TR/KJV Viewpoint and NAPARC Churches?

[Semper Fidelis]

The additions and deletions and notes that question their authority belong in the margins; I believe the vss themselves must remain in the text.

I agree with that. One of the things the Puritans agreed upon was a view that you couldn't just decide you didn't like a creed of the Chruch and just discard it. The Apostle's Creed has created a lot of consternation, but the way the Puritans handled it was that they kept the "descended into hell" lanaguage but permitted various ministerial interpretaitons of it.

I think it's wise to keep readings in the text that Christians have read and then permit notes that mnisters can use rather than remove the verses from Scripture. It creates a lot less problems. I know this is getting off topice but the pericope adultery is particularly interesting because it was an account that seems to have landed in different places in the Sciptures depending upon the manuscript. It would be nice to have a more consistent manuscript witness but it also gives us confidence that it's something that really happend even if it seems to have been "moved around".

 

[Ploutos]

Regarding the bracketing of passages, no it has not caused me any kind of crisis of faith at any time. I simply don't like the practice and feel it appears misleading. Of course this is my personal opinion, and I don't want to make it sound like its a sin or that I'm condemning the publishers who do it. I'm not sure the reasoning for the practice we are discussing - it might well be exactly what you are describing. But in terms of whether it casts doubt on those passages of scripture, I don't really think that's up for debate - it almost unquestionably has done so for some believers. Take for example what Jeri has said earlier. You might think that her or others' doubts are unfounded, but the doubts have arisen nonetheless, and this ought never to be brushed aside flippantly (not saying you're doing this), and publishers need to be keenly aware that it is indeed a weighty thing to be in the business of handling and printing the scriptures. It might be argued conversely that "well, they could have left it out, and then the people would be faced with the same fact - i.e. that this passage is disputed by the very fact that it is left out". There is some truth to that. And yet, I believe it would be more appropriate, as it would mean that what is actually printed as the scriptures is not at the same time accompanied with notes that cast doubt on their authenticity. I don't think that it is proper to display God's Word, which is the very Word of God, and the final appeal for all matters of life and religion, with qualifiers. I think that kind of practice mitigates against the very notion of it being the very Word of God.

What I think is unfounded is to blame the doctrine for the feelings. I find it remarkable that such overt subjectivism would be so strongly defended in this thread.

We don't base doctrines off of how people feel.

The only reason Jeri's comments would have significance is if the doctrine had already been determined to be wrong. It has value as an ancillary supporting fact - "because it's wrong, we shouldn't allow it to be a stumbling block". What is happening is the reverse - "because it's a stumbling block, it must be wrong". That's not how it works.

Whatever other common ground you and I may have, that's not something I can get on board with. I simply don't agree that the practice is what is responsible for the doubts in believers. A weak or fragile faith is what is responsible for those doubts. That's not a reproach; it's an objective fact. It requires pastoral wisdom and it can be dealt with in any number of ways.

Blaming a Bible publisher and a reasonable theological stance for that weakness is not right and it introduces an element of subjectivity that Reformed believers ought to decry. Believers don't need "safe spaces" from reality and historical fact. They need other Christians with wisdom and prudence around them.

I think the explanation I gave is a much more reasonable one and probably more likely to reflect the actual intent of the publishers of the ESV. And I think it would be best if we stopped importing subjectivism into the topic. The problem is not brackets and the solution is not removing them. The problem is human weakness and sinfulness - by which we are all beset - and the solution is pastoral wisdom and prudence in the particular context at hand: not blanket solutions that blame an entire publishing company for the doubts (or the cage-stage rashness) of an individual.

 

[De Jager]

What I think is unfounded is to blame the doctrine for the feelings. I find it remarkable that such overt subjectivism would be so strongly defended in this thread.

We don't base doctrines off of how people feel.

The only reason Jeri's comments would have significance is if the doctrine had already been determined to be wrong. It has value as an ancillary supporting fact - "because it's wrong, we shouldn't allow it to be a stumbling block". What is happening is the reverse - "because it's a stumbling block, it must be wrong". That's not how it works.

Whatever other common ground you and I may have, that's not something I can get on board with. I simply don't agree that the practice is what is responsible for the doubts in believers. A weak or fragile faith is what is responsible for those doubts. That's not a reproach; it's an objective fact. It requires pastoral wisdom and it can be dealt with in any number of ways.

Blaming a Bible publisher and a reasonable theological stance for that weakness is not right and it introduces an element of subjectivity that Reformed believers ought to decry. Believers don't need "safe spaces" from reality and historical fact. They need other Christians with wisdom and prudence around them.

I think the explanation I gave is a much more reasonable one and probably more likely to reflect the actual intent of the publishers of the ESV. And I think it would be best if we stopped importing subjectivism into the topic. The problem is not brackets and the solution is not removing them. The problem is human weakness and sinfulness - by which we are all beset - and the solution is pastoral wisdom and prudence in the particular context at hand: not blanket solutions that blame an entire publishing company for the doubts (or the cage-stage rashness) of an individual.

There's no need to continue this discussion. I don't agree, and this is going nowhere.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Interacting with someone on the Translation and Manuscript version of my posting here, is a response to someone questioning my view, plus Prof Maurice A. Robinson (Byzantine Text scholar and author) emailed me today with some important news of a new book he's just published (more on this below).
_______

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 Matt 1:7 NKJV, and Matt 1:10 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, one of the authors of the latest Byz text work has just published a monumental accomplishment for those who speak Greek, the Byzantine Textform 2026. Dr. Maurice A. 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 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.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Their scoring rubric says "this shouldn't be here". But they are there, albeit in brackets - and why? Perhaps out of respect for those who think otherwise, perhaps out of respect for a long and attested tradition of having these verses. So I don't think of it as casting doubt on Scripture so much as trying to fairly acknowledge a different viewpoint.

I'm not sure how you can hold both bolded propositions - you are saying that the editors/compilers/translators have doubts and are conveying their doubt via brackets, but yet that isn't casting doubt on Scripture. I don't follow - that seems like the brackets are representing (and therefore casting) doubt on such passages.

Including textual notes is not a doctrinal decision.

This is absolutely a doctrinal discussion.

I'm not convinced and am curious what others believe. The textual notes may be based on or reveal a doctrinal perspective, but the decision to include them or not in a vulgar translation is a matter of wisdom and (see below) charity.

It has value as an ancillary supporting fact - "because it's wrong, we shouldn't allow it to be a stumbling block". What is happening is the reverse - "because it's a stumbling block, it must be wrong". That's not how it works.

Likewise here, when someone stumbles over this - it could be the doctrine itself. It could simply be the weaknesss of the hearer. Or it could be a problem with the way the doctrine is presented. But I don't think it can be argued, solely on the basis of someone stumbling, that the doctrine has got to go.

Again, I don't agree that the act of adding brackets and/or textual notes is a doctrinal issue. But it clearly causes some believers to stumble, as you acknowledge. Therefore, it is "good" not to include "anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak." (Romans 14.21). Paul makes the same argument in I Corinthians 8: "But every man hath not that knowledge... take heed lest by any means this power of yours be an occasion of falling, to them that are weak." (vs.7,9, etc.).

Again:

What is lost if the textual notes are removed from a vulgar translation?

 

[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]

 

[De Jager]

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.


View attachment 13100View attachment 13101View attachment 13103

Hi brother. I thought about this same thing last week regarding another disputed passage. We had a sermon on Lord's Day 26 and it uses a verse from the ending of Mark in the content of the Lord's Day, not as a proof text. Thanks

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

3) "What is exactly the Word of God? Is any verse in the scriptures truly safe?" I would love for you to answer that question. What Hebrew and Greek manuscript is, beyond question, the authentic Word of God, without any errors or mistakes that would call a verse or a letter or a phrase into question? And on what basis do you deem that manuscript, and not any other, to be the correct one?

If a Greek reading produced through retroversion from the Latin can be embraced within the providentially received text, while surviving Greek manuscript evidence pointing elsewhere is ruled out because it falls outside the approved mechanism, then we need an argument for why Providence must be understood in precisely that way.

That is the point at which the discussion repeatedly seems to confuse certainty that God preserved his Word with certainty that we know exactly how he did it.

I do not think the latter is required by the former.

Is it not true that "certainty" is in the eye of the beholder? And we know folks may be mistaken if there is provable disagreement between two parties! It behooves us to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" 2 Tim 2:15 KJV to have understanding, and not blindly believe things. I could also agree that how God preserved His word may be understood differently. We've discussed this at length in years past here, and we have differing views on this. While this is a very significant topic, I think that our spiritual health – especially our prayer lives / union with the Saviour, our family members included – is equally so, seeing that we are nearing the end of the age (postmils, feel free to disagree), with great spiritual and societal darkness falling on our lands, and upon us, the children of light.

I have to be careful in what I say here, as I have not my brain or my memory working as they used to! Please consider me – at this point – merely a disabled believer who nonetheless once had a strong and clear faith – and still has it – yet no longer has the mental agility to mount a strong case. Must I shut up, or may I speak? I will try the latter.

JP, you asked Izaak to answer his own question, "What is exactly the Word of God? Is any verse in the scriptures truly safe?" And you, Rich, have said, a number of times, "Convince me".

Being in contact with Prof. Maurice Robinson re his new book, we had this brief exchange: MAR had said,

'I actually have no problem with your comments 1 and 2 on "kept pure in all ages", nor for the most part with comment 3 regarding the "pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss"--*except* for what I see as the one unwarranted leap: "but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek--and then put into print in the Greek TR editions"' [emphasis added]​

And I replied,

"I know you are familiar with all the arguments / discussions between the Byz text proponents and us of the TR – and the grounds of how we are dismissed – and I don’t want to tire you or waste your time, save to say there were indeed attacks on the Greek Byz MSS on a number of fronts, both from the early persecutions and destructions of said MSS and the doctrinal wars in the 3rd and 4th centuries." [emphasis added]

One in our camp put it like this, “the Bible tells us that God would preserve His Words rather than manuscripts, editions etc.” (Transmission of the Text paper, Rev Dr Paul S. Ferguson. p 57). [emphasis added]

These differences do not in the least diminish our esteem for you and other Byz MSS scholars, as we recognize the value of your labors.​

JP, to answer for Izaak, and the question you threw back at him: "What is exactly the Word of God? Is any verse in the scriptures truly safe?" And you said, "I would love for you to answer that question. What Hebrew and Greek manuscript is, beyond question, the authentic Word of God, without any errors or mistakes that would call a verse or a letter or a phrase into question? And on what basis do you deem that manuscript, and not any other, to be the correct one?" You said, JP, "beyond question" – but nothing is beyond question, especially to a detail man like yourself. The certainty is valid to the one who, with good reason, believes it to be so. Others may always question that.

I would reply, Yes, the LORD can do such a thing! 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 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]

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 will, and is able to keep the word He has given us through His providential preservation.

Here’s my take on, and brief defense of, the WCF 1:8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages…

So what was “kept pure in all ages”, and how was it kept so? – 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss – mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek – and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. This does not speak of “text critical” reconstruction, but of keeping.​

The defense of the Hebrew Masoretic text is somewhat different, but just as coherent.

This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic readings of the entire Greek NT, and the OT Masoretic Hebrew, were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages” – not a one of them, not even a word, was corrupted, or lost, and “fell to the ground”, but instead kept, and kept pure – despite attacks on certain passages, and words. One can see how this was actually done in God’s providential preservation.

There are TR defenders who say there are 2 or 3 words that may be changed (E.F. Hills), and others more strict. I do not trouble myself about such minutiae in these discussions.

Consider, can it be—as it appears to many—that we are nearing the end of the age with its massive global tumults and upheavals, with the second coming of Christ and the Day of Judgment nearing, and God has not yet given His people a sure and authoritative Bible they may utterly depend on? Did the Lord Jesus not say, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4)? And also, “…His divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3)? Tacit in those Scriptures is the promise He has given us what we need for life and godliness: His every word.

The Textus Receptus is an established and final manuscript, its exemplar being the Greek edition compiled by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894, where he formed a Greek text that would underlie the AV. In the London fires the notes of the 1611 translators were lost, so how they actually arrived at their translations of the various parts of the Scripture are no longer available. In effect, he “back-engineered” the Greek text from the English, although he was able to use the editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs, as well as other versions. Scrivener’s 1894 is extremely close to the editions just mentioned, but it is unique. And it is fixed, not to change. It was the exact Greek equivalent of the AV, and intimately related to the other Reformation Greek editions of the earlier Textus Receptus forms, and was the Bible known to the Westminster Divines who framed the famous confession and its statement at 1:8 concerning God inspiring and preserving His word in its purity.

It comes down to this for me: I have an English Bible I can hold in my hand, and a Hebrew-Greek Bible likewise. I greatly appreciate the modern versions, now that I have (or did, while I was still preaching and teaching) folks in my church for whom English is not their first or primary language.

I do not have a provisional Bible which may change as new discoveries are made. I used to be able to defend my understanding well – giving the detailed history of the transmission of the NT text – and I could go back in my files and see those defenses, but I cannot any longer ad lib them from memory.

At any rate, this is what I believe, and hold to. It is certainly not a Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty, a mere QIRC. The Scriptures I stand on are solid. I know others hold views that differ, and I can respect them. They may come to different understandings of those Scriptures. Our differences are very small, likely relegated to a few verses or even words, where even weighty scholars disagree. I certainly can't convince everyone. One may pick at minute details in order to find some basis for uncertainty – to "legitimately" undermine a person's faith in their Bible. Leaving them only 99.99% certainty? What's up with that? What word of Scripture may I not believe is sound? 1 John 5:7-8 KJV is a target for many, but I think I've posted enough sources on that. You could take that up with them if you wish.

As an 84 year-old who has to go to a Bible study this evening (we are 7 hours ahead of those in NYC time), I gave up my morning nap to write this – it's going to be a long day for me.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A bit more I would like to add: when I was pastoring in NYC, and of late here in Cyprus, I would take great care – when talking of differing Bible versions (for in these churches different versions were in use) – not to harm the faith of those who strongly believed in the Bible versions they had. For these Bibles are their life-lines to the heart and presence of God.

I could talk to these friends about variants, and how some might be more worthy of acceptance than others, but I would never seek to harm their faith in the Bible they held to. It is a delicate matter to talk of Scripture versions to a soul. To approach them with this question, "What Hebrew and Greek manuscript is, beyond question, the authentic Word of God, without any errors or mistakes that would call a verse or a letter or a phrase into question?" is like taking a wrecking ball to a person's faith.

To attack their Bible as not being the authentic word of God is a dangerous thing to do. There is a way to approach a soul – and in so doing give an understanding of Bible versions before the Reformation – and that is by the concept of preservation in the main, and in the minutiae. It is a helpful distinction even for our time. In more ancient times when there were versions with some passages missing, or distorted, the power of God through their Bibles nonetheless worked mightily in converting and nurturing souls – as we can see up through the church age.

The same applies today with some Bibles preserved in the main (say missing or delegitimizing passages such as the last 12 verses of Mark, the baptism of the African eunuch (Acts 8:37), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), 1 John 5:7-8 KJV), 1 Tim 3:16 KJV, etc – how is a caring and safe approach to such to be done? There are saints today who use different versions than I do, who are nonetheless godlier and better believers than I am. the woman through whom I was converted in 1968 used the Lamsa Syriac version.

I remember, when I was around 27, a very new Christian, and I learned that the NASB had different readings than the KJV I had purchased in my first church, I knew I had to find out which was correct, as I had come out of dark satanic influence and depths (the sorceries of the Woodstock / Haight-Ashbury counterculture of the 1960s), and needed to know with a certainty what was the true word of God. I had to learn – and it took years – what Bible had, for the most part, survived the ravages of the centuries, with satanic forces raising up liberal scholars to affect the Bible and its truths.

I have studied these things for decades as there were deliberate and wicked attacks against the word of God. It is not a mere "mental thing", an intellectual hobby, with me but a matter of life and death to my soul. There are many who are not such spiritual desperados as I, needing to be savvy about the ins and outs of Bible versions.

I know people dear to me who cleave to the NIV '84, and I leave them be, while still upholding important passages; others prefer the NKJV, and I leave them be.

We need to be as careful with souls in this matter of versions as in any other crucial-to-their-faith issue!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Rich, I did not do justice to your concern, and I'll try to do that now. You said:

If a Greek reading produced through retroversion from the Latin can be embraced within the providentially received text, while surviving Greek manuscript evidence pointing elsewhere is ruled out because it falls outside the approved mechanism, then we need an argument for why Providence must be understood in precisely that way.

That is the point at which the discussion repeatedly seems to confuse certainty that God preserved his Word with certainty that we know exactly how he did it.

I do not think the latter is required by the former.

