Home > Fundamentalism, King James Only, Mallinak, The Word > When Did KJVO’s Stop Believing in Preservation?

When Did KJVO’s Stop Believing in Preservation?

October 26, 2009

Thanks to Jack Schaap, the KJVO debate has reached a rolling boil among the ranks.  Right now, on my desk, sits a stack of articles from all sorts of sources, not least of which is the Sword of the Lord, and mostly those representing the various colleges in the Hyles circle.  The articles have titles like “The Inspiration of the King James Bible,” “Is the AV 1611 King James Bible Inspired?” “What Did Jesus Write?” “Siding With the Plowman,” “Editor Makes the Case for Inspired Text,” “The Inspiration of the Scriptures,” and “The Inspiration and Preservation of the King James Bible.”  In each case, the author denies that he believes in “double-inspiration.”  And in each case, the author proclaims a doctrine that is impossible unless God re-inspired the Bible in English. 

Here is what flabbergasts me.  These men claim that they believe in preservation — they claim to believe that God kept every word of Scripture.  And then, they turn around and deny that.  In their attempts to argue that God’s Word is preserved in English only, they make statements like, “God allowed the Greek and Hebrew to go into oblivion.”  They deny that God’s Word is preserved in the languages in which it was given.   They argue that the Originals do not exist, and cast reflexion on the integrity of the various manuscripts of the TR, the basis of our King James Version.

In order to uphold our English Bible, those who claim to be King James Only are now denying that God has preserved the very words that he gave.  I find this mind-boggling.  What purpose does it serve to attack the foundation of the King James Bible? 

When the Psalmist said in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever,” what words was he speaking of?  What words did God promise to keep?  Would David have understood this to mean English words?  Would he have thought that God was promising to keep any words other than the Hebrew words in which the Old Testament was given? 

How about Matthew?  When the Bible says in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” how would Matthew have understood this?  Would he have thought that Christ was referring to English words?  Would Paul understand this to mean that God would lose the Greek words, the very words in which this verse and the majority of New Testament verses were given?  Would Peter have understood this to mean that the Greek words would be lost and/or replaced with English words?

To argue that the Greek and Hebrew words were lost or “went into oblivion” is to argue that God failed to keep his promise.  He promised to keep them, as the old Divines would say, “by His singular care and providence.”  Ironically, those who have made the King James Version their first issue are now denying God’s promise in order to maintain their singular loyalty to this version, and subsequent rejection of the Original Languages.

 How sad.


  1. October 26, 2009 at 8:58 am

    That’s a good word for much of the current debate.

  2. October 26, 2009 at 9:11 am

    Well expressed and gets straight at the issue. These KJVO are the worst enemies of the KJV by denying the doctrine of preservation.

  3. October 26, 2009 at 10:03 am

    I didn’t realize that Bro. Schaap was on the KJVO side of this debate. I guess I have been out of circulation for a while as it were.

    You brought up a point I had never thought about. You are right, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    On a related note, a lot of people completely overlook the damage the idea of double inspiration does to non-English language Bibles. Some of the KJVO people even try to “correct” quality translations by making “corrected” or new translations from the KJV instead of the original languages.

    The KJVO defenders say I don’t really have the Bible in Spanish, when the reality is, I could easily use a lot of the same arguments the KJVO crown uses to defend the Spanish Bible and to say the KJV is corrupted.

    • David Emme
      February 11, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      Scapp is and is not. As I am a KJVO currently, many times dispute those who believe like me. Schapp basically stopped argument on the KJV issue and is going into teaching bible languages including Latin.

      From what I understood, he believes similar tomy own in it is inspired but inspired through preservation and not Ruckmanite re-inspiration.

      The sad thing is Hyles gave Riplinger a doctrate and is the female version of Ruckman. My fiance in the Philippines asked for me to send her books by Riplinger and had to explain to her pastor she is exactly the same as Ruckman and he thanked me for the warning.

      The more I go on I see it as less of a problem as KJVO does more to harm the cause of Christ then reading an ESV. I think critical thinking and logic/debate would be good subjects to learn.

      • February 12, 2010 at 5:57 am

        KJVO does not cause problems – it is a sound position. What causes problems is splinter factions (aka Ruckman and Riplinger) within (or at the edge of) KJVO, that depart from the Bible and/or make many arguments based on emotion, rather than the Biblical and historical evidence.

  4. October 26, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    You have accurately reflected the concerns of many of us who hold to preservation in the original languages and the concerns we have expressed for many, many years.

  5. October 26, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Thanks to all of you.

    Having taken some heat on this issue, I believe it is time that we gave some heat in return. This is the best starting point.

    As far as Jack Schaap being on the KJVO side of the debate, that really isn’t what I am saying here. He has opened the can of worms, that’s all. Now the worms are wriggling all over the table.

    Luke, the tension over the Spanish Bible really does demonstrate the presuppositions that these men make when they approach preservation. I’m glad you brought it up. In some ways, what they have done is to try to create an issue where none existed to begin with.

    I trust that there can be a settled and accepted translation. And I hope that nobody will start claiming that it is the “inspired” translation.

  6. artdunham
    October 27, 2009 at 4:46 am

    Brother Dave,

    This issue is what brought me to JackHammer in the first place. The thoughtful and scriptural treatment of the issue some months ago was like a breath of good, clean air in this argument.

    As is the usual case in the Hyles, SOTL, KJVO (I should say English only) camp, each of them is trying to “huff and puff” and be more KJV than the other guy. Their silliness is more damaging to those of us who believe that God preserved His Words in the TR than anything from Dallas Theological Seminary.

    If anyone on this list has not read it, please get Brother Kent’s book “Thou Shalt Keep Them.” Then, pastors, you should teach those truths to your congregations. It helped our church immensely.

    God bless Jackhammer!

  7. October 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm


    Another point that needs to be made here is that the ultra-English inspiration guys are quickly losing the battle within their own ranks. Their children are realizing that their church’s position is not Biblically sound, they are grabbing hold of the arguments that the original languages are not preserved, and they are going to the MVO position as a result — after all, the common ground between the English preservationists and the Critical text position is that both agree that there is no preserved original language text.

  8. October 28, 2009 at 8:45 am


    Thanks for the post. I agree with your premise. However, it seems to me there is a bit of misinformation about the Spanish Bible on this post. Do Luke and Dave know the issues regarding the Reina-Valera?

    The original 1602 Valera was changed quite a bit using the Critical Text in 1862. This was futhered in 1909 and 1960. The most common Spanish version in use by independent Baptists today is the RV 1960, which has purposely been changed in limited areas to agree with the critical text.

  9. October 28, 2009 at 8:57 am

    José Flores, President of the Spanish Bible Society and consultant for the revision states in The Text of the New Testament, “A principal added to the first list of the Reina-Valera Revision Committee was that: ‘Where the Reina-Valera version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow another better text, we will not return to the Receptus.’ Point 12 of the ‘Working Principles’ says: ‘In doubtful cases over the correct translation of the original, we will consult preferentially the English Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and the International Critical Commentary.'” [pg.232]

    Eugene Nida also is quoted on the United Bible Societies website as saying that the text of the RV 1960 was changed in ‘limited’ places to convince conservatives that they need to go with the Critical Text.

    • October 28, 2009 at 10:01 am

      Donald Heinz :
      However, it seems to me there is a bit of misinformation about the Spanish Bible on this post. Do Luke and Dave know the issues regarding the Reina-Valera?

      • October 28, 2009 at 10:11 am

        Frankly, I am not much for textual criticism of the RV60 or any other text. I am interested in having a faithful translation that is true to the original manuscripts. Both the Spanish RV60 and the English KJV fit that description and have stood the test of time.

        I love my Bible that has both texts in parallel columns.

        If anyone really wants to wade into the subject of the Spanish Bible, I would suggest the writings of Bro. Calvin George at http://www.literaturabautista.com

        Bro. Donald, I suspect that we could argue these points until we are blue in the face. At the root of this is that you apparently believe in the (secondary) inspiration of the KJB, and I believe in the inspiration of the original manuscripts.

  10. October 28, 2009 at 11:20 am


    I don’t have to say anything. You proved your own flawed thinking by accusing me of something I don’t believe and not answering the issue I brought up.

  11. October 28, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Calvin George states on his website, “The Textus Receptus is a good authority and is therefore authoritative, but it is not the final authority.” He believes the preserved Words of God are scattered throughout the manuscripts, and the Critical Text should be consulted in translation. There is no difference in his position and Metzger’s, except that he says that he believes the King James is the best translation in English.

    • December 18, 2009 at 8:22 pm

      Sorry to join the discussion so late, but someone informed that my views were being discussed, so I wanted to clear my name. The following was said of me: “He believes the preserved Words of God are scattered throughout the manuscripts, and the Critical Text should be consulted in translation. There is no difference in his position and Metzger’s, except that he says that he believes the King James is the best translation in English.”

      That the Critical Text SHOULD be consulted in a translation is not my view, but rather that it CAN be consulted, just like the KJV translators consulted the Vulgate. There is a big difference between CAN and SHOULD. (All caps used for emphasis only). I do not endorse Bruce Metzger’s writings nor translations he worked on, and I think it is a misrepresentation of my views to say there is no difference between him and me except for my belief that the KJV is the best English translation. I have a list of books I endorse on the issue, and you will see that they differ considerably from Metzger’s views: “Non-extreme books in defense of the KJV or the Textus Receptus” http://en.literaturabautista.com/node/48. The Word of God is found collectively across the manuscripts, but it also is best represented in the various editions of the Textus Receptus. I do not hesitate to refer to my KJV as the Word of God.

  12. October 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Bro. Donald,

    My apologies. I don’t know you, but from your comments and a quick glance at your website, I was of the opinion that you believe the KJV to be the inspired word of God. Most people who hold to that position naturally believe the KJV corrects all other manuscripts.

    Also, I am quite familiar with Bro. Calvin’s site, but I don’t recall the statements you referred to, and I couldn’t find them. Links to the statements you reference would be much appreciated. I would prefer to let him speak for himself given that he has written extensively on the subject. As I proved earlier, it is easy to misrepresent one’s exact position given the nuances of this subject.


  13. October 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm


    I do believe the King James IS the inspired Word of God because I believe that God preserved His inspired words, word for word, in the Textus Receptus,and the King James is the most accurate translation of those inspired words. I believe both Dave and Kent agree with that. If that is what you mean by (secondary) inpiration, that is what I believe, but I would not call it that. There is only initial inspiration and then preservation of the inspiration through proper translation.

    Calvin has an article on the Textus Receptus being the final authority. I believe that is where I found the quotes.

  14. October 28, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    What I was referring to was some of the jockeying that has gone on about the Gomez. As I understand it, the Gomez is a faithful translation and does not come from the Critical Text, yet some of the ultra-KJVO’s want something that is word-for-word from the KJV.

    If I had a choice between a translation that is from the Critical Text and one from the TR, I would always choose the one from the TR. But if I have a choice between a translation from the TR and one from the KJV, I am choosing the one from the TR.

  15. October 28, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    By the way, Luke, Don is a regular here, and I think I know him well enough to say that he is not an English-preservationist. I do think that he has a point regarding the RV60. I also understand that you missionaries are in a bind, when telling people that the Bible they have used for years is not trustworthy. I pray that you will have wisdom.

  16. October 29, 2009 at 4:33 am


    I understand your concern about the Spanish Bible. It is true, there are some who want the King James in Spanish word for word, not taking into account the damage that might be caused when translating directly idioms that were not in the original. For instance, where the Greek says in Romans 6:1, “no be,” the English says “God forbid,” and the Spanish says “in no way.” Which is closer to the Greek? Well, neither. But, if you try to translate “God forbid” into Spanish, and then 100 years later somebody tries to translate the Spanish into some other language, it will cause confusion, and people will ultimately want to know the obvious, what did God say originally?


    As for the Spanish Bible debate, this is usually how it goes with the majority of the pastors. They defer to Calvin George. Then when you ask them what Calvin George believes about preservation, they say they don’t know. Well, isn’t that an important detail when we are talking about refering people to him? I believe this is precisely Dave’s point here. We trust certain people’s opinions on issues without vetting their beliefs, especially on preservation.

  17. October 29, 2009 at 7:45 am

    This is the post where Calvin George states that the Textus Receptus is not the final authority in the text issue, but rather the manuscripts. His belief is that the Words of God are preserved in the manuscripts, not in the Textus Receptus. To him the TR is good, but not the final authority in textual issues. The manuscripts are the final authority. So, any version is fine, if it can be found somewhere in the manuscripts, I guess.


    • December 18, 2009 at 8:47 pm

      If I really taught what you said in my article, why not quote me directly? In my article I explained that if the originals ever were the final authority (my view), then they will always be the final authority, because a final authority is just that–final. On point 11 of my article I taught clearly that the originals are the final authority. You portrayed me as follows: “His belief is that the Words of God are preserved in the manuscripts, not in the Textus Receptus. To him the TR is good, but not the final authority in textual issues. The manuscripts are the final authority. So, any version is fine, if it can be found somewhere in the manuscripts, I guess.”

      Here’s a sample of what I wrote, translated to English: “Even though we don’t have the originals at our disposal, God promised to preserve his Word. We have them spread collectively among all the manuscripts, AND in a reliable form (although not perfect) in the editions of the Textus Receptus. Historically the Textus Receptus has been the starting point for conservative translations.” (All caps added for emphasis).

      Another example of my view comes from the concluding paragraph: “In my opinion, their labor [that of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and Elzevir] is the best representation of the Word of God preserved in the manuscripts. The various editions of the Textus Receptus should continue to be used as a starting point in translations. The Textus Receptus is a good authority and therefore authoritative, but it is not the final authority.”

      Even if you don’t agree with all my views and opinions, don’t my direct writings as just quoted contradict the allegation that I believe “any version is fine, if it can be found somewhere in the manuscripts?”

      • December 19, 2009 at 6:08 am

        Your quotes do not contradict my allegation. I think most people can see that. The fact that you are more subtle about it doesn’t really change things. And, the proof of my conclusion lies in the fact that you continue to defend the differences in the Reina-Valera from the Textus Receptus as being found once in some other historical and traditional language version of the Scriptures, when the very revisers of the Reina-Valera said they didn’t go to different editions of the TR for their changes, they went to the critical text.

      • December 23, 2009 at 9:34 am

        For example, you defend the difference added in Mateo 5:22 by saying that the Reina-Valera 1960 reads just like the Tyndale New Testament in English. That is your whole defense in http://www.literaturabautista.com/node/97. So, although the Reina-Valeras from 1569 to 1959 and the TR’s included “without a cause,” you think that the revisers of the RV’60 lied when they said they made their changes according to the Critical Text and rather followed the Tyndale NT?

      • December 23, 2009 at 2:22 pm

        When a KJV reading is criticized for not being close enough to the Greek, often KJV defenders will point out how previous Reformation-era Bibles utilized the same reading being criticized. I believe the Spanish Bible should not be denied a privilege that is allowed for in defending the KJV.

        In the introductory page to the vindications you refer to, I stated the following: “There is a precedent in these Textus Receptus-based Bibles as well as others regarding numerous readings in the 1909 and 1960 that have been questioned.” I don’t claim that the 1960 translators actually used all these pro-TR sources during their revision work, just as Jack Moorman doesn’t claim that every source listed in the KJV column of his book “Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the AV” was used by the KJV translators (some sources where unknown in 1611). I don’t claim that the 1960 translators happened to notice the Tyndale reading for Mat. 5:22 and allowed it to influence them, for example, but I have demonstrated that there is precedent for this 1960 reading in a translation universally considered to be based on the TR (Tyndale). No one that I know of is calling for discontinuing placing the label of “TR based” upon the Tyndale NT in spite of that reading and some others that do not reflect the TR.

        This statement from the same introduction is also relevant: “In some cases a passage in the 1909 and 1960 not covered here may indeed be based on a critical text, without previous precedent in TR-based Bibles that I had available for my perusal. However, I believe the evidence I present in ‘Explanations for Problem Passages in the Spanish Bible’ demonstrates that this does not happen all that often.” I believe the various editions of the TR are authoritative and should be the starting point in a translation. However, I don’t believe the textual decisions of the TR editors were inspired or infallible, so a given departure from the TR (as long as the TR remains the basis and no verses are missing as in the 1960 and KJV) doesn’t mess up my personal criteria for a valid translation.

        The fact that I don’t reject the 1960 automatically because the translators sometimes used the critical text, I don’t think is much different from the fact that you don’t reject the KJV automatically even though the KJV translators sometimes used the Vulgate. I don’t imply that you don’t believe in preservation in the light of the KJV sometimes using the Vulgate. The KJV departed from the TR slightly less often than the 1960, and according to you in less significant details than the 1960, but in the end we still have departures in both of them any way you look at it. Some have tried to get away from that by trying to redefine what the TR is (so they don’t have to admit the KJV contains departures from the TR), but I think that is self-serving and attempting to re-write history.

        The fact that you pointed out that some who have read my writings don’t know what I believe about preservation demonstrates that I don’t write so much about my personal views and opinions. Of course my personal views and opinions do reveal themselves here and there in my writings on the issue, but I try to make facts, figures and history my focus. Some of my articles contain more of my opinions and views than others. I would like to think that the information I provide for people in my writings can be helpful even if they do not agree with my personal opinions. Feliz Navidad.

      • December 26, 2009 at 4:59 pm

        You continue to explain away the evidence. The revisers said that they purposely rejected the TR, preserved departures from it in the 1909, and added to them. If Spanish speakers accept this, they will soon find themselves adrift. If your philosophy was applied to the King James we would be using the New King James or the NASV, not the King James. Why do you not accept the NKJV or the NASV?

  18. October 29, 2009 at 8:47 am

    Since Bro. Calvin’s position has been brought up, here are some English articles for non-Spanish speakers who want to talk about Spanish Bible versions.


  19. October 29, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Feel free to read all that Calvin George has to say, if you have the time. However, first consider the simple and straightforward statements of a consultant to the revision, who declares that the revisers gave preferential treatment to the critical text in all changes, as mandated by their working principles. Isn’t that enough to sound an alarm among preservationists? To me it’s a smoking gun.

    The reason it didn’t sound an alarm in 1961 among Spanish-speaking missionaries is that no enough of them really cared about textual issues, they were more concerned about just getting churches started. And, the newly converted Spanish pastors did not have any education in textual issues. If it sounded good, it was good for them. Why has Bearing Precious Seed Ministries refused to publish the 1960 for decades?

  20. October 29, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Thanks for the facts on the Spanish Bible. It’s all Spanish to me. What some should know is that in essence the historic Spanish, German, French, and Italian Bibles all came from the TR. There are some differences from what I read, as much as there would be between Bezae and Stephanus or Elzivir, but they are essentially the same.

  21. October 29, 2009 at 3:00 pm


    I am extremely surprised with your evaluation of the issue. Seems to me you have a double standard regarding the changes made in the Reina-Valera since 1602 and an insistance that the King James be maintained.

  22. October 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm


    I’ve heard plenty of rumblings and ruminations about this issue — but I’ll confess that I’ve not fully understood the issue. So, here are some questions that maybe you can help me with, since this does come up periodically with prospective missionaries (normally, they are upset with me for not knowing).

    1) Is the main problem with the Reina-Valera in the 1961 edition?

    2) Is the main problem with the RV-1961 the fact that they updated it, and in updating it, used the critical text?

    3) How much of the RV-1961 was changed with the 1961 edition?

    4) Before 1961, how many updates, etc. were done to the RV since 1602?

    5) If I spoke Spanish fluently, would the 1961 edition be significantly different to me from the 1602 edition? Would it be as different as, say, the 1611 KJV is from the edition we currently use (1769)?

    6) Do you use the Gomez? I have been told that there are several different editions of the Gomez — almost as if the Gomez is a family of Bibles. Is that true?

    7) What would be the major difference between the RV-1602 and the Gomez? Would there be a problem with someone using the RV-1602 as opposed to the Gomez?

    Luke, feel free to answer these questions as well, if you like.

    I realize that the comments are a bit off-topic here. We weren’t writing about the Spanish Bible. But since we’re on it already, I might as well take this opportunity to answer the questions I have from two guys who are in the thick of things.

  23. October 29, 2009 at 6:54 pm


    Here are the short answers to your questions.

    1) Is the main problem with the Reina-Valera in the 1960 edition?

    No, as far as I understand the revision of 1862 shows a sharp spike in changes aligned with the critical text. The 1909 preserved those changes and added to them. The 1960 preserved those and added to them again.

    2) Is the main problem with the RV-1961 the fact that they updated it, and in updating it, used the critical text?

    There is no problem with updating the wording. The issue is changes that are clearly and intentionally aligned with the critical text, no with different editions of the Received Text.

    3) How much of the RV-1961 was changed with the 1961 edition?

    I don’t know of any single comprehensive evaluation, but Rex Cobb of Baptist Bible Translators did an evaluation of over 1000 pasajes in the NT. The 1602 has 57 differences with the Scrivener NT. The 1862 shows 116 departures of over 1000. The 1909 122 in the same passages. And the 1960 shows 191.

    4) Before 1961, how many updates, etc. were done to the RV since 1602?

    Apart from those mentioned above, revisions were done in 1858 and 1865, that I know of. Both of those noticeably reduce the number of differences to 55 and 30 respectively.

    5) If I spoke Spanish fluently, would the 1961 edition be significantly different to me from the 1602 edition? Would it be as different as, say, the 1611 KJV is from the edition we currently use (1769)?

    The 1960 would be significantly different in expression to the 1602, similar to the difference between the 1611 and the 1769, yes.

    6) Do you use the Gomez? I have been told that there are several different editions of the Gomez — almost as if the Gomez is a family of Bibles. Is that true?

    There are only three official editions of the Gómez. The final edition is not widely available yet except in the bilingual. Some pastors and missionaries have different editions from the E-sword or digital updates.

    7) What would be the major difference between the RV-1602 and the Gomez? Would there be a problem with someone using the RV-1602 as opposed to the Gomez?

    The problem with the 1602 is that it would be difficult to read and understand at first. It would take a lot of learning to understand the differt characters used, and there is a significant amount of vocabulary that would seem strange. Finally, the grammar structure is different, although there were many places where the 1909 still presented the same difficulty. The advantage of the Gomez is the updated language and the greater faithfulness to the Textus Receptus as we know it today.

    • October 30, 2009 at 4:32 am

      Do I understand that you recommend the Gomez translation? If so, which one? Would you be so kind to state the reasons why? How is it that you know about the Spanish? I have two missionaries: one from our church in Honduras and one pastor in Spain that we support and a missionary friend in Madrid who has strong opinions, but none of those mentioned have adequately explained the issue or their conviction. The missionary from Spain said this to me recently, “The speaker makes much of the TR, but doesn’t realize (or ignores) that the Spanish 1960 that he is criticizing is correct on Luke 2:22 while the KJV changes “their” to “her” purification (The Greek is very clear on this one. The KJV translators “interpreted” this one instead of translating it literally because of the implications.)” I have no clue as to what he is referring to in the Greek/English and definitely do not know the Spanish. Can you shed any light? Like you and others, I believe that God preserved His inspired words, word for word, in the Textus Receptus, and the King James is the most accurate translation of those inspired words.

      • October 30, 2009 at 9:16 am


        Yes, I recommend the Reina-Valera-Gómez. There is only one other option, the 1602 Purified. I prefer the RVG more for practical reasons than purity. The RVG is much more available, and the language is more updated. We use the second edition of the RVG in our ministry, but I will be using the third edition when it becomes available soon.

        The reason I use the RVG is that the Reina-Valera line of Bible started out as a Received TExt Bible, but it has been highjacked and changed in critical areas. This has been clearly documented by Rex Cobb from Baptist Bible Translators. I simply want to be as faithful to defend the very Words of God in Spanish like I do in English. When the Revised Version came out in English there was an uproar. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the NIV or the TCV, etc., but those who had a conviction regarding preservation protested. That did not happen in Spanish. There was no protest because there were so few with a conviction and expertise in textual criticism. Now we are much further down the line and have to fight against the current to get the Spanish Bible back in line with the TR, and get her publication back in the hands of people that believe right.

        As for Luke 2:22 and what the missionary told you, he is very wrong. In Greek there are plural and singular forms, just like in English and Spanish. There are two possibilities, autes or auton. They are both personal possesive pronouns, one is her and the other is their. Then when you consider the language of the OT passage that deals with the purification, it always and exclusively refers to her purification, not their purification. That is why it appears as her purification in the major editions of the TR. In Spanish there is a clear difference between her and their as well, ‘de ella’ or ‘de ellos.’

      • October 30, 2009 at 9:49 am

        I have to correct something I wrote here, the Stephens 1550 had “their purification”.

    • December 23, 2009 at 9:22 am


      Did these answers help? What do you think?

  24. October 29, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    To give this a little more perspective. Kent has a chapter in Thou Shalt Keep Them dedicated to doctrinal passages affected by critical changes (chapter 18). Of the 50 plus passages mentioned, the 1960 errs in 5. Matthew 5:22; Mark 1:2; Ephesians 4:6; Romans 1:16; 1Peter 2:2. Matthew 5:22 was changed in 1960. Mark 1:2 was changed in 1862. Ephesians 4:6 was changed in 1960. Romans 1:16 and 1 Peter 2:2 were like that in 1602. However, Romans 1:16 was changed to include “of Christ” in 1862 and 1865. 1 Peter 2:2 did not include “for salvation” in 1865, but every other version did.

  25. October 29, 2009 at 10:38 pm


    Our book, TSKT, teaches my position. I haven’t moved at all on that. But there are readers out there that might think that the other Bibles, the non English ones (non-KJV), were based on the critical text. That’s all I was saying. When we say, TR, we do mean the text received by the churches. A common question, however, that you’ll hear is “which TR?” As a baseline, however, all of the major Bibles came from the TR. They didn’t have identical words, but very close, and where they differed, those words were available. I think saying, I believe my own book, however, should give you the understanding of my position on preservation. We are going to come out with TSKT 2, hopefully soon, in which we make the applications to this issue.

  26. October 30, 2009 at 4:36 am


    I will be one of the first in line for TSKT 2. Glad to hear there will be a sequel. Also, I want to be clear on this as well as you, the Reina-Valera IS A TR-based BIBLE. The Valera 1602 was a purification of the 1569 “Bear Bible”, the first Spanish Bible translated from Greek and Hebrew. And, Valera states that his purpose in revision was to remove man’s words from the midst of God’s Words. He stated that he believed Reina had allowed some corruptions from the Septuagint and the Vulgate. He states these things in his “Exhortation to the Reader.” But, years after changes have been made to bring those influences back into the Spanish Bible. Many of us cannot sit by and simply say there is no problem here. And, I think many scholarly and pious men agree there is a problem. The solution is a whole-nother matter. However, on principle the solution lies with the church that Jesus built, not with the UBS.

    As for the “Which TR?” question, that is a very common question in the debate. My personal opinion is that I can live with variations that we find among the TR’s, if the Spanish-speaking church can live with it. However, it is important to note the possiblity that even in the original Valera there were still problems. For instance, Luke 2:22 has been a controversial verse. That difference can be found in the TR’s. If my memory serves, it was in one of Stephens editions. It is not however, in the 1550 or 1598, or any of Erasmus’ editions. Also, doctrinally I believe it can be proven not to agree with the OT. But, ultimately we have to admit there is a difference in the TR’s on that one. And though the ‘Critical Text’ did not exist yet, Valera was concerned with the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. And, he invites further revision of his work to purify it. What happened though was the opposite in 1862, 1909, 1960. My question is, when will it stop? It will stop when the church says that it doesn’t want the UBS to change their Bible. But, the church will have to have a Bible of their own then. That is what is happening with the Trinitatian Bible Society, the 1602 Purified from Monterrey, and the Reina-Valera Gómez. Nationals are saying they seen where this is going and believe something needs to be done. Those that use the 1960 can say they won’t change, but they DID change. And, when this generation dies off, the next generation will accept the next change, unless something is done.

  27. October 30, 2009 at 4:52 pm


    Yes, that’s exactly all I was doing was letting people know that they all came from the TR. We’re talking about something in the 20th century attempting to change that, but all the Bibles came from essentially the same text, so it wasn’t just an English thing, which is a common charge.

  28. October 30, 2009 at 8:07 pm


    I understand now what you meant. Sorry for the confusion.

  29. November 7, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    I just did a post in Spanish on Mark 16:18 in the Reina-Valera. It is a good example of a change that was made strictly on the basis of the Critical Text of the UBS. The words “in their hands” were not in any of the Reina-Valeras until the 1960. And, that phrase doesn’t even have universal acceptance in critical texts. Nestle did not include it in 1904. However, it is in Wescott and Hort’s GNT and it is in the UBS GNT of today. They added that phrase to the Reina-Valera 1960. It was never in the TR (I checked the 1516, 1522, 1550, 1598, and 1894). So, the question is, did the revisors of the 1960 believe in preservation of the words of God? Or were they looking for the lost words?

  30. December 23, 2009 at 10:43 am

    I also want to just add a comment of appreciation here. I do like the spirit in which most commenters here make thier points. This is a HUGE issue. I thank you all for your posts and sharing of positions here. I am especially thankful for the Spanish issue being discussed. I do not speak Spanish, but I am seriously considering studying it. Our church is in a city with a considerable Spanish population. Many years ago, we attempted a Spanish speaking service, with the hopes of eventually seeing a Spanish church started, unfortunately, the men involved one by one have moved on…

    There are not many gospel-preaching Spanish churches in Philadelphia. Those that are, are not Baptist churches with strong stands (at least that I am aware of). I think too often we get caught up in the worldy attitudes and get angry at the happenings around us, instead of seeking a way that the Lord could use us to reach folks as we ought to. For example, a famous cheese-steak man in the city has a slogan “This is America, order in English”. This sounds good to me as an “American citizen” (not meaning to be offensive), but as a servant of Christ, I need to seek to be “all things to all men”…

    I don’t understand the Spanish issue as I ought to, and I thank you men for bringing it up!

  31. Isaac Paz
    January 16, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Consider the 1865 Valera. It is superb in accuracy, completeness and linguistic beauty. Of course, men with their own agendas will critisize it, but you will notice that even in their most heated arguments the “mistakes” they find are minimal and most times are their word prefrences and not doctrinal diffrences. The 1865 Valera Bible which is the outstanding representative of the 1602 Valera Text. The 1865 Valera was published at time when the 1602 Valera was very, very rare. That is why the American Bible Society released the 1865. To bring the 1602 Valera text to the people. The 1865 Valera presents the 1602 Valera text without adding Westcott and Hort texts.
    “At May 1 meeting in 1865 Dr Holdich presented a long report on the history of this revision in the face of objections to the expense and lenght of time consumed, he concluded: “(It) AIMS TO ADHERE AS CLOSELY AS MODERN USAGE OF THE LANGUAGE WOULD ADMIT TO THE VERSION OF VALERA (1602), to modernize spelling, to change obselete words and otherwise objectionable words for words in present use, but not so to adopt modern words or phraseology as to mar the beauty of the antique style or to make an unbecoming mixture of the ancient and modern”.*

    *qouted from ABS History Text and Translation Essay #16 1860-1900 by Margaret T Hills. January 1966.

  32. February 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Pastor Brandenburg,
    I too look forward to TSKT 2. Will you tackle the issue of the various editions of the King James Version in that book?

  33. February 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    And conjectural emandations?

  34. February 12, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Bill, we’ll try to tackle everything that needs to be tackled.

  35. February 12, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Do you still have copies at your church bookstore? If not sholud I look at

    Challenge Press or Amazon?

  36. February 12, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    I meant TSKT 1 and should

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: