Mark Ward is being very, very nice. He’s not calling King James Version supporters liars, who say that the New King James Version follows the critical text in certain places. To be a liar, you have to know you’re wrong. These men don’t know, so they haven’t perjured themselves. He writes a paragraph espousing his own personal niceness for not calling these men liars, who are merely ignorant. He has never seen a list of places where the New King James Version deviates from the same text as the King James Version, so he was willing to make the claim that it isn’t true that there was a list and with a long blog post.
I wrote a comment under his post, showing him instances where he is false, that is, producing a list, albeit not a complete one, but a satisfactory one to make that claim (as of this writing, he’s published another comment, who “quotes me”–not actual quote of me–and did not publish two comments, where I sent just a list). I hope he publishes it. He’s very, very nice, and this is important to him, as he very often categorizes King James supporters by whether they are nice or whether they aren’t nice. I’m assuming I’m not nice. Some people online think they are the niceness pope and can come down with a condemnatory judgment of “not nice.” If something is unbiblical and you don’t like it, and you act like you don’t like it, you might not be nice. God wasn’t “nice” at the flood, the tower of babel, and at many other times. But today, you’ve still got to be nice, which seems to be more important with many than being biblical. Plenty of critical text people are not nice, and I could produce an all star list of them, which would mean what?
I want to inform you that for sure I would never take a position that the New King James Version differs than the King James Version in its underlying text, unless I could see those differences with my own eyes. I wouldn’t just make a claim. I would have to see it myself. Who would even do that? I would like to know the name of a person who would make that unsubstantiated claim. Produce the list! Ward makes the claim that there is no list of verses that changed based upon a different underlying text, because he’s searched a lot and hasn’t found it. I’m going to have to believe that he really searched. One way to search is to look yourself at the Greek New Testament or read the New King James Version along side the King James Version. I haven’t done a thorough search in my opinion, but I have found several examples to support the claim.
The first list I ever saw was sent to me, and I reprinted that list. Before seeing that list, I myself just assumed that the NKJV came from the same text as the KJV. Once I saw it with my own eyes, I changed on that. I’m going to give you several examples just so that you can have that at your finger tips. I don’t think the critical text critics of the KJV even care. I’ve already written about it, and it’s just a tool to use for them. They don’t even retract their previous statements.
KJV users have the NKJV and we don’t use it, which shows how ridiculous we are, because “it comes from the same text” (but it doesn’t), so it isn’t a textual issue. But it is a textual issue. Even then, move along. Doesn’t matter anyway. That’s what I’m saying. They don’t care. It’s just a tool, when no longer useful, it is meaningless. I’ve never seen an apology once it was revealed that they have been lying. Yes, I’m saying they’re lying, because they are too smart to not know this. You can see that you are translating from a different word. You know you are changing the text when you do it.
Mark said he really searched for a list. I took the list I had, and then I started looking some more, and my list grew, so I’m assuming there are many more examples than what I’m producing here. My gut says that the best answer to this list is that the deviations are minor. The changes are not minor, because they are still a lie. They don’t respect that words were changed, indicating that the very words in the end are not an issue.
I know now I could make a longer list than what I’m going to produce, especially since I didn’t look much into the Old Testament, but here is a mainly New Testament list (since we’re focusing on the TR):
Matthew 22:10, the critical has “hous” (“whom”) and the TR has hosous (“as many as”) and the NKJV follows the critical text with “whom.”
Luke 1:35, the NKJV follows the critical text in leaving out “ek sou” (“of thee”) unlike the KJV.
Luke 5:7, the TR has “tois” (“which”) and the critical text doesn’t have that word, and the NKJV follows the critical text, while the KJV does not.
Luke 6:9, the TR has a plural “sabbasin” and the critical text has a singular “sabbato” and the KJV is plural, Sabbath days, and the NKJV is singular “the Sabbath.”
John 10:12, the critical text leaves out the last word, “probata,” sheep, and the NKJV follows that, while the KJV follows the TR, which has that word, “probata,” sheep.
John 19:10, the critical text leaves out a second “echo” (“have”) and the NKJV follows that, not the TR, differing than the KJV.
Acts 15:23, the NKJV follows the critical text in omitting “tade”, or “after this manner”.
Acts 17:14, the NKJV omits “as it were” (“ws” in the Greek) and thus once again follows the critical text.
Acts 19:9, the NKJV follows the critical text in omitting “tinos,” so it effects the translation in leaving out the word “one,” as in “one Tyrannus.”
Acts 19:39, the the NKJV follows the critical text in “peraiterw” instead of “peri eterwn”, subtle but different.
Romans 14:9, the critical text leaves out the first “kai,” which is translated “both” in the KJV and left out in the NKJV, following the critical text.
Colossians 3:17, the critical text leaves out another “kai,” which the NKJV follows instead of the TR, which keeps the “kai,” which changes the translation, from “God and Father” to “God the Father.”
Jude 1:3, the NKJV leaves out “our” (“hemon”) following the critical text.
Jude 1:19, the critical text omits eautou (“themselves”), as does the NKJV.
Isaiah 9:3, the NKJV changes the Hebrew text behind the KJV by leaving out the “not” (“lo”) with OT textual criticism, the difference being that joy is increased instead of not being increased.
Edit: This list will be given an edit based on some critique at a post, which answers this post. I will return and give a link to this post that will give the edits.
Kent, Can you explain further about Luke 1:35? You don't mention TR there. I see "ek sou" in Scrivener, but that is not exactly the TR. "ek sou" is missing from the TR at https://www.blueletterbible.org/tr/luk/1/35/t_conc_974035.
In Bibleworks, BYZ and STE don't have those words either.
Of course, there are lots of other problems with the NKJV that are translational issues, e. g.:
lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV)
lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one (NKJV)
where the NKJV is not just updating "hard to understand" KJV texts.
Matt,
"ek sou" is in Beza 1598, which is essentially what the KJV and Scrivener's is based upon. It was in the Wycliffe translation of 1382. It was in the Geneva Bible in 1560.
KJB1611, how do you interpret the article? Is it impossible that it functions as a substantiver?
Kent, where I can get Beza in digital form? It appears BW10 does not have it.
Matt,
Scrivener's Annotated Greek NT.
Thomas,
I think the translation should be open to criticism too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt,
I had not seen your comment yet. No other reason at all.
By the way, I've sent Mark Ward 2 comments that only listed the deviations from the TR. If he had published those, I may not have written this post.
Dear Matt,
If you are talking about the "to" on gennomenon it definitely looks to make the participle a substantive.
I probably won't have time to comment further on this post for several weeks at a minimum, just so you know in case you were looking for further help, perhaps someone else can help you out with further questions.
Thanks.
KJB1611, I was talking about τοῦ πονηροῦ (Matt. 6:13), "the evil (one?)."
Dear Matt,
In the same sermon in Matt 5:39, "resist not evil" is also articular, and it cannot possibly mean "do not resist the evil one." The NKJV translators would have done well to follow the KJV and also look at how Christ uses exactly the same construction in the same sermon.
Thanks.
Matt,
What do you believe about the preservation of scripture? Do you believe that God promised in scripture to preserve every word and that every word would be available for every generation of believer?
We believe God preserved every word He inspired in the language He gave them. We believe in verbal plenary inspiration and verbal plenary preservation, because that is what scripture teaches.
I'm wondering respectfully what your point is.
Matt,
Respectfully. I didn't get your comment published in timely enough manner, so that you questioned me. I hadn't seen it yet. When I saw it, I published immediately. It happens here. That was hours of delay. I ask you some questions and you don't answer. Does this go only one way?
KJB1611, re: Matt 5:39, I think it is a very valid possibility that the article is a substantiver like in 6:13. Of course, the antecedent is different. "One," if the sense of the text, would be Satan in 6:13. But "one" in 5:39, again if the sense, would be contextually defined as the person who strikes you.
Your point about consistency is taken; however if both are translated as substantized, that also is consistent. But consistency itself is not the only hermeneutical tool that is in our toolbox. The context has to inform the meaning. Thus your conclusion that 5:39 could not mean "do not resist the evil one" is incorrect…that is, if you understood 'one' there to refer to Satan…he is not in that context.
I agree that the KJV translation must be open to criticism. It is a product of man. There was certainly good providence involved in the translation of the KJV, but not a miracle.
I did not receive Kent's comments; they were caught by my spam filter:
http://drops.forwarddesigner.net/cJL1Gw
I am working on a reply. I take the list Kent sent seriously. It is the first such list I have seen in many years of attention to this topic.
Kent,
No problem about the timing or order of your comment moderation. My own slowness to respond is due to three factors: 1) clock–so many ministries are at hand here that I can't tend to everything immediately; 2) prudence–is it wise for me to engage in a conversation such as this in light of many important ministry responsibilities and (rightly or wrongly) my perception that the conversation could easily turn sour and unprofitable; 3) significance–some of these textual issues don't amount to much in terms of modifying the meaning of the text. I'm not looking to get into a debate on the last two points, esp. since I'm quite cautious when it comes to handling the text of God's word. It is HIS, and not mine. And in that sense, I'm not against you and your desire to handle God's word as carefully as possible.
Focusing again on Luke 1:35, here's the origin of my issue. I was looking at the text in multiple English versions, BYZ and STE in Bibleworks, as well as the eclectic texts. I did not happen to have SCR open at the time (not because I'm against it; I just don't refer to it much as I have limited screen space to display translations). I didn't see "ek sou" anywhere. I didn't see it in the blueletter TR. Might have missed it. So I opened up SCR and saw it there. That order of events in my study led me to question your conclusion:
"NKJV follows the critical text."
I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert in these matters. However, as I evaluate two potential mindsets of the NKJV translators, I think:
1) Either they decided to go against the TR because they had some problem with it at this point and instead follow the eclectic text because they have an affinity for the eclectic text.
or
2) They decided to go against the TR and instead follow the majority text tradition.
Based on what I know, #2 seems much more reasonable. I don't think therefore that you can argue, "they followed the critical text." They could just have easily followed the majority text, which is more in line with what I understand to be their general philosophy.
Using the same approach you have suggested in your conclusion on Luke 1:35, it seems that I could argue that Pierpont and Robinson decided to follow the critical text at this location. But that conclusion doesn't match their mindset. It seems more likely that they decided to follow the majority of manuscripts, at least as they count them.
It just so happens that the majority text and the critical text agree here in not having "ek sou." I don't immediately chalk that up to "these texts purposefully omitted it." In my own understanding of the text, as I try to understand all the data that I have at hand, I take it to be very significant when Byz and UBS agree and disagree with the TR. In that case, I do tend to look at the TR with suspicion. I don't take the TR as gospel. Right or wrong, that's the reality in my study, and there are very good reasons in my mind for this. Again, maybe the NKJV deviates from the TR not because it consciously follows the critical text, but perhaps because it follows the majority text.
I will try to get to your other questions as time permits.
—
Pastor Matt Postiff
Fellowship Bible Church
Hi Kent,
I'm favorable to keeping a two-way conversation going, at whatever slow pace it might happen. I hope you are too, because I'll ask some direct questions here, hoping for direct replies. I will try to give direct replies to your queries as well.
Regarding Luke 1:35, you continue to say that "The translators followed the critical text." Do you believe the Stephanus text follows the critical text? Did Pierpont and Robinson follow the critical text? If no to either or both of these questions, could you concede that it is a reasonable position to hold that the NKJV guys may well have followed other traditional texts they had in hand at Luke 1:35? Do you believe they really turned to Westcott&Hort to solve a problem at this point? Could it be possible that they were offering a correction to SCR from the larger dataset of manuscripts available in the 1970s?
To your questions. Taking the last first, "I'm wondering respectfully what your point is."
My main point in engaging on this particular post was to ask about Luke 1:35. I wasn't "seeing" your point, and felt I should inquire or give a little push-back for other readers' sakes. Since the original post on Aug 8, this all grew a bit bigger than I anticipated. I looked at almost all of your examples and interacted with Mark Ward and was thinking about this issue again a bit more than I have in recent years.
Your first question: "What do you believe about the preservation of scripture? Do you believe that God promised in scripture to preserve every word and that every word would be available for every generation of believer?"
I believe the preservation of Scripture, and I believe it happens according to God's good providence in the multitude of extant manuscripts, and is still happening today in the preservation of MSS and translations. I believe in the miraculous verbal plenary inspiration of the text, and its corollary, providential verbal plenary preservation of the text, but not a miraculous preservation. (I am aware of a text like 1 Samuel 13:1, but I'm not expert enough to be able to make a dogmatic statement about it.)
I believe that all the facts dictate that we understand it this way. To understand it the way that I think you understand it, there are too many difficulties. For example: which TR or majority text is the right one? It certainly cannot be SCR, because that was reverse engineered from the textual decisions of the KJV translators (it appears to me that they did make such decisions and that a precise text containing every exact decision of the translators did not exist before that). It doesn't seem to be STE or BYZ either, for they differ from one another and SCR. Another example: which KJV? The 1611 and the 1769 differ. Even the 1769 differs slightly in the Oxford and Cambridge editions, at least according to https://www.rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/.
(Part 2…I was limited at 4096 characters).
In "all the facts" I include the Biblical witness, of course. I cannot see a specific promise of verbal, *miraculous* preservation. You might remind me of the list of texts you use to back that up, but some of the common ones seem to refer to continuing authority or infallibility, or they don't refer to the words of the Bible at all, or they don't specify the method of preservation specifically.
To give a more complete answer, I'll add this: I am inclined to the Majority Text for a number of reasons, but I don't throw out the other MSS families at all. But I'm certainly not a TR man.
Is every word available for every generation of believer? It seems that the word was temporarily lost on one occasion (2 Kings 22). Granted, it did still *exist.* There was an entire failure on the part of priesthood and the king (for he was supposed to write out a copy of the law himself [Deut. 17:18]). Nonetheless, the Law was not generally available to God's people. I believe that exceptions to the general rule may be granted by reasonable people for such situations as these (extreme apostasy, spiritual declension, and severe persecution). However, the general rule is that the word of God is, was, and will be available to every generation of Christians. I don't know exactly how easy it will be to possess or use during the Tribulation, but we'll leave that for another discussion.
As I understand your viewpoint, the certainty of your view is very attractive. But either my memory is faulty or I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you offer a specific text/manuscript that is "the" right one." Without a specific text and proof to back it up, the certainty offered by your viewpoint seems to be illusory at best. It is an abstract certainty, but it is not an actual certainty. So it is no certainty at all. Even one discrepancy undermines that certainty.
What is the right text upon which I can rest my certainty? I believe faith must have content to it–substantive, real content. If I am to hold to a particular text by faith, what is the content of my faith on the question of "which text?"?
Although your stated position has to do with the original languages, at least for the NT it seems to boil down, perhaps unwittingly on your part, to an English KJVO viewpoint. That is, if our certainty is tied to SCR, and thus the KJV, then that boils down to an English KJVO position, which I can't take. Too many Christians in the world have (had) no access to the English language, much less the KJV, for that to be true.
The differences in the KJV itself (see above) undercut the KJVO position. Not that I'm overly worried about those differences, Kent, since they are quite minor. Obviously I don't want to be guilty of the charge of straining out a gnat (nitpicking KJV differences) and swallowing a camel (from your vantage point, the majority text or critical text position would be a camel) (Matt. 23:24).
Pastor Matt Postiff
Matt writes: "Regarding Luke 1:35, you continue to say that "The translators followed the critical text." Do you believe the Stephanus text follows the critical text? Did Pierpont and Robinson follow the critical text? If no to either or both of these questions, could you concede that it is a reasonable position to hold that the NKJV guys may well have followed other traditional texts they had in hand at Luke 1:35?"
The point was deviation from underlying text of KJV. If they said they didn't deviate from that, same text, then I have a point, which was the only point. I haven't heard any communication of culling varied deviations from TR editions and we've moved off Mark's point, like a red herring. The TR edition issue wasn't Mark's issue. It can't be ek sou and not ek sou. One of those at least is wrong.
Mark writes: "you believe they really turned to Westcott&Hort to solve a problem at this point? Could it be possible that they were offering a correction to SCR from the larger dataset of manuscripts available in the 1970s?"
It's not a concern to me either way. I was answering Mark's one very narrow question. I do know the CT has the same deviation.
Mark Writes: "I believe the preservation of Scripture, and I believe it happens according to God's good providence in the multitude of extant manuscripts, and is still happening today in the preservation of MSS and translations. I believe in the miraculous verbal plenary inspiration of the text, and its corollary, providential verbal plenary preservation of the text, but not a miraculous preservation. (I am aware of a text like 1 Samuel 13:1, but I'm not expert enough to be able to make a dogmatic statement about it.)"
I wouldn't use "miraculous" any more either, although I've written it in the past, and it is used in a historical way to apply to preservation. I've read it. But a biblical understanding of "miracle" doesn't apply to preservation. I think it is providential original language preservation, the historical and biblical view. I can see that you leave some things out with your multitude of the manuscripts view, like a settled text from which words cannot be added or taken away and availability to every generation. You can't live by what you don't have or know.
Part Two.
Mark writes: "I believe that all the facts dictate that we understand it this way. To understand it the way that I think you understand it, there are too many difficulties."
I read an epistemological issue here. Is scripture by itself knowledge? Do we know it if God says it? Scripture itself says, yes. There is a biblical model and we can believe that, what scripture says to expect. Or we can not believe it because we enter the crime scene and allow our lying eyes to get in the way.
Mark says: "For example: which TR or majority text is the right one? It certainly cannot be SCR, because that was reverse engineered from the textual decisions of the KJV translators (it appears to me that they did make such decisions and that a precise text containing every exact decision of the translators did not exist before that)."
The KJV translators translated from something, so a reverse engineered text is again a red herring. It's more in line with Edward Hills assertion that it was a unique TR edition. The ecclesiastical text view says the church agreed on that, which it did, in line with a canonicity argument that is not new, but I represent in a chapter in Thou Shalt Keep Them. After the printing press, the church settled on the text behind the KJV. Based on scriptural presuppositions, we should just believe. We should anticipate that God would do what He said He would do, and there is nothing that occurred to hold us back from believing it.
Matt says: "It doesn't seem to be STE or BYZ either, for they differ from one another and SCR. Another example: which KJV? The 1611 and the 1769 differ. Even the 1769 differs slightly in the Oxford and Cambridge editions, at least according to https://www.rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/."
This is a can of worms. It would take a lot of time to go through the linked article, but I have a problem with the overall point. I believe in what God said He would do. Just as an example, 2 Kings 11:10, the Hebrew Masoretic was available and it says "temple of the LORD," not just "temple." You've helped prove the original language preservation point.
Matt,
Please pardon my, Mark writes, above, after I said Matt. I got Mark Ward on my brain there. My apologies. I don't want to rewrite and reformat, so take those as Matt. Sorry.
Matt writes: "In "all the facts" I include the Biblical witness, of course. I cannot see a specific promise of verbal, *miraculous* preservation. You might remind me of the list of texts you use to back that up, but some of the common ones seem to refer to continuing authority or infallibility, or they don't refer to the words of the Bible at all, or they don't specify the method of preservation specifically."
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/06/confession-of-faith-on-inspiration-and_28.html
The method of preservation is a big part of our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, and is also taught all over scripture. The Bible has far more to say about preservation than inspiration.
Matt writes: "To give a more complete answer, I'll add this: I am inclined to the Majority Text for a number of reasons, but I don't throw out the other MSS families at all. But I'm certainly not a TR man."
TR means "received text," as you know. The church received a text. There is zero teaching on "restoring a text," which would be to say it was lost.
Matt writes: "Is every word available for every generation of believer? It seems that the word was temporarily lost on one occasion (2 Kings 22). Granted, it did still *exist.* There was an entire failure on the part of priesthood and the king (for he was supposed to write out a copy of the law himself [Deut. 17:18]). Nonetheless, the Law was not generally available to God's people.
The doctrine of availability relates to those who receive. When believers wanted it, it was available for them. It wasn't lost, obviously. The message of that story is that God preserved it, like He promised. A passage where they have to look for it doesn't contradict availability.
Part Four.
Matt writes: "I don't know exactly how easy it will be to possess or use during the Tribulation, but we'll leave that for another discussion."
Matthew 24:35
Matt writes: "Without a specific text and proof to back it up, the certainty offered by your viewpoint seems to be illusory at best. It is an abstract certainty, but it is not an actual certainty. So it is no certainty at all. Even one discrepancy undermines that certainty."
It's not abstract. There is a text. Actual certainty centers on what He says.
Matt writes: "What is the right text upon which I can rest my certainty? I believe faith must have content to it–substantive, real content. If I am to hold to a particular text by faith, what is the content of my faith on the question of "which text?"?"
I don't see it so much in a text, as it is the words. We have every word available. I just believe it. Then it comes down to the attacks, which really involve very few words and I have satisfactory answers for those. I have never dodged a question, and right now all the questions are multiple repeats. Sometimes I don't answer the repeats. I have a book and a link in the right column with dozens of articles.
Matt writes: "Although your stated position has to do with the original languages, at least for the NT it seems to boil down, perhaps unwittingly on your part, to an English KJVO viewpoint. That is, if our certainty is tied to SCR, and thus the KJV, then that boils down to an English KJVO position, which I can't take. Too many Christians in the world have (had) no access to the English language, much less the KJV, for that to be true."
Unwittingly? (smiles) If you take an underlying text view, then when you preach, you don't mind bringing in an interpretational difference than the KJV translators, so it isn't English preservation. When you study, you don't look up the English word, but the Hebrew or Greek word. Much more here. And you use the underlying text to translate to different languages. The update challenge isn't because of opposition to an update. I've explained all this. I don't want an update myself. I would give someone a Defined King James.
To deal with your last paragraph, there is no majority text. The manuscripts have never been collated. There is no biblical basis to say that counting up the words of every handwritten copy is the means. What has the church received? Underlying text of KJV, the only one.
Hi Kent,
I wasn't disagreeing that there are deviations, so I grant that aspect of your point. But as far as I understand, the NKJV translators did not promise to stick to SCR, so the answer to your blog title (paraphrasing: Did NKJV deviate from TR=SCR) is "Yes, obviously they did." They never said they would not deviate from SCR. Rather, they said they were following the traditional text, which is a family, not a certain manuscript. This fact tends to undercut your overall point.
Not sure I understanding your "culling" sentence.
I agree we have moved off Mark's point somewhat, but we are still very close to it. I believe a discussion around these issues may help at least our readers, if nothing else. It appears to me that you are using the 'red herring' idea to avoid answering some of my questions. Had I done the same, I would have refused to answer your question about my view on preservation. I didn't refuse. I hope you won't continue to refuse to answer some of my specific questions. There are five that remain outstanding; I hope you will answer them for me because they are very much related to your point on Luke 1:35.
Right now, I'm convinced that you are wrong when you say "NKJV follows CT at Luke 1:35." You haven't proved your assertion. You have shown "NKJV is different than KJV and than SCR." That's it. That is useful information, but it does not change Mark's point.
Glad you are not using "miraculous" now.
Matt,
Matt writes: "I wasn't disagreeing that there are deviations, so I grant that aspect of your point. But as far as I understand, the NKJV translators did not promise to stick to SCR, so the answer to your blog title (paraphrasing: Did NKJV deviate from TR=SCR) is "Yes, obviously they did." They never said they would not deviate from SCR. Rather, they said they were following the traditional text, which is a family, not a certain manuscript. This fact tends to undercut your overall point."
It's been a difficult point to get agreement for something so unimportant. I don't think it's important that the NKJV translators relied on a different underlying text than the KJV, whether a different TR edition, CT, whatever. I was just saying that Mark was wrong on that one point, which defended people against the charge that they were lying. No one was attempting to lie. The bar moved to different TR edition. Maybe they did rely on a different TR edition. It would surprise me if they had every Beza, Stephanus, Erasmus, and Elzivir brothers edition in front of them, when they were CT men. But fine. As Mark has shown even himself now with his last comment, they still deviated. He took some unnecessary shots at us as he did, because some of what he writes lacks in some context.
I would translate the KJV differently in some places. I'm just saying I wouldn't call what they did a mistake. There are translational choices that aren't wrong, but are different than what someone else would make. For instance, the present indicative form and the present imperative form are the same in the Greek in several instances, and the KJV translators go with the imperative, when I would go with the indicative. Things like that. That doesn't change the text. I'm open to KJV translator mistakes, but I haven't seen it. Mark is very generous to call NKJV translators using a kind of dynamic equivalence, giving them that benefit. The same could be done of the KJV translators in their choices.
Matt writes: "Not sure I understanding your "culling" sentence."
I thought the original point was deviation from underlying text. I didn't put that in my title, but it wasn't to be confusing, just to keep a shorter title. I assume my readers can figure that out. It turned into finding, culling (culling means to select or gather from a larger pack), from a multitude of TR editions. That moved the goalpost in order to win an argument, like going from collusion to obstruction.
Matt writes: "I agree we have moved off Mark's point somewhat, but we are still very close to it. I believe a discussion around these issues may help at least our readers, if nothing else. It appears to me that you are using the 'red herring' idea to avoid answering some of my questions.
Just let me know what I haven't answered. I'm not trying to avoid anything. I'm trying not to be redundant, but I don't want to avoid. Just tell me what I've missed.
Matt writes: "Had I done the same, I would have refused to answer your question about my view on preservation. I didn't refuse. I hope you won't continue to refuse to answer some of my specific questions. There are five that remain outstanding; I hope you will answer them for me because they are very much related to your point on Luke 1:35."
I hate to ask you to list the five I haven't answered, but could you please do that. Some of them I thought were just overlapping questions meant to be clear, not separate questions, so just list your five questions. Please cut and paste so you don't have to retype. I don't think I started it. Someone needed to answer Mark's, "they're lying," charge, don't you think? Now I've put a lot of time in against an entire large group of people, all alone here.
Matt writes: "Right now, I'm convinced that you are wrong when you say "NKJV follows CT at Luke 1:35." You haven't proved your assertion. You have shown "NKJV is different than KJV and than SCR." That's it. That is useful information, but it does not change Mark's point.
You are correct. We are all giving our opinion. People will have to judge. I don't think it matters. As I said, the KJV, as Edward Hills wrotes, and I'm paraphrasing, is a unique edition of the TR. I would assert to you that the commentaries on the KJV, which preceded Scrivener, exegetical ones, for centuries relied on the text behind the KJV. The printed editions essentially had all the words available. The words were available. 1598 Beza is very, very close, and you can see that at the end of Scrivener's annotated Greek NT. What's important to me is the doctrine of preservation, that scripture teaches it.
Matt writes: "Glad you are not using "miraculous" now."
I'm interested in what the final difference is between miraculous and providential. I've become way more careful with the use of "miracle," and I would use it in only a technical way. However, I think providential is just as powerful, but lacks the purpose of a miracle. Providential very often looks or seems more powerful than a miracle, more has to happen for the providential to occur.
I am replying to your "Part 2" comment.
"Is Scripture by itself knowledge?" I would answer with a qualified yes. We need the Word plus the illuminating work of the Spirit to have true knowledge.
I would also say that we are speaking about a question that is logically prior to the one you are asking. We are asking "what is Scripture?" Of course, with the large measure of agreement between all MSS, we need not worry ourselves overly much about this question. But we can't simply ask, for example, "Is the Johannine Comma part of the Bible?" and answer it "Yes, Scripture says so!" That is to commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.
To my reverse-engineered "red herring" point. It is not a red herring–it is in the title of Scrivener's work. SCR shows us what the KJV translators decided to do with the MSS that they had available to them. The point is that the KJV translators translated from somethings (plural), not something (singular). They made textual decisions from the multiple MSS they had in their data set. You appreciate those decisions. But your view eliminates the possibility than anyone, even equally godly and wise as the KJV translators, could ever do that same kind of exercise again. I think this is an extreme weakness of your viewpoint.
Think about the process that the KJV translators went through to get to their translation. They collected and studied and read and compared and decided and translated, etc. Now imagine they could be time-transported to our era 400 years later, and do the exact same activity but instead of with 1604 data, let them possess all the data that we have available today. Would their work product be the same as it was in 1611? Would their work product be acceptable to you? If not, that seems to me to be a real problem.
You say, "The church settled on the text behind the KJV." I'll grant the point for sake of argument (including that we can speak of "the church" in that universal way). A weakness with the ecclesiastical text view is that "the church" seems recently to have "un-settled" on the KJV. As English continues to change, the church will continue to move away from the KJV because it will be unreadable and, to Mark Ward's point, keeping the KJV will put the church in the position of disobeying the "understand- ability" mandate of 1 Cor. 14.
I didn't think my mention of 1611 vs. 1769 differences was a can of worms. I thought it was a collection of helpful facts. Certainly you should not dismiss those facts as worms and not address them. Facts are stubborn things, as they say, and these facts, among others, don't allow me to accept the 1611 or 1769 without careful evaluation. Either one or both are in error at those verses. They cannot possibly both reflect a *perfectly* preserved Word of God.
I'm not sure how I have helped prove the point about original language preservation. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the translations on the matter of "the temple of the Lord" in 2 Kings 11:10.
Until next time,
Pastor Matt Postiff
Here is one that I would say is textual and not translational, an issue of singular in one underlying text plural in the other. NKJV uses singular, which matches CR rather than TR. I would be interested in the opinion of others more skilled.
Revelation 6:11 (NKJV) Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were,was completed.
11 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκὴ καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν, ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. (Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, NA28th edition)
11 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή, καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσονται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν, ἕως πληρωθῶσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. (based on Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 26th edition and The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, UBS)
Revelation 6:11 (AKJV) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
11 καὶ ἐδόθησαν ἑκάστοις στολαὶ λευκαὶ, καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον μικρόν ἕως οὗ πληρωσονται καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτείνεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί (Stephanus 1550 at Bible Hub)
11 και εδοθησαν εκαστοις στολαι λευκαι και ερρεθη αυτοις ινα αναπαυσωνται ετι χρονον μικρον εως ου πληρωσονται και οι συνδουλοι αυτων και οι αδελφοι αυτων οι μελλοντες αποκτεινεσθαι ως και αυτοι (Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894)
Thanks.
Matt writes: "Of course, with the large measure of agreement between all MSS, we need not worry ourselves overly much about this question."
This clashes with what scripture says about it's own preservation. Earlier you talked about the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. Does He illuminate His actual words or also the words He didn't inspire? Can the indwelling Spirit work in a way that believers with the indwelling Holy Spirit? This is the historical position on knowing what the Words are.
Matt writes: "But we can't simply ask, for example, "Is the Johannine Comma part of the Bible?" and answer it "Yes, Scripture says so!" That is to commit the logical fallacy of begging the question."
That's not how it works. You start with scripture providing a model or template. The result has to fit what scripture said, like looking for an Antiochus Epiphanes after Daniel. No verse in scripture says there will be 66 books, so isn't 66 books begging the question too?
Matt writes: "To my reverse-engineered "red herring" point. It is not a red herring–it is in the title of Scrivener's work. SCR shows us what the KJV translators decided to do with the MSS that they had available to them. The point is that the KJV translators translated from somethings (plural), not something (singular). They made textual decisions from the multiple MSS they had in their data set. You appreciate those decisions. But your view eliminates the possibility than anyone, even equally godly and wise as the KJV translators, could ever do that same kind of exercise again. I think this is an extreme weakness of your viewpoint."
This isn't our position. Our position is providential preservation. God said He would do it and the church agreed on it. They also believed that He did. It wasn't like textual criticism. That itself is reverse engineering, taking the humanistic, naturalistic forensics of the mid to late 19th century and conflating that into what occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Matt writes: "Think about the process that the KJV translators went through to get to their translation. They collected and studied and read and compared and decided and translated, etc. Now imagine they could be time-transported to our era 400 years later, and do the exact same activity but instead of with 1604 data, let them possess all the data that we have available today. Would their work product be the same as it was in 1611? Would their work product be acceptable to you? If not, that seems to me to be a real problem."
Those words were preserved and available for them. They weren't restoring a lost text. That wasn't their mindset. Read their position. It reflects what they believed, so it started with scriptural presuppositions unlike those in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Matt writes, "You say, "The church settled on the text behind the KJV." I'll grant the point for sake of argument (including that we can speak of "the church" in that universal way)."
When I say "the church," I'm speaking of the church as an institution, the generic use of the singular noun. Using a singular doesn't mean it is "universal," like every other singular noun.
Matt writes: "A weakness with the ecclesiastical text view is that "the church" seems recently to have "un-settled" on the KJV. As English continues to change, the church will continue to move away from the KJV because it will be unreadable and, to Mark Ward's point, keeping the KJV will put the church in the position of disobeying the "understand- ability" mandate of 1 Cor. 14."
The Holy Spirit doesn't "illuminate" and then unilluminate and based upon a naturalistic presupposition. It's like being born again and then becoming unborn. It doesn't happen. And you've shifted to English. Scripture teaches preservation in the language in which it was written, and the letters and words. They were there. Preserved and available. That's what they believed in that day as well. This "ecclesiastical text view," which is what some call it, isn't new. It is the historic and biblical view of preservation.
Matt writes: "I didn't think my mention of 1611 vs. 1769 differences was a can of worms. I thought it was a collection of helpful facts. Certainly you should not dismiss those facts as worms and not address them. Facts are stubborn things, as they say, and these facts, among others, don't allow me to accept the 1611 or 1769 without careful evaluation. Either one or both are in error at those verses. They cannot possibly both reflect a *perfectly* preserved Word of God."
Preservation is in the original language text. The changes in the English translation do not reflect the doctrine of preservation. I agree with you that the English words changed. I've said that dozens of times. I've also said it to you. That's why it is a can of worms to start going through the differences in the English. It doesn't affect or change a biblical and historical view of preservation. The German translation from the same text really changes the Words. What do you think that means?
You have no biblical basis for what I call "the math view." You don't even know what the majority text is, and you wouldn't until you could collate all of the presently available handwritten copies. It's not a settled text. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that's how God preserved scripture, by counting.
Matt writes: "I'm not sure how I have helped prove the point about original language preservation. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the translations on the matter of "the temple of the Lord" in 2 Kings 11:10.?
I'm not sure what your point is. God preserved His Word in the language in which it was written. God said it, so it's true. Your example doesn't prove that wrong. I'm answering your questions, but your making two to seven percent difference as not mattering isn't what I read in scripture is preservation.
R.L.,
Thanks. If you look at the comment section of Ward's last post, he said that my using Revelation 6:11 could be just a translation difference. I don't think so, but this was his point. He did agree that the NKJV relied on critical text for certain words in deviation from the text behind the KJV>
Matt wrote: They made textual decisions from the multiple MSS they had in their data set. You appreciate those decisions. But your view eliminates the possibility than anyone, even equally godly and wise as the KJV translators, could ever do that same kind of exercise again. I think this is an extreme weakness of your viewpoint.
Matt, I'm understanding, based on your previous comments in this thread, that doing the same kind of exercise again could and likely should (in accordance with modern textual criticism) be done not only with the manuscripts that were available then, but also with new manuscripts that have been unearthed since then. Since you have identified this as an extreme weakness in our viewpoint, I'm curious to know if you believe the canon to be settled, or if you are open to the idea that future generations of Christians may have a Bible with more or less than 66 books. Do you believe the canon is settled? Or, do you believe that just as the exercise in the past was undertaken to determine the canon, it could be done again, perhaps with different results?
I don't want to put words in your mouth here, so I will await your answer on that.
Thanks, Kent. I had overlooked that Revelation 6:11 had ever been discussed. I found Mark’s explanation of this as a translational difference on his blog, mentioning that “each” can’t be plural in English but it can in Greek. If this is a translational difference, it is a poor translational choice, in my opinion. If they were using some TR, it seems to me that they knew robes is clearly plural. They could have easily “matched the number” in the same way the KJV did, but chose to create a singular instead.
Here is something else I would wonder if anyone has ever run across. At a Sunday night Bible study, someone read a text from the NKJV and I was reading along in the KJV. What he read either inserted or removed a negative (like “no” or “not,” memory is not clear at this later date) making it mean the opposite from what I was reading in the KJV. I thought perhaps he misread it, and asked to look at the NKJV after class, comparing it to my KJV. He had not misread it and the verse in each version said opposite things. Unfortunately, that was over 20 years ago. I did not write the text down, and I have long since forgotten where it was (but for some reason I think maybe the Gospel of John). I would be pleased if anyone has ever heard this and if I could find it again. The only other explanation I can think of was that perhaps it was a typographical error in his particular printing of the NKJV. Those things do happen. I wish now I had followed up on it then.
James,
Thanks for not wanting to put words in my mouth, because from what I can see, you would have gone way too far.
James wrote: Matt, I'm understanding, based on your previous comments in this thread, that doing the same kind of exercise again could and likely should
My point was just to posit a thought experiment.
(in accordance with modern textual criticism)
You are wrong here. I specified that they do "the exact same activity." Whatever principles of textual criticism they used or didn't use, let them repeat the use of those same principles. Just give them a more complete data set to work with. If you please, in this thought experiment, let them not even know about modern textual criticism. Let them decide according to their wisdom and godliness how to do the translation, what variations of the Greek they follow, etc. How literal to be, how dynamic to be, in what places, etc. Do let them know that "history has been kind to us" and we have found more manuscripts of the Bible.
Here is the point: would you accept their new translation?
be done not only with the manuscripts that were available then, but also with new manuscripts that have been unearthed since then.
Yes.
Since you have identified this as an extreme weakness in our viewpoint, I'm curious to know if you believe the canon to be settled,
That is a totally different question and out of scope of this discussion. But, to help us understand one another better, I will say plainly: the Bible is 66 books, and that's it. Closed canon.
or if you are open to the idea that future generations of Christians may have a Bible with more or less than 66 books. Do you believe the canon is settled? Or, do you believe that just as the exercise in the past was undertaken to determine the canon, it could be done again, perhaps with different results?
The above answers this portion of your question.
Matt,
I don't understand your basis of a closed canon. Scripture doesn't even speak of a settled canon, but the words being settled. That's how the people in that day treated them as well. Then came along rationalism and applying to the Bible the same type of principles they use for secular literature with no promise of preservation.
R.L.,
Could it have been Isaiah 9:3? Kent mentions this as an example in this post.
"Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil." (KJV)
"You have multiplied the nation
And increased its joy;
They rejoice before You
According to the joy of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil." (NKJV)
Mat Dvorachek
Mat, thanks. That may be it. After all these years I can't remember, but I had really thought it was in the New Testament. But Isaiah 9:3 fits, and it seems if there is another of these, it would be on somebody's list. So you are probably right that this is the one I heard. Thanks, again.
Matt,
Thanks for answering my questions. If I can clarify several things quickly:
1) The words I did not want to put in your mouth had to do with not wanting to assume you believe in a settled canon. You do believe that and I'm glad. Obviously, in assuming that, I would not have gone "way too far."
2) In the interest of brevity, I may have sacrificed clarity. I made mention of modern textual criticism, not to suggest you adhere to all of its tenets, but simply to identify that your thought experiment assumes an unsettled text. "Let's do the same thing they did 400 years ago, but with the [bigger/more varied/different] data set we have available to us today." 50 years from now, the exercise could be repeated with a larger or different data set from today even. In other words, your thought experiment assumes an unsettled text, a main underpinning of textual criticism. Our position does not concede the unsettled nature of the text that you have assumed into your thought experiment, which would seem to invalidate at least aspects of the thought experiment. So, respectfully, my comment stands, although you may have taken from it more than I intended.
Be that as it may, I observe that you have taken the position that the settled nature of the canon is a separate discussion from the settling of the words of the text. I find that curious. Why is it different? Why is it that your position involves a presuppositional and (commendable) certainty on the canon? Why shouldn't we undertake to revisit the make-up of the canon with the more complete data set we have available now? Why couldn't a generation a century from now do the same thing? I'm glad you are settled on the canon, but on what basis are you so sure that it's settled? Textual criticism (using the term generally) involves itself with the authentication or rejection of manuscripts and makes value judgments on their place in a text. How does that not apply to books as much as it does to words?
In applying this to the thought experiment you have presented, I think it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why the question of a settled canon (books) has no relation to the question of a settled text (as it relates to the words). And I think we both know that if they are related, then what you have identified as a very great weakness in our position related to words becomes a very great weakness for you as it relates to the canon.
I'd like to hear your thoughts, as you have time.
James
Hi Kent,
You stated "The KJV translators translated from something, so a reverse engineered text is again a red herring. It's more in line with Edward Hills assertion that it was a unique TR edition."
I was curious if this is your view also? I.E. that the underlying Greek KJV text is a sort of final edition, correct edition of the TR.
(Full disclosure, I don't have the technical skill to deal with these issues, but I would personally lean very close to this position – FWIW)
It has been a very long time since I read EF Hills books, but I found them useful.
As an aside, reading all of this has reminded me that after many more than 100 new English translations, even the NKJV trying to mimic it, the majority of Christians still seem to use a KJV. Hills spent time discussing the Holy Spirit's guidance of early Christians to the correct books for the cannon, and I would think this would be similar.
Hi Jim,
I believe that all the words God inspired in the original are preserved and available for every generation. I also believe in a settled text. The church through the Holy Spirit is the way to the settled text. These are all scriptural presuppositions. The text behind the KJV has to be it. The critics say that wasn't in a printed edition. I'm saying the words were available and preserved. Other critics might say, it's too English, and there were German and Spanish believes. Sure. They also relied on the TR though. This at least eliminates the modern critical text. It wasn't available, preserved, and no one settled on it.
Hi Kent
Have you seen Chris Pinto's films on the history of the Bible? I've found them to be excellent. In "Bridge to Babylon", he interviews James White where White says that the spiritual state of textual critics is irrelevant, seeing the role of selecting which text is the authentic scripture is simply scientific, not spiritual. "If you're saying you need to have a Christian world-view to accurately handle the textual criticism of the Bible, that would be like saying you need to have a Christian world-view to be a heart surgeon."
So it does not matter what the textual critics believe, or whether they are saved at all, we are to simply trust their judgment and accept the text they give to us!
On the other hand: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Also in the same film, he quotes J.C. Philpot, an English Particular Baptist, who, prior to the RV, warned against a revised translation of the Scriptures. His warnings proved altogether prophetic:
The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version by J. C. Philpot (1857)
We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late–whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:
1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)–in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.
2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!
3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.
(cont.)
(cont.)
4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance."
Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice," and "reprobate" into "undiscerning." All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.
5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!
6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.
(excerpted from Sin & Salvation, by J. C. Philpot)
Brendon,
Thanks for the quote. I agree with you and the quote. Everyone has a bias. No one is neutral. I know we come with scriptural presuppositions. They don't. The best I've read is the ex post facto argument for readability, which conflates contemporary English from the Latin or some other unreadable language. The argument itself reads as a lie.
However, I don't think it is wrong to retranslate, to update. We have liberty to do it, but like your quote says, there are many factors that come into play, and with biblical presuppositions, we should take all those seriously. That one weak readability argument doesn't trump a multitude of other scriptural considerations.
Matt (and fellow readers), I want to revisit this thread again, having waited more than two weeks for a response to the canon/text preservation question to no avail. I think it's important to revisit this because you laid out a thought experiment here for the benefit of the readers, but have then, without explanation, insulated your position on the criticism of the text from any connection to the criticism of the canon.
This silence is worth pointing out because it is deafening every time this question is asked. In this specific instance, I will not assume that your silence is due to the lack of an adequate answer (it may be due to scheduling and busyness), but I will say that the lack of response to this question in general is disturbingly consistent. It manifests an apparent dishonesty in the position of conservative evangelicals regarding the principles of textual criticism.
I presume that conservative evangelicals like Mark Ward and yourself, Matt, have read enough to know that canon criticism is, in fact, a live and growing issue. Thankful as I am for your stand on a settled canon, your stand radically differs from ours, because you have knocked out the Scriptural authority for such a position by your capitulation on the text. I can be certain of the preservation of the canon because I'm certain of the Scriptural promise for the preservation of jots and tittles. On the other hand, you're certain of the preservation of the canon because of…what? It cannot be due to Scriptural promises, because the promises relate to word and word(s), not books.
Whether you look back to the positions of Metzger, Aland, and others (see, for example Lee Martin McDonald's book on "The Biblical Canon"), the unsettled nature of the canon is a corollary to the unsettled nature of the text. Metzger himself, according to McDonald, only held back from canon criticism because it would "cause more, not less division in the church."
As disappointing as it is to see Mark Ward and others opt for the weak but easy position of hiding behind the "readability issue," it makes perfect strategic sense for them to do so, because it avoids what would be an uncomfortable exposure of both their inconsistency and of the natural ramifications of their position in relation to the canon.
By the way, the common a priori position on the makeup of the canon that says, "I believe it's settled because I just do," is a substantively faithless position. Whether one believes it or not matters little if the Scriptures themselves do not promise it.