First, I want to say it is most unlikely I will convince you of my view, as you are an astute scholar in your own right, and have arrived at your own nuanced understanding of how the LORD preserved His word. You have spoken of this a number of times, and have shown how careful you have been in your scholarship. This does not mean I agree with your findings, but I certainly do respect them.

About the retroversion – translating a text back into its original source language – I gather you may be referring to the bringing back into the Greek from the Latin of the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7-8 KJV. (Please note that I am replacing the formatting of certain Scripture verses as they have changed since the quote below was written.) In the following I want to show the basis of my confidence in the imperative need and warrant for my approach. You most likely will not agree, and I accept that.

At this point I want to quote from Frederick Nolan’s book, An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament, to show the legitimacy of the "retroversion". (source of following quote – from an earlier PB thread)

With respect to 1 John 5.7-8 KJV the case is materially different [than the cases of 1 Tim 3:16 KJV and Acts 20:28 KJV]. If this verse be received, it must be admitted on the single testimony of the Western Church; as far at least as respects the external evidence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to set aside the authority of the Greek Church, and pay exclusive respect to the Latin, where a question arises on the authenticity of a passage which properly belongs to the text of the former; yet when the doctrine inculcated in that passage is taken into account, there may be good reason for giving even a preference to the Western Church over that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the heresy of the Arians, who rejected the doctrine of the passage in question; the latter was wholly resigned to that heresy for at least forty years, while the Western Church retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the former on the subject before us, is consistent and full; that borne by the latter is internally defective. It is delivered in language, which has not even the merit of being grammatically correct; while the testimony of the former is not only unexceptional in itself, but possesses the singular merit of removing the forementioned imperfection, on being merely turned into Greek, and inserted in the context of the original. But numberless circumstances conspire to strengthen the authority of the Latin Church in supporting the authenticity of this passage. The particular Church on whose testimony principally we receive the disputed verse, is that of Africa. And even at the first sight, it must be evident, that the most implicit respect is due to its testimony.​

​

In those great convulsions which agitated the Eastern and Western Churches, for eight years, with scarcely any intermission; and which subjected the sacred text to the greatest changes, through the vast tract of country which extends round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African provinces were exposed to the horrours of persecution but for an inconsiderable period. The Church, of course, which was established in this region, neither required a new supply of sacred books, nor received those which had been revised by Eusebius and St. Jerome; as removed out of the range of the influence of those ancient fathers.​

​

As the African Church possessed this competency to deliver a pure unsophisticated testimony on the subject before us; that which it has borne is as explicit as it is plenary: since it is delivered in a Confession prepared by the whole church assembled in council. After the African provinces had been over-run by the Vandals, Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of this church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 John 5:7 KJV was generally thus received, its universal presence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning.​

​

The testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us, is not more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than the immemorial tradition of the evidence, which attests the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian, were Africans, and have referred to the verse before us. Of these witnesses, which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. Thus they form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the African Church, until it loses itself in time immemorial.​

​

The testimony of the African Church, which possesses these strong recommendations, receives confirmation from the corroborating evidence of other churches, which were similarly circumstanced. Phoebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the latter; and both these churches had been exempt, not less than the African, from the effects of Dioclesian’s persecution. Both these early fathers, Phoebadius and Eucherius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage: the testimony of the former is entitled to greater respect, as he boldly withstood the authority of Hosius, whose influence tended to extend the Arian opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the contested passage. In addition to these witnesses we have, in the testimony of Maximus, the evidence of a person, who visited the African Church; and who there becoming acquainted with the disputed passage, wrote a tract for the purpose of employing it against the Arians. The testimony of these witnesses forms a valuable accession to that of the African Church.​

​

We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church in confirmation of the African Churches. Not to insist on positive testimonies, the disputed verse, though not supported by the text of the original Greek, is clearly supported by its context. The latter does not agree so well with itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Church. The grammatical structure, which is imperfect in itself, directly recovers its original integrity, on being filled up with the passage which is offered on the testimony of this witness. Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly corroborative of that of the Western…​

​

…I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the eastern and western world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was reposed…[4] [Bold emphasis added.]​

So this – at least in part, for there is much more that can be said (and I have provided more resources re the Johannine Comma in various places here recently) – constitutes my believing 1 John 5:7-8 KJV is authentic. Rich, I know I will not convince you, and I both accept and respect your differing with me. Scholars may differ (though I will repeat, I am no longer much of a scholar now) and yet remain united in our faith and trust of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus.