’m very much condensing it here but it’s just an odd claim I found.

If KJV-Only advocates were being honest, they would have to admit that the only TR that's truly "perfect" is Scrivener's, as only the choices that the KJV translators made were absolutely perfect in all their translational decisions, at least on their view.

Indeed, it should not be referred to as "texti recepti" because "textus" is a 4th declension Latin word, and therefore the plural should be "textus recepti". (Random Nerd Trolling)

@3:56 - you said no jokes, but that was a little humerous :)

This is only a problem because the Textus Receptus is said to be the autograph in its text. And once one chooses Scrivener it would make sense to also adapt the Old Testament textual critical decisions the KJV translators made.

There’s some really good stuff in here that could be repackaged into smaller vids. Not SHORTS! (lol) I was thinking particularly near the end; the whole jot and tittle thing and the common ground. I’m not a video editor, but I’d totally be sharing that with folks.

Hi Dr. Ward, do you have a video on the gospel of Mark? If the ending was added, missing, or original? Thanks 😊

Yea, that is still the question:)

Best explanation I've ever heard. I wonder why including your unprotestested engagement in misquoted scripture. (Mat 5:17 KJV) {17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to 👉FULFIL👈. {18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be 👉FULFILLED.👈 Mathew 1:1 might have a page before called New Testament, but technically the New Blood Testament hadn't been cut and He was walking under the Old Blod Covenant. Even at the "Last Supper" thar was a ceremony but important (keeping short simple). The on the cross He said it was finished and as a sign the curtain ripped the New Covenant was "CUT". Then on Pentecost the Temple became a living sanctuary, living stones, earthenware, earthen vessels. It is not a promise of a written Bible with no missing dot on the ιοτα. "ι". Not only have large masses of people of long periods of time had no word. Even in the Old Testament they found missing Scrolls while remodeling lol. GOD IS PROMISING THE THOUGHT, IDIOM, HE KNOWS AND WILL DO ALL OF IT.... NOT A PERFECT TEXT OR TRANSLATION. I'm thankful and study the word and look at the text too. I doubt nothing about my bible being inspired and I enjoy looking at the Variants too. I was born-again in 1977, in about 1980 I studied how we got our bible as a member in a church that was KJVO. They not intending to do so taught me the idolatry AND I started seeing that destructive attack I learned and used on people. I believe your doing an important great work

Which TR Is the Perfectly Preserved One? Mark Ward speaking at 0:27-32: "But I am convinced that God's people do better knowing the truth than they do believing errors." Response: I wholeheartedly agree and commend you for all the work you have done regarding the Biblical text. However, I have a question that might fall under your Category 11 - Contradictions. It refers to a perceived contradiction between (A) the King James Version on one hand and (B) the English translations of the Textus Receptus and Critical Text in the KJV Parallel Bible online that appear to be incorrect renderings of their original Greek. I am referring to the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 1. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 10 states: "This project was conceived, designed, and organized by Mark Ward, PhD, author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible." Therefore, it would appear that Dr. Ward assumes the chief responsibility for its contents. 2. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage for 1 Corinthians, Verse 27 reads: A. Textus Receptus: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." B. Critical Text: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread, AND drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 3. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 2 states: The specific version of the Textus Receptus used by this site is Scrivener’s TR, an edition of the TR F.H.A. Scrivener made in 1881 to demonstrate the textual-critical choices made by the KJV translators." 4. On the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 3 states: "The specific version of the critical text used on this site is the Nestle-Aland 28, the current edition of the CT used by basically all major modern English Bible translations except the NKJV and MEV (which uses the same Greek text as the KJV)." 5. When linking to the respective websites provided, (A) Google Books for the 1881 Scrivener as the basis for the Textus Receptus and (B) Deutche Bible Gesellschaft for the Nestle-Aland 28 as the basis for the Critical Text, in 1 Corinthians 11:27 both give the Greek conjunction ἢ in the first sentence clause which is translated as OR, not AND. 6. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the KJV Parallel Bible's translation of (A) both the Textus Receptus and Critical Text and (B) their actual Greek texts for the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 7. Further, the KJV Parallel Bible Org webpage About The Site, A few housekeeping points etc., No. 2 states: The KJV translators used two slightly different editions of the TR as they worked on the KJV New Testament: Stephanus (1550) and Beza (1598). Both these TR editions have ἢ that is properly translated as OR, but the KJV translators translated it as AND. The New King James Version released in 1982 provides the correct translation of 1 Corinthians 11:27. Compare: A. King James Version: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." B. New King James Version: "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 8. For 1 Corinthians 11:27, the KJV translators followed the same rendering existing in both the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1568 Bishop's Bible. However, all three were in contradiction to the three previous English translations that the 1982 NKJV translation returned to: (A) Wycliffe's Bible of 1382, (B) the Tyndale Bible of 1535 and (C) the Great Bible of 1539 authorized by King Henry VIII. 9. Why? 10. God help me, may I take to heart these words of Mark Ward written above: "I'm not being snarky; I'm asking very sincerely. I'm driving at what I think is an important and even peacemaking point in the debate over the text of the Greek New Testament."

When will they come out with a translation that replaces "the" with thuh and "our" with ire. 😂 Sorry I just had to "ast" the question? 😂

So if I've got this correct, to be a kjv-onlyist, you have to believe that the kjv is infallible because it was based on Scrivener's TR, and you believe Scrivener's TR is infallible because it's based on the kjv. Really? Wow. I believe that men were inspired to write based on miraculous events, and that the inspiration of God means in the same way God breathed life into the first humans, the words are life giving. I don't believe that the words themselves are perfect, or perfectly translated, because that's impossible. But the words give hope and life to us all.

Fantastic job. Wish the KJVO friends I know would listen to this. Sadly, I know they won't bc it is way over their heads. That is no fault of Dr Ward, its bc the KJVO friends have no interest in learning or being educated about the KJVO doctrine/dogma, and simply accept what they've been told is true by their charismatic (yet uneducated) pastor

I know I should pay attention to the scrivener edition, but I would prefer not to.

wow super fantastic information. well done very comprehensive, info !!! lots of territory covered there. those outlandish belief systems are reactive uneducated...... GREAT VIDEO

"By dismissing all differences among TRs as minor they have implicitely agreed a huge portion of the differences between the TRs and the critical texts." Yes absolutely a major logical fail that is important, as are variations between the early Byzantine Uncials and the later Byzantine texts. If those differences are "ok" then the TRO theology implodes, the logic undercuts their own conclusions.

The KJV-only crowd must have skipped the part about not judging others. Not sure how reading other translations like the NIV or CSB makes you satanic.

An excellent and logical presentation. Unfortunately, KJVO and TRO defenders tend to be immune to logic, since they base their beliefs illogical arguments and conclusions.

No text is 'perfect' in and of it itself. What makes it 'perfect' is the Holy Spirit of God bearing witness to it through His work of preservation.

I'm only 8 min in and I'm having trouble containing my excitement. This was the hard road I had to travel down in order to free me from the errors I believed in KJVonlyism / TRonlyism.

I look forward to listening to this; I hope it answers Vince Krivda, I have been waiting for you to interact with him. I think he answered this question very well. Maybe I missed your interaction with him. Blessings in Christ!

There must be an interesting reason why the _Textus Receptus,_ a *Greek* New Testament, should have a title in *LATIN* ...

Bottom line; will you have a different view of Christ and a difference in Theology if you read the KJV vs ESV vs NIV? I don’t think so.

Wow you are sooo amazing and sooo smart!!

I think the underlying problem to this entire debate is that all conservative Christians (both Critical Text and Textus Receptus) display some degree of dishonesty toward their lay constituents. The TR camp will tell their constituents that "THE TR is inerrant" knowing that their constituents will be left with the false assumption that there is one unified TR. But you also have the CT camp that will tell their constituents that "THE Bible is inerrant" knowing that the typical constituents will falsely assume that their ESV, NIV, and NLT are one unified text (except surface level phrasings). So you have the TR camp pointing out the hypocrisy of the CT camp, and then you have the CT camp pointing out the hypocrisy of the TR camp. This is really a case of us seeing only the speck in our brother's eye. And the underlying cause of the hypocrisy is that conservative Christian leaders/scholars are living with the uncomfortable tension of "upholding preservation" while recognizing the state of textual transmission. There are only two ways to resolve this tension. For example, the TR side can dogmatically uphold one particular TR edition (or even the KJV itself) as the preserved inerrant text. The CT side can uphold a particular NA edition as the final culmination of textual criticism. But most conservative Christians (both TR and CT) won't go this route because it's "unscholarly" and too dogmatic. The other way to resolve this tension is to get serious about what preservation means in light of the textual evidence. For example, it could be something as simple as applying the paradigm that "God preserved the text, but fallible humans do not agree on which text is the preserved text (it could be an edition of the Byz, TR, Vulgate, CT - we agree to disagree)". Then you can save the doctrine of preservation as traditionally understood and shift the "uncertainty" to man's fallibility. But what we usually end up with are just two polarized positions of some type of onlyism on one end and the denial of perfect preservation on the other end. The underlying cause of this debate is due to both sides promoting the old paradigm of preservation to their lay constituents while at the same time not willing to go the only logically consistent route of KJV-onlyism or NA27 or 28 onlyism. We should all consider, "How long halt ye between two opinions?"

Your reluctant foray against a "perfect" TR is certain to return significant gains for the side of consistency and truth. I believe that most KJVO adherents initially are anchored to a foundation of a perfect translation. Well, information available online for all to see has made this position nearly impossible to maintain, as it is easily disproven. The same thing could be said for the readability and intelligibility arguments, which you have so convincingly dismantled. When those foundations get shaky, folks will tend to jump to the next pier that they perceive to be sturdy-a pure/perfect base text. Your work in this video, along with the work of others before you, is certainly causing that next pier to waver! Soon, many Christians who are willing to be honest with themselves will realize that the house that is sitting on this unreliable foundation is about to crumble! This is the process that I went through and is the same process that I've had others describe to me from their experiences! As you know, this battle is not about winning; it is about helping other Christians understand God's words better and to give their consciences the liberty to read a Bible that is written in their language. Your work is making a difference! Another excellent video!

Unpopular opinion: If a doctrine depends on a singular passage or a particular translation, it’s not critical.

The preservation of Scriptures is not about preserving exact jots and tittles, but rather the preservation of God's written authority - Sola Scriptura. The autograph changed over time and is no longer extant and thus not preserved in its original form. Preservation has never been about preserving jots and tittles, word counts, etc. Scriptural preservation should never be compared to grandpa's coin collection "preserved" down in the vaults at 1st National Bank & Trust Jerusalem where every "generation" can come and take a peek at the exact same mint condition coins. No, that type of preservation doesn't fit the Scriptures or history! Scriptural preservation is more like grandma's pickles where the nutritional value is preserved even though the form (jots, tittles, word counts, etc.) changes. In the form that God wants each generation and language to have.

Just to be clear , neither IRBS or CBTS take this TR position.

I first encountered KJV/TR-onlyism when I was much younger. I've always felt that the movement was, dare I say, embarrassing for the church at large. Far from being a dogmatic belief about some theological or ontological truth as revealed by God, it amounts to a fabricated theological position completely manufactured to satisfy an innate human need: surety. The problem of course, is that positions like this that are of human invention, always seem to suffer from glaring illogic and inconsistency. Where was the preserved word in 1610? Why English as the language of final "preservation" when it did not even exist to the original writers? Why is the TR significantly influenced by the Latin vulgate? Why is Scrivener's own position as a textual critic such as it was, effectively ignored? Why does the "preserved" text, allegedly basing its OT on the Masoretic text, found with numerous NT quotes of the OT from the LXX? And finally, as the video asks well, which TR? In the end the KJV/TR-only position is a position that none of the translators or compilers of KJV or the various TR's would have held. In the desire to have a "Qur'an-like" Bible (meaning one asserted to be effectively a copy of one in heaven) the movement causes endless division within Christendom because it can not or does not want to understand the superior method in which God chose to preserve His word, as Dr White describes well, as broad distribution and non-centralized authority. The confidence one can have in such an approach is far in excess of that possessed in presuming that one's favorite regal English translation alone is the ink of the proverbial Divine pen.