Our findings so far

Biblical inspiration should not be confused with the perfection of every manuscript, printed edition, or translation.

Main points:

1. The original Scriptures were inspired by God.
   The Bible is authoritative because God inspired the biblical writers. But this does not mean that every later handwritten copy or translation was itself directly inspired.

2. The KJV 1611 translators did not claim their translation was perfect.
   Their preface, The Translators to the Reader, shows humility about translation and acknowledges difficulties and possible alternative renderings. The 1611 KJV also contains marginal notes giving alternative readings or meanings.

3. The KJV is a translation, not the original revelation.
   The Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek. The KJV is an English translation produced through scholarly work. Therefore, it should not be treated as verbally identical to the original manuscripts.

4. There is no single, absolutely identical Textus Receptus.
   The TR consists of several printed editions associated with Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. These editions are substantially similar but contain differences. Therefore, simply saying “the Textus Receptus is perfect” raises the question: Which TR edition?

5. The Textus Receptus is not the same as the Majority Text.
   These are related but distinct textual traditions. The TR contains some readings that are not the majority reading of the surviving Greek manuscripts.

6. The Majority Text is not identical to every Greek manuscript.
   The manuscript tradition contains variants because manuscripts were copied by human beings over many centuries. Some differences are extremely minor, while others are more significant.

7. Textual variants do not mean that we have lost the Bible.
   The enormous number of manuscripts actually provides abundant evidence for comparing readings and studying the history of the New Testament text. Most variants are relatively minor, and the central doctrines of Christianity do not depend upon one disputed textual reading.

8. The Bible does not promise preservation of one particular English translation.
   Scripture promises that God's Word will endure, but it does not identify the KJV, the TR, or any other later edition as the uniquely perfect form of Scripture.

9. KJV-onlyism can confuse the authority of Scripture with the authority of a translation.
   Saying “the Bible is God's Word” is not the same as saying “the 1611 KJV is God's Word in an absolutely perfect form.” The translation is a servant of the original languages, not a replacement for them.

10. A better doctrine distinguishes inspiration, preservation, and translation.
    The paper proposes:

    Inspiration: God inspired the biblical authors.
    Preservation: God providentially preserved His Word through history.
    Translation: Faithful scholars translate that Word into other languages.

The ultimate conclusion is therefore not that Christians have an unreliable Bible. Rather, the conclusion is:

God's Word is inspired and trustworthy, but no surviving manuscript, Textus Receptus edition, Majority Text, or English translation should be confused with the inspired autographs or regarded as verbally perfect in every detail.

That is, in my view, the strongest scholarly position because it allows us to defend the authority of Scripture without having to defend the historically indefensible claim that the KJV 1611 or one particular TR edition is itself a perfect, divinely preserved text.