Weekly Question – What are the most potent objections to the TR/KJV position?

For an upcoming work by Dr.s Peter Van Kleeck, we would like to know what you think are the most potent theological and philosophical objections to the Confessional Text/Standard Sacred Text position on the Scriptures – the more complex and broad-reaching the better. Certainly, there are objections but what are those which wholly defeat our position or cripple it. This question is open to those who agree and those who disagree with our position.

Please be as thorough and as precise as possible. There are in the main two kinds of objections you could argue: 1.) there is some proposition asserted by us to which you have a defeater – undercutting or rebutting 2.) there is something we failed to address which is integral to the greater system touching the originals and version issue.

The reason for putting this question out to the public in this way is because we would like to address these objections considered to be the most potent without presenting them as a strawman. We would like to address these proposed objections as presented in their greatest force and precision.

Thank you for your assistance and input in these regards,

The StandardSacredText.com Team

3 thoughts on “Weekly Question – What are the most potent objections to the TR/KJV position?

  1. I don’t think this necessarily fits in a category of the most potent objections to the TR. It is, however, a thought I just had today. I think I saw it sort of swimming around somewhere in the “Which TR” discussions. Mark Ward gave a list of 29 different TRs (in “Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology.”).

    Click to access WardMarkWhichTRACritiqueOfConfessionalBibliology.pdf

    I can’t find it now, but someone else took up the banner of criticizing the TR for having more iterations (29) than the Nestle-Aland (28). This was used to show an inconsistency in TR supporters criticizing the changes in the NA critical text when the TR has even more editions. The question that came to my mind: is the count of 29 TRs actually an “apples to apples” comparison to 28 NAs? For example, does the Complutensian Polyglot really belong in the count? If not, what others might not belong? Not a critical question, but one that you might wish to address at some point.


  2. I found it. The 3 paragraphs below by Mark Ward are the primary part making the point.

    KJV-Onlyists very commonly revile the Nestle-Aland text that the great majority of Christians who can read Greek use—and “revile” is not too strong a word—precisely because it is in its 28th edition. “When are you finally going to have the Word of God?,” they say.

    But by my count, Scrivener’s TR was actually the 29th major TR. What confidence should I have that it is the perfect one?

    The KJV translators did textual criticism. They effectively created a new TR—one that wasn’t reconstructed until 1881.

    P.S. “Scrivener’s TR was actually the 29th major TR” — surely that is a “major” exaggeration that all of the 29 editions he counts were “major”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: