https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/church_weekly/the-bible-kept-pure/
Here are the key errors and weaknesses in the article:
Theological/Logical Errors
- The article conflates inspiration (God superintending the original writing) with preservation (transmission through history). These are related but distinct doctrines requiring separate arguments, not simple equations like "100% inspiration requires 100% preservation."
- The Westminster Confession phrase "kept pure in all ages" is being made to carry far more weight than it was originally intended to bear. Most WCF scholars argue this refers to the substance of Scripture being preserved, not the precise wording of a specific textual tradition.
- Matthew 5:18 is misapplied. Jesus was affirming the authority and fulfillment of the Law, not making a promise about manuscript transmission accuracy.
Historical Errors
- The article implies the Textus Receptus (underlying the KJV) represents the purely preserved text, but the TR itself went through multiple editions with variations — Erasmus compiled it hastily in 1516 with significant errors, even back-translating from the Latin Vulgate in places.
- The KJV translators themselves did not hold the view being argued here. Their preface explicitly acknowledges they worked from multiple manuscripts and expected future revision.
Logical Fallacies
- The article presents a false dilemma: either the KJV/TR is perfectly preserved, or we have no reliable Bible at all.
- Circular reasoning appears throughout — the preserved Bible must be the KJV/TR because we need a perfectly preserved Bible.
Omissions
- No engagement with textual criticism as a discipline or the vast manuscript evidence (Dead Sea Scrolls, papyri, etc.) that actually demonstrates substantial preservation.
- No acknowledgment that the Byzantine/TR tradition itself contains textual variants and debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment