Aug 10, 2026

Textus Receptus and KJV cannot claim perfection

We have identified a fundamental logical problem that historical Christian scholars themselves recognized. We reveal that even the most prominent defenders of the Textus Receptus rejected the claim that either it or the KJV achieved perfection.


The Scholarly Consensus Against Perfection

John Dagg, a 19th-century Baptist theologian, distinguished between the original inspired autographs and their preservation through copying, arguing that while Scripture’s original production required divine intervention, “the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God.”[1] James M. Gray, a contributor to The Fundamentals, explicitly stated that “there is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists.”[1]


Dean Burgon’s Explicit Rejection

Even Dean John Burgon—often cited by KJV-Only advocates—directly contradicted their position. Burgon declared: “we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text” and “again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction.”[1] Burgon proposed over 150 changes in the Textus Receptus manuscripts in the Gospel of Matthew alone.[2]


The Logical Outcome

Our observation is precisely correct: if the TR lacks a fixed form and the KJV underwent over 75,000 changes between 1611 and 1769—not to mention subsequent revisions—then neither text can claim perfection. While manuscript differences comprise a relatively small percentage of the biblical text and seldom affect important doctrinal points,[3] the cumulative evidence demonstrates that perfection in translation and textual transmission remains an impossible standard given human limitations.

[1] James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 385–386.
[2] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Philippians, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 254.
[3] Jessica Parks, “New King James Version,” in Major English Bible Translations, Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2022). [See here.]


No comments:

Church Division Is a Grave Sin

Church Division Is a Grave Sin A Call to Repentance for Those Who Divide the Church over Bible Versions, Verbal Plenary Preservation, and th...