Statement of Faith

[Jerusalem Blade]

I’d like to give a brief and cogent statement on what Scriptures support my view of the LORD’s providential preservation of the TR / KJV priority position I hold to.

For example, in Jeremiah 26:2 KJV, the LORD speaking to the prophet, it is written, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word…” [emphasis added]

Earlier, this word was given to Moses in Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, “Ye shall not add unto the wordwhich I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” [emphasis added]

In Proverbs 30:6 KJV, we are told by the Spirit, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

And, similar to that, in Isaiah 59:21 KJV, the LORD tells us, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” [emphasis added]

This is what I take from these statements – commands, really: Will not the LORD requiring His prophets to not diminish or add a word, Himself keep to the same standard when providentially preserving His own word?

When the Lord Jesus said, in Matthew 4:4 KJV, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, I take that literally, as even one word may be full of meaning, and quickening life. [emphasis added]

In 2 Peter 1:2-4 KJV, we are told this, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” [emphasis added]

These are the Scriptures – which, really, have the same meaning and import as other versions do – that convince me the LORD is able to keep the word He has given us through His providential preservation.

Now that’s not always easy to figure out, but it does take reviewing the versions that would fit into this class, with the details involved, and I’m not concerned to get into all that at this time.

And I have a few caveats: As I have been ministering (before I was incapacitated by severe illnesses) to folks for whom English was not their first language, I soon realized that using various modern versions (the NJKV, ESV, NIV ’84, NLT, and so forth) made it much easier for them to understand. I have even come to appreciate and like some of these versions, and purchase them for those people who like to study more deeply – all the while letting them know that the “gold standard” for accuracy is the KJV.

I also have ministered to Greek-speaking people, and have been able to obtain an extraordinarily clear vernacular Greek NT that is based on the older TR Greek.

So I really do like and appreciate the modern versions, seeing their worth.

Some may ask me how do I reconcile the major variants, and it comes down to this: there is a preservation in the main, and a preservation in the minutiae. So that earlier generations, before there even was a TR, had a preservation in the main, and by which the LORD was able to mightily convert and care for His elect people. And that principle applies today in the midst of the many modern versions available now.

I certainly to not condemn or look down upon those who use Bibles that differ from mine. And I know that they may well be wiser and godlier folks than I!

I cannot answer all the very fine-tuned questions in this area of discussion, as my extended stays in fiery furnaces wrought havoc on my memory, my brain, and – as a result of these physical impairments and failing health – have had to give away my entire library, so I cannot defend my views in this area as I was once able to!

I realize that the lightning rod of attack on the TR / KJV view is the Johannine Comma / 1 John 5:7-8 KJV. I won’t engage in discussion, but I might post some valuable resources.

Spending 30 days (Jan 1-30) of this present year with a fractured vertebrae (L1) and the resulting extreme pain affected my cognitive faculties, from which I have not recovered. (On Jan 31st I had an operation to repair that, although I have reinjured myself (having osteoporosis), and the neurosurgeon says he can do no more, but refer me to pain management, which I am loath to do (it would cause GI troubles I would avoid, unless the pain is unbearable); I can only take Tylenol, as my heart condition would contraindicate other NSAIDS. One Dr. told me I’ll more likely die of heart failure than anything else.

In fact, I see this all as the Lord’s providence – His wisdom and love – keeping me lowly of heart and mind, as promoting my written corpus of works as I do could easily tend to self-aggrandizement. Spiritually I am impoverished, yet He is with me through the faith He graciously grants. It is well with my soul. It’s just that I can’t think as I once used to. (I have posted this in the Church Order forum, the TR/KJV Viewpoint and NAPARC Churches? thread, post 356 also).

I'll also add some resources for the Johannine Comma / 1 John 5:7-8 KJV issue.

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)

This posted has been uploaded from the following article: . The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission. 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) – “These Three Are One” “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the...

answeringislam.blog

KJV Today: https://www.kjvtoday.net/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

1 John 5:7 - Textus Receptus

Will Kinney: https://www.brandplucked.com/1john57.htm

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Thanks for this. I'm not sure if I'm following correctly. Are you saying that where the scriptures say God's word will be kept precise, that what that's actually saying is that one English translation is the fulfillment of that?

My understanding is that the Hebrew and Greek texts are what God preserved as infallible for us. I'm pretty sure a good case can be made that every single English translation has some sort of issue.

 

[83r17h]

Some may ask me how do I reconcile the major variants, and it comes down to this: there is a preservation in the main, and a preservation in the minutiae. So that earlier generations, before there even was a TR, had a preservation in the main, and by which the LORD was able to mightily convert and care for His elect people. And that principle applies today in the midst of the many modern versions available now.

Hi Steve, this is interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I am curious on three matters:
1. From where you learn or derive the distinction between main and minutiae?
2. Why is it that the TR is the point at which preservation became actual in the minutiae?
3. Is the TR's minutiae final or provisional?

I think it is a useful distinction, and I am curious about why, in your view, the TR specifically enables us to affirm of it the minutiae, and in what manner you think it allows us to affirm its minutiae (final or provisional).

 

[Persequeor]

Thanks for the resources for the Johannine Comma. Quite interesting; Hills I had read, but not the others.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Albert – you asked:

1. From where you learn or derive the distinction between main and minutiae?

On the one hand I would say, simply from observation; up through the NT era there have been different editions of the Greek text, and different translations of them. On the other hand, in our present day, comparing the various Greek texts and the translations thereof, the same applies, though in a much broader sense.

There is a difference in readings between the ESV, the NIV '84, and the NKJV, for example. I would say the NKJV has a better Greek text underlying it, and is more accurate than the ESV. For instance, in the ESV Matthew 1:7,10 ESV (respectively) you have Asaph and Amos listed as ancestors in the genealogy of Christ, whereas in the NKJV you have the accurate Matt 1:7 NKJV as Asa and Matt 1:10 NKJV Amon. Though I have gained a new appreciation for the ESV, it remains that although it is generally a good translation in the main, but not in the minutiae. My understanding is that due to the superior underlying Greek text the NKJV (and its forebear the KJV) it is faithful to the minutiae.

2. Why is it that the TR is the point at which preservation became actual in the minutiae?

In a nutshell, because of two main factors: the original autographs were from the apostles or those they appointed amanuenses and to the Aegean region, including Rome, and other churches in the general region, and not from Egypt / Alexandria which had received no autographs. And this distinction between these two sources of NT MSS continues, even up until the time of the Reformation.

3. Is the TR's minutiae final or provisional?

It is final, and not provisional, although there may be some "fine-tuning" as it is translated or as TR editions are compared. It is an apparent oddity that, due to the London fires and the destruction of the 1611 KJV translators' notes, what we have left is a) the KJV and b) the back-translated from KJV 1894 Scrivener Greek NT text.

These two texts: the English KJV and the Scrivener Greek TR. This is the remnant of the documents. As noted, there may be some comparing of the earlier TR editions, yet it remains that we have left these two texts. And I can hold each of them in my hands.

What may be ruled out – in the view of some – are the old Alexandrian MSS, with their great flaws. And there are other intermediate views, such as the Byzantine Text, which latter is of immense importance, for we – the TR camp – are really descendants of the Byz.

Speaking of which, the author of the latest Byz text work, Prof. Maurice A Robinson, has just published a monumental accomplishment for those who speak Greek, the Byzantine Textform 2026. Dr. Robinson just wrote to me today with a critique of some of my TR views (he pays attention to what goes on on Puritan Board), and also told me that the long-awaited Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform update has now been released in a nice Smyth-sewn hardback. Seeing as we TR folks owe so much to him and his work, I do want to make this known. Here's an interview on YouTube (it's brief) he gave a few months ago for those interested (I know pastors here on PB would like to get his updated book).

Despite the great value of Prof. Robinson's work, I remain convinced of my TR stand.

 

[83r17h]

Hello Albert – you asked:

1. From where you learn or derive the distinction between main and minutiae?

On the one hand I would say, simply from observation; up through the NT era there have been different editions of the Greek text, and different translations of them. On the other hand, in our present day, comparing the various Greek texts and the translations thereof, the same applies, though in a much broader sense.

There is a difference in readings between the ESV, the NIV '84, and the NKJV, for example. I would say the NKJV has a better Greek text underlying it, and is more accurate than the ESV. For instance, in the ESV, in Matthew 1:7, 10 (respectively) you have Asaph and Amos listed as ancestors in the genealogy of Christ, whereas in the NKJV you have the accurate Matthew 1:7, 10 NKJV as Asa and Amon. Though I have gained a new appreciation for the ESV, it remains that although it is generally a good translation in the main, but not in the minutiae. My understanding is that due to the superior underlying Greek text the NKJV (and its forebear the KJV) is faithful to the minutiae.

2. Why is it that the TR is the point at which preservation became actual in the minutiae?

In a nutshell, because of two main factors: the original autographs were from the apostles or those they appointed amanuenses and to the Aegean region, including Rome, and other churches in the general region, and not from Egypt / Alexandria which had received no autographs. And this distinction between these two sources of NT MSS continues, even up until the time of the Reformation.

3. Is the TR's minutiae final or provisional?

It is final, and not provisional, although there may be some "fine-tuning" as it is translated or as TR editions are compared. It is an apparent oddity that, due to the London fires and the destruction of the 1611 KJV translators' notes, what we have left is a) the KJV and b) the back-translated from KJV 1894 Scrivener Greek NT text.

These two texts: the English KJV and the Scrivener Greek TR. This is the remnant of the documents. As noted, there may be some comparing of the earlier TR editions, yet it remains that we have left these two texts. And I can hold each of them in my hands.

What may be ruled out – in the view of some – are the old Alexandrian MSS, with their great flaws. And there are other intermediate views, such as the Byzantine Text, which latter is of immense importance, for we – the TR camp – are really descendants of the Byz.

Speaking of which, the author of the latest Byz text work, Prof. Maurice A Robinson, has just published a monumental accomplishment for those who speak Greek, the Byzantine Textform 2026. Dr. Robinson just wrote to me today with a critique of some of my TR views (he pays attention to what goes on on Puritan Board), and also told me that the long-awaited Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform update has now been released in a nice Smyth-sewn hardback. Seeing as we TR folks owe so much to him and his work, I do want to make this known. Here's an interview on YouTube (it's brief) he gave a few months ago for those interested (I know pastors here on PB would like to get his updated book).

Despite the great value of Prof. Robinson's work, I remain convinced of my TR stand.

Thanks Steve, that is informative!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A little more on the "lightning rod" of opposition to the reading of 1 John 5:7 KJV.

The Three Forms of Unity, in the Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 9 has as part of its content (not as a proof text), 1 John 5:7 KJV, “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” So this is a confessional stand for me, besides the clear warrant of Scripture. I'll attach some photos.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

About the "warrant of Scripture" :

For example, in Jeremiah 26:2 KJV, the LORD speaking to the prophet, it is written, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word…” [emphasis added]

Earlier, this word was given to Moses in Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” [emphasis added]

In Proverbs 30:6 KJV, we are told by the Spirit, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

And, similar to that, in Isaiah 59:21 KJV, the LORD tells us, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” [emphasis added]

This is what I take from these statements – commands, really: Will not the LORD requiring His prophets to not diminish or add a word, Himself keep to the same standard when providentially preserving His own word?

When the Lord Jesus said, in Matthew 4:4 KJV, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, I take that literally, as even one word may be full of meaning, and quickening life. [emphasis added]