Does Matthew 4 and 5 Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?

Does Matthew Chapters Four and Five Teach that God will Providentially Preserve the Hebrew Text or KJV 1611?  In short, No.

My heart goes out to the pastors and professors who are trying to teach God's word.  However, academic honesty requires me to exposes the faulty exegetical handling of the biblical text.  Matthew 4 and 5 serve as another test case for how the text of scripture is misused to try and teach God chose to preserve his word only through the means of the Hebrew text and one particular Greek manuscript.  Of course this must then extent to the language of English alone.  This texts in question are used to teach Jesus believed God providentially preserved the Hebrew text (and only the Hebrew text) of scripture.

So what's our texts under discussion,

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mt 4)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mt 5)

The phrase "it is written" (which occurs throughout the NT) appears in conjunction with the Septuagint (LXX), not just with the underlying Hebrew OT text (NT, eight times): Acts 7:42-43, Rom 2:24, 3:4, 11:26, 14:11, 15:21, 1 Cor 1:19, and Galatians 3:10.  To be fair, Jesus here is quoting from the Hebrew text.  However, Jesus also quotes the LXX Matthew 13:14-15; 15:8-9; Mark 4:12; 7:6-7; Luke 4:18-19.  So to deny that Jesus used the LXX puts you in a historical inaccurate situation.  Also to deny that the phrase "it is written" also applies to the LXX puts you in violation of the actual text of scripture.  Both of these texts are used by many KJV only advocates to teach God chose only to preserve the Hebrew text (which underlies this particular English translation).

Further, to try and use this "jot" and "tittle" terminology to claim God would only preserve his OT text in the Hebrew language is incorrect on multiple accounts, As previously stated above, the phrase "it is written" is also applied to LXX texts (not just quotations from the Hebrew text).  Second, since Jesus quoted from the LXX, God in-flesh himself did not have a problem quoting form a Greek OT text (that apparently he also stated here in Mt 5) was only to be in the Hebrew text.  Third, and this is more my concern, there is such an attempt to look for proof-texts to defend this modern KJV only defense position, that nearly anything and everything looks like a proof text for their position.  Yes, we must admit this last point could be applied across a large spectrum of both doctrinal issues as well as daily practical issues.

So what then was Jesus actually teaching here?  What point was he trying to get across?  I would suggest that Jesus is teaching the abiding or present authority of the Old Testament which will continue till all points of prophecy and typology are fulfilled.  Again, to be fair, some identify the concept of inspiration taught in these verses.  Let's back this up with the view with other current writers,

"He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle" (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1400).

"Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time " (The ESV Study Bible, p. 1828).

"The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520).

"Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He has said in His Word without fail" (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363).

So as we can see these text do not necessarily imply that God chose only to preserve his word in the Hebrew text (nor is authority found only in the Hebrew text).  God has preserved his word and it is still authoritative today.

As always comments encouraged.

Historical Quotations on the Translation issue,

(1881) "No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipissima verba, * written by the inspired men in every case. . . . It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation (Robert L. Dabney, Works, vol. I, p. 398; borrowed by Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).
* Latin for "the very words"

(1881) "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.  For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them.  All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." (C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-343; from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to the One English Translation? (My Thoughts)

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to a One English Translation Position? (My Thoughts Only)

What actual ingredients would be necessary to free a person's conscience from believing only one English translation is appropriate?  Or to believe God has only preserved his word (providentially) in one English translation (or for that matter in only one Greek text)?  What steps are needed to help members of a local church to reach this ability?  This assumes that this position is even necessary or desirable.  Please remember this implies two things: one, they are not currently violating their conscience in using a different English translation; and two, the conscience can be taught, shaped, and re-calibrated via the scriptures.  

First, it begins with local church leadership.  The one pastor or lay-elders (whatever the polity), need to be involved proactively.  If your preaching displays that the text doesn't matter then don't expect the congregation to think otherwise.  If you actually preach and teach as though the text or underlying Hebrew and/or Greek matter, then perhaps your congregation will be more on board (but this is no guarantee).  Does the leadership actually teach the people?  Do they just throw a book at them to read?  Worst case scenario, the pastor wants to push ahead faster than the congregation.  Don't fall backwards if there is a church split (pushing too fast).  If people don't want to follow where you (alone) want to go, maybe you should slow down or rethink that particular route.  It would be much better to take things slower than to speed up and hit a wall.

Second, it begins with believers who desire to know the historic truth on the Bible translation position.  If they are content not knowing and remaining in that condition, it makes things very hard.  However, if the congregation is actually taught (through painstaking time and effort) to read and study the scriptures for themselves, this does present a better working environment.  It must be said that church attendance is not always a guarantee of Christian maturity (but you just got to wonder when some people never show up Sunday evening or Wednesday night).

Third, our standard for determining truth is not subjective experience.  It is the scriptures alone.  In God's providence certain English translations have been especially used of God in Christian circles.  From a sales perspective, certain translations have far outsold the others?  Some have even taken on their own distinct theological flavor (especially depending on who endorses them).    Remember not to confuse the theology or life-styles choices (evangelism, convictions, etc...) of the individual with the actual objective teachings of scripture.

Again these are just thoughts I have collected and experienced having lived in six different states within a multitude of different churches.  This also comes with graduate level seminary degrees from two different seminaries within fundamental Christian circles.  And yes there will always be overlapping agreements and alternative disagreements between schools.  Again I say this only because I've seen it really work well and I also have seen it turn our very ugly.  I've seen where people will not study, learn and grow.  I've also seen the reverse where people do grow and mature in their understanding of the historical position on the translation issue.  Just to be fair, even mature Christians will disagree on this issue.

As always, comments encouraged.

Voices from history on the Translation issue, 

(1910) "Inspiration is affirmed, of course, only of the original documents, now no longer extant.  Many mistakes may have been made by copyists, and some interpolations by officious scribes and translators are fallible.  It is the part of reverent criticism to seek, by careful examination and comparison of all existing documents, to detect errors and restore as far as possible the Scriptures in their original purity" (A. T. Pierson, Knowing the Scriptures, p. 21; Taken from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

(1910) "One evening he remarked that no one claimed verbal inspiration for the English Bible-although that was remarkably accurate-but only for the text of the original writings.  "Then," exclaimed a gentleman rising in the front seat, "if we cannot read the original we might as well have no inspired Bible at all."  "Well," replied the lecturer quickly, "my daughter, who is a missionary in Japan, recently sent me a photography of her child whom I have never seen.  No doubt it is not a perfect likeness.  Do you suppose that I said, as I looked upon it, that is not the original and therefore I might as well have no grandchildren at all?" (Arthur T. Pierson: A Biography; By Delaven Leonard Pierson, p. 284; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist, Greenville, SC). 

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

The disciples were faced with a similar issue in the first century while traveling with the Messiah.  They wanted to destroy everyone who did not cross every "T" and dot every "I" the way they did.  However, I would suggest we don't always treat each other as if we are.  Of course, it goes without being said, doctrine does exist on many different levels.  Some are non-negotiable while others are open for disagreement.  I would suggest that the translation issue has been lifted up by some here in America to the level of primary importance.  Not just inerrancy or inspiration but an actual English translation.

Jesus' response is very applicable to us today,

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."  (Luke 9:49-50)

That being said it should help to provide some motivation for how we handle those who disagree with us on the English translation issue.  Or for that matter the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Do both sides hold to inerrancy?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions at times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny Biblical inerrancy.

Do both sides hold to plenary verbal inspiration?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions a times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny plenary verbal inspiration.  

Do both sides believe God has preserved his word?  I would suggest, yes (although they will disagree as to the "means" of preservation).

I could be wrong in applying these verses to the translation issue (and for that matter any other issue).  Perhaps it is wrong to apply this to doctrinal areas (depending on the level--primary, secondary, etc...).  But it does help provide a simple theological grid for dealing with others who are actually doing something to expand the Christ's Church.

This doesn't mean stop preaching and teaching the truth.  Warn and instruct you congregation (and your family).  Just don't forget we are on the same side.

Comments encouraged.

The English KJV 1611 Only Position is a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

The One English KJV 1611 Only Position is Really a Plea for Their Own Exclusive Authority

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three     Series Part Four 

As strange as it may sound.  After a thorough reading of One English Translation Only (KJV1611) literature and websites, it is clear that authority is a major concern of the advocates of this position.  For example, I went through one text supporting their position which only contained about ten chapters but it contained over 100 references to authority. Not just authority in general but where to find it.  They don't always agree but I think I can clearly extract several common threads.  Authority and where it is found is a key issue.  Let's be clear: even though many of their motives may be different, and no doubt are different, the product is the same.  But just to be clear, all my verse, chapter and book memorizing still comes from the KJV.  Not for academic reasons but for the churches we seem to attend.  Yes, we've had to deal with our children quoting other English versions for their kids clubs.  This is an issue, howbeit a local church issue.

First, they believe (whether correct or not is another issue) that God has promised to providentially preserve his word and they alone in history know where it is.  It just happens to be the primary Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation (the KJV).  Now to be fair, many in fundamentalism (many of whom I know personally) are translating the Scriptures into modern (non-English spoken languages).  So its okay to translate the Greek and Hebrew into some tribal dialect just not into modern English?  I would suggest to my KJV only advocates that they should learn from this practice.  Just like the KJV translators tried to put the scriptures into the language of the people.  Not just another edition with archaic words defined in the margins.  They were driven to make good translations better and more readable.

Second, this claim of authoritatively knowing God's chosen means of preservation is also expanded upon through employing the systematic theology category of providence.  As they teach, God in his providence, only preserved his word in one particular Greek text (and not in any other text).  Stephanus? Beza? TR?  Just to be clear, according to their position, providence cannot (is not allowed to) extend to over 5000 available manuscripts in vast agreement (this is simply dismissed as history not providence).  Providence is only allowed (contrary to all history) to cover the texts underlying the one English only position.  Is there any text in scriptures that states God chose to use a Traditional text or Received Text?  No.  There is only a default defense of the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their choice of a One primary English Translation position. This is not a straw man.  This is a simple default position.  They believe in only using one English translation.  Therefore, they will vehemently defend what underlies it and attack all other positions unceasingly (including personal and ecclesiastical separation, an issue which also needs to be addressed).   

Third, as just noted, any and all positions on other Greek and Hebrews texts (including the Septuagint "LXX") are a threat to their chosen position.  They alone believe they have this authoritative truth preserved in the manuscripts which coincidentally are the basis for a One primary English Translation position.  To disagree with their position is to disagree with how they understand God's claims of preserving his word.  This line of thinking only perpetuates itself if people in churches remain uneducated on the historic position on this issue.  This is only enforced by leadership who never address the issue or only encourage this view of the scriptures.  Then what is needed is information to free a bound conscience (this we will address in a future article).

Fourth, I believe another reason these individuals can never acknowledge the existence and authority of the Septuagint is the Apocrypha.  Not to mention the original one English translation they hold to originally contained the Apocrypha (which is inconsistent with their own 1611 position).  What does this mean?  They are so adamant against the inclusion of the Apocrypha (and rightly so).  The London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession held to this position.  Nothing new here.  My concern is that in their desire to avoid this document they refuse to accept the historical reality of the Septuagint.  Take your pick, this is a simple throwing out the baby with the bath water or guilt by association (just don't extend it to the original KJV).

Finally, we should take care in placing all adherents of a one English Translation into the same box together.  This is just a reminder from their own literature.  They disagree among themselves as to the authority of an English translation.  They disagree among themselves concerning comparisons with Greek and Hebrew texts, or even with other English translations.  Don't forget there are even groups who would want to correct original manuscripts or call it sin to use any other version.  So lets not lump them all together.  Many fundamentalist colleges and seminaries still have the KJV as their official public position for ministry (preaching and teaching).

Questions to Ponder:
1) Did God chose the English language to providentially preserve his word?  The way the one English translation position is defended it is really hard to avoid this conclusion.  If not, how about the underlying original language text (question two)?

2) Did God chose to providentially preserve only the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying their one English translation only position?  If yes, I would extend the question: Are you then willing to create an English translation (today) from these texts?  If your answer is "no," then go back to previous question.  

Did you just default to an English KJV 1611 only position?
  
Really these questions drive at the heart of this issue.  They truly believe authority is only found in their one English translation.  This one source of authority is why they can never agree to the production of a modern translation (even from the Hebrew and Greek texts) which they alone believe God used to preserve his word.

Instead of a new translation.  They will produce dictionaries for the hundreds of archaic and outdated terms.  (I have one of these dictionaries).  They will produce English Bibles with all the outdated terms defined for the reader.  I think they may be trying to make a 400 year old English translation readable for modern Christians instead of a modern translation for modern Christians.  Again, we still need to address conscience related issues in  a future article.

Historical quotes on the translation issue,

"Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection.  Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit.  Criticisms of this kind, made with modesty and judgment, and not in consequence of a preconceived system, are worthy of encouragement." (Andrew Fuller, "Works," vol. III, p. 810; Borrowed from Trust Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word.  So far as those translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done, so far they are of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek.  We have reason to thank God that many of the translations are, in the main, faithful and accurate." 
(J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 20; Again borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Thoughts?  Comments as always encouraged.

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew Text? History says "No."

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew text?

A quick read over historical documents shows us that Christian past did teach that God would preserve his word through the generations (See LBC and WCF).  Question: why all of a sudden has God decided (according to some in very recent history) to only preserve his word in one English translation?  Or to be fair and a little more broad (to encompass the more academics): why all of a sudden has God decided to only preserve his word in the Greek and Hebrew texts which coincidentally (or providentially) are the primary texts used for translating the KJV?

One such Biblical text used by modern KJV advocates (apart from several others) is Psalm 12.  The important text for our discussion is verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  This sound really compelling that God is promising to preserve the scriptures (his word) throughout history. Before diving into the context note two things that you will never find.  First, no reference to the means of preservation (neither in Hebrew nor English).  Second, there is no reference to an English translation as the only means of God preserving scripture (for at least my predominate English speaking country).  See the problem already for Spanish, French, or Italian (not to mentions hundreds of tribal dialects)?  Again, problem not helped just going back a step to a Hebrew text.

Anyway based on the actual context of Psalm 12, who or what is preserved?  Did David claim God would preserve people or a text of scripture?  Does quoting Hebrew grammar change the interpretation at all?  Let's start with the context of the Psalm.  The Psalm divided nicely into two sections: vv. 1-4, 5-8.  The first section tells us the verbal assaults that God's people receive from the world.  God's people are defined as "the godly man" and "the faithful" (v. 1).  But who are the verbally attacked?  Verse one tells us "the children of men" (v. 1) and "the wicked" (v. 8).  We know its verbal attacks because verse two addresses it with terms "they speak vanity" "with flattering lips" and "they speak."  So three times the idea or image of a verbal attack is identified. The believer's petition is that these verbal attackers would be removed "cut off" (v. 3).

What is God's response?  In verse five, he promised to "set him in safety."  Obviously the "him" is the godly people from verse one.  They are distinguished from the attackers, "him that puffeth at him."  Now we come to verse six?  What is God promising?  Is he identifying the character of scripture in general?  Is this what the context requires or implies?  Why insert this topic here?  Is it not possible that God is referring to his promises made to the godly in verse five "to set him in safety," to protect and preserve him?  

Now we come to the debated text (v. 7).  Is God promising to "keep" and "preserve" the actual words of verses 5-6?  Perhaps even the Hebrew text?  How is this helpful?  When believers are in the middle of trials from the world and unbelievers "the children of men," how is it helpful for God to say, "Don't worry I am promising to providentially preserve my Hebrew scriptures"?  Is that really encouraging counsel?  I don't have any worries when attacked by the world because God promised to providentially preserve the Hebrew manuscripts.  Please take note: this is not the same as God making promises in scripture to comfort his people in times of trial. 

So what actually would be helpful counsel from God?  I will "keep" and "preserve" you!  I will protect my people.  In fact he does promise to protect them (the people) from the world around them "from this generation" (v. 7).  In the very next verse he reminds them who is attacking them, who it is that is "this generation," it is "the wicked" and "the vilest men" (v. 8).  That is helpful counsel and a response to prayer "Help. LORD!" (v. 1).

So how do English translations after the KJV 1611 handle this verse from the same Hebrew text.  So whatever they do you can't use a TR argument against them (Greek NT).  Let's see:

"You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever." (NKJV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever." (ESV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever." (NASB)

So what caused several later translations to use personal pronouns making it clear that God was promising to protect and preserve his people not a Hebrew text of scripture (or a later English translation)?  From here I'll provide lines of evidence.  First, technical and second a listing of Study Bibles and commentaries who agree with this interpretation of preserving God's people not a text.

First, and this will sound technical, 

"The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender." (NET Bible, Translation notes, 12:7).

" The suffix ēm in v. 8a refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in v. 8b (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, v. 6" (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 5, p. 122).

"The two verbs of this verse in MT have 3 pers. pl. and 3 pers sing. suffixes respectively. The translation above assumes 1 pers pl. suffixes on both verbs, for which there is good support in the Heb. MSS (De-Rossi, IV, 6) and the versions (cf. G and Vg)." (Peter Craigie, Word Biblical Commentary, Vo. 19., p. 137).

So to construct any argument to say the Hebrew text references God's word just doesn't stand up to exegetical scrutiny.   

Second, commentary from Study Bibles and commentaries,

"The people that God assuredly will preserve." (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 770).

"It seems best to take them as the poor and needy (v. 5) and the godly (v. 1).  Their disappearance was not absolute." (The ESV Study Bible, p. 953).

"The ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 128).

"Regardless of the circumstances of life, God's children are assured of the special protection of their heavenly Father. . . He keeps them safe from the wicked" (VanGemeren, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 808).

"He will preserve 'them' (lit. "him"), the individual sufferer, from the attacks of the wicked in David's own time." (Peter, Steveson.  Psalms. BJU Press, Greenville, 2007).

How about an older one from the 1700s,
"thou wilt keep thy poor and lowly servants" "thou wilt be with thy church to the end of the world" (George Horne, Commentary on the Psalms, p. 70).

So we see here that Psalm 12 does not aid the KJV 1611 position.  God did not promise here to preserve a particular Hebrew text.  Apart from reading this idea into the text, this is just not taught here.  He also did not promise to preserve a particular English translation (which is also completely contradictory to the translator's of the KJV).  He promised to protect his people from an evil world around them.  This is comfort and encouragement.  

Quotes from history,

"In a letter to a fried she wrote, As to 1 Corinthians ix.27, why did you not see that the Greek [adokimos] is literally and clearly "not approved," being simply the negative of [dokimos].  You cannot read the Greek word otherwise; and how it came to be translated "castaway" I can't imagine." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, p. 232; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

". . . Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach.  It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version than any other Greek text. . . . There are, however many places in which the Authorized Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. . . . in some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate (F. H. A. Scrivener, The Parallel New Testament: Greek and English, pp. xxiv-xxv; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Educated yourself on this issue.  As always comments encouraged.

Helpful Books for Educating Yourself concerning the English Translation Only Position

Helpful Books for Educating Yourself concerning the English Translation Only Position

The longer we live in Indiana (state not relevant), the more I appreciate having a solid educational foundation from multiple conservative seminaries within Christianity.  The more I interact with this issue, the more I am concerned that people simply aren't educated in this issue.  Even worse is a refusal to be educated.  In an era of massive internet availability via the internet, books, and multimedia there should be no excuses for being uninformed.

Below is a collection of helpful texts from multiple sources addressing the English Only text position (listed in alphabetical order via author):

Barnard, Richard K. God's Word in Our Language. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids), 1989.

Beacham, Roy E. One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001).

Beale, David. A Pictorial History of Our English Bible. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1982.

Cairns, Alan. "Textual Criticism." Dictionary of Theological Terms. (Ambassador-Emerald International, Greenville, Belfast), 1998.

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).

Comfort, Philip W. The Origin of the Bible. (Tyndale: Wheaton), 1992.

Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? A Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration in the Light of Inerrancy. (The Craig Press, New Jersey), 1968.

Custer, Stewart. The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1981.

Jodock, Darrell. The Church's Bible. Its Contemporary Authority. (Augsburg Fortress: Minneapolis), 1989.

Ramey, Court. Why the Bible Matters. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1999.

Ramler, Kent and Randy Leedy. How Firm a Foundation. (BJU Press, Greenville), 1995.

Thomas, Robert L. How to Choose a Bible Version. Making sense of the Proliferation of Bible Translations. (Christian Focus Publications, Great Britian), 2000.

Ward, Mark. Authorized. The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible. (Bellingham: Lexham Press), 2018.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. (Baker, Grand Rapids), 1999.

White, James R. The King James Only Controversy. Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Bethany House Publications, Minneapolis), 1995.

Williams, James B. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. A Layman's Guide to How w Got Our Bibles. (Ambassador Emerald International: Greenville, Belfast), 1999.

Williams, James B. and Randolph Shaylor. God's Word in Our Hands. The Bible Preserved for Us. (Ambassador Emerald International: Greenville, Belfast), 2003.

Multiple journals have addressed this issue and are worthy of your reading.

Enjoy.  Read, pray, memorize, and live out your Bible and grow in Christlikeness.

Comments as always encouraged.