I just wanted to thank you for responding so quickly again and wanted to say a few things in response to your email. The first thing was that I think that saying the Psalms are nothing more than “emotional expression” is a very dangerous statement. How can one say that he believes the Bible but also say that massive portions of it are just emotional expressions and can’t be taken as the truth? I agree that the Psalms and other books of the Bible use figurative language, and poetic expressions, but to say that they cannot be trusted on matters of doctrine is equivalent to doubting its trustworthiness, and if we can’t trust one part of the Bible than how can we trust any of it. Besides, when Jesus says that his words will not pass away, who are we to say that he is wrong?  When Jesus said his words will never pass away, he didn’t say that MOST of his words will never pass away, he said “my words shall not pass away”. When he used the plural form of word I believe that he meant ALL of his words.  Further, in Matthew 5:18 Jesus said “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, til all be fulfilled.” When Jesus used the phrase “the law” he was referring to the old testament canon, which was generally referred to as the law, the prophets and the writings, but often was shortened to just the law, or the law and the prophets. With that being said, I think that it’s safe to say that the old testament has not all been fulfilled, and heaven and earth have certainly not passed away, so Jesus’ claim that not one jot or one tittle would pass away is still in place. In light of these passages it would seem that saying that the Bible has copyist errors is equivalent to saying that Jesus was wrong.

As far as a perfect Bible manuscript goes, I believe that the textus receptus fulfills this need. I believe this for a countless number of reasons, but for the sake of space I won’t get into that at this time. In regards to your argument against Erasmus, this is not new territory. People have been attacking Erasmus for decades, but, anyone who honestly studies erasmus and his textus receptus would undoubtedly come to the same conclusion as so many in the past, that the textus receptus is God’s perfectly preserved word. Now, this subject is massive, but I’ll try to condense it. 

First, I want to deal with the claims that Erasmus Textus Receptus is somehow inferior. I have heard many arguments against Erasmus as a person (all of which are false.), and many arguments specifically against the Textus Receptus (from now on referred to as the TR). Firstly, a common misconception about Erasmus’ TR was quite clearly summed up in your response when you said that he only ever had access to “a very small number of manuscripts”. This faulty argument is based partly on fact, but is majorly embellished in an attempt to discredit him. While it is true that when Erasmus created his textus receptus he had only about 7 manuscripts before him (according to Detroit baptist seminary journal the manuscripts he had in his possession were: Codex 1eap, Codex 1r, Codex 2e, Codex  2ap, Codex 4ap, Codex 7p, Codex 817.) This is no reason to think that those were the only seven manuscripts that he had ever seen. You need to understand that Bible manuscripts were rare and expensive, and so while he was only able to come into possession of those 7 he had extensively traveled the world searching every nook and cranny for manuscripts to examine. It is an undisputed fact that in the years leading up to Erasmus creating the TR he had extensively traveled and examined countless manuscripts. Due to Erasmus fame he was given access to many manuscripts, and also many libraries where he would search for Biblical manuscripts to examine. 

It was said by Beatus Rhenanus in a letter to a friend that Erasmus had arrived in Basel with, among other things, “copious notes on the new testament”. Although much weight is given to the amount of manuscripts that Erasmus did or didn’t have, people seem perfectly content to ignore the fact that he carried with him the notes from a lifetime’s worth of studies into various manuscripts and their variants. It was said in letter written by Erasmus on July 8, 1514 (just before he would’ve arrived in Basel) that “After collation of Greek and other ancient manuscripts, I have emended the whole New Testament, and I have annotated over a thousand passages, not without benefit to theologians.”  So, as can clearly be seen, while Erasmus only had seven manuscripts in his possession in 1516 during the production of the TR, he also had a lifetime of studying variant readings amongst New Testament manuscripts, not to mention the “copious” amount of notes he had made on the subject, and the fact that he had annotated over 1000 passages. It is also reported that he actually had access to codex Vaticanus, but willfully chose not to use it. In his book, The Historic Origin of the Bible, Edwin Bissel states that he probably could have obtained a transcript of the Vaticanus, but never even requested one. What even further proves that he willfully chose not to use the Vaticanus is documented in S. P. Tregelles’ book, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek Testament, Tregelles says that in 1522 Erasmus sent a letter to his friend Paulus Bombasius, asking him to examine the Vaticanus manuscript on his behalf in regards to 1 John 5:7-8. The significance of this is that Erasmus was in contact with a man who had complete access to the manuscript, and was perfectly willing to send him transcripts. Also of note is that in Frederic Kenyon’s book, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, he reports that in 1533 a correspondent of Erasmus sent him selected readings of Codex Vaticanus, however, these selected readings never made an appearance in any of his editions of the TR. Meaning, that since he undoubtedly had access to the Vaticanus, the only explanation for his not using it is the simple fact that he did not believe that it was as accurate as the manuscripts that he had in his possession, and that he had previously examined. Almost all of which in fact agree with the majority text  (from here on referred to as MT). So as I think that this paragraph has clearly demonstrated, Erasmus wasn’t constrained to just the seven manuscripts that he had in his possession, but had extensive knowledge of New Testament textual variants, and even had access to certain manuscripts that he chose not to use.

You also made the statement that the discoveries of such manuscripts as Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus (from here on referred to as Aleph and B), revealed countless textual errors in the TR, however, this claim is shaky at best and to say that it is “indisputable fact” is in itself a fact that is disputable. To begin to respond to this statement it needs to be said that the MT agrees with the TR in over 99% of its content, not to mention that almost all of the differences don’t even show up in translation. As far as Aleph and B go, how can you say that they unveil these supposed errors in the TR, when they themselves are in question as far as their authenticity, and reliability. When talking about the TR being found to be in error based on either B or Aleph, some of the countless controversies surrounding these most corrupt manuscripts need to be addressed. 

First let’s take a look at codex B, nothing whatsoever is known of this codices background or history before 1475, when it was listed on the Vatican libraries earliest catalogue. However, it is known that the text of the manuscript is nearly entirely mutilated, with almost every letter over-written with pen and ink, (believed to have occurred in the 10th or 11th century) along with breathing marks, accents, and corrections from the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries. Hardly the type of manuscript that I would trust as one of the main sources for the New Testament. Not to mention that in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. I have even read that it is believed that these omissions were intentional, seeing as that the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing, and also that there was actually room on the page where these omissions were made, proving that they were willfully excluded. Another interesting thing in regards to codex B is found in the first chapter of Hebrews, if you look at the manuscript in between the first two columns. A scholar of the past evidently had erased a word from verse three and replaced it with a different word, in and of itself this isn’t at all out of the ordinary, however, later another scribe came along and erased the new word and wrote the original back in with a note that said “fool and knave, leave the old reading, don”t change it!” I find it incredibly interesting that the scribe who wrote this actually inadvertently admitted that some of those who were doing the corrections were intentionally changing the Bible, even corrupting it. According to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, “It should be noted . . . that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B.” So clearly, codex B is not in any way reliable enough to judge other manuscripts by.

Now let’s look at Codex aleph. This manuscript is most definitely the more controversial of the two, partly based on the hazy story of its origination, and partly based on the general untrustworthiness of the text that it presents. Since shortly after its alleged “discovery” by Tischendorf, the authenticity of this manuscript has been in question. Before we get into the questionable history behind this most regarded codex however, several things need to be explained. First, I wanted to bring up the issue of the color of the paper used. If you look at the collection at the british library  (from here on called BL) and compare it to the color of the paper at leipzig university library (from here on called LL) you will notice that the manuscripts in the BL collection are noticeably more yellow and stained than the white parchments in the LL collection. So the question must be asked, why are they such different colors? Secondly, the manuscript has been significantly overwritten, and has also been corrected over 23,000 times. With this volume of corrections one has to wonder, was the manuscript so corrupt to start with that it required 23,000 changes? or was it originally accurate and only corrupted later as scribes changed it again and again? Truly this manuscript deserves no weight in regards to its accuracy in reflecting God’s words. I won’t get into the authenticity of the manuscript’s date, or the questionable story behind its discovery for sake of length, but I would encourage you to look into the subject yourself.

In response to your closing question, I wanted to say that you are correct in stating that not all ancient manuscripts are the same, however, when God promised us that he would perfectly preserve his words, without error, and without flaw, he never said that every copy of his words would be perfect. For God to have perfectly preserved his words only one manuscript would have to be perfect, and since he promised that we would have his words, it would have to be a manuscript or manuscript family that has been in existence from the very formation of the Bible itself. This narrows it down significantly, and, in fact, as Benjamin G. Wilkinson shows in his book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the TR type text has been in existence as far back as the Bible’s creation, and persisted all the way through to Erasmus, and still exists today in the King James Bible. I would highly encourage you to read his book for further documentation of the TRs history.  

I also wanted to clarify that I do most certainly believe in a simplistic view of inerrancy. According to Webster’s dictionary the definition of inerrancy is “exemption from error” that includes copyist errors. Any other view of inerrancy is simply wrong. I also wanted to say that you claimed that you believe the Bible is inerrant, but also said that it has copyist errors, in light of the actual definition of inerrancy this statement is itself a contradiction. So ultimately you believe that the Bible is truly inerrant, without error, or you believe that the Bible contains copyist errors and is therefore unreliable. The choice is yours.

I could certainly go on about this subject but for now I think that I have demonstrated my point well enough. I believe unreservedly that the TR is God’s  perfectly preserved words, and that the King James Bible is the best possible translation of those words, I would even go so far as to say that they are God’s inerrant words. I would also like to say in closing that I most certainly respect you for your ministry, and in no way wish to disrespect you, or anything that you have done for the Lord, I simply wish to demonstrate why I believe what I believe, and hope to help you understand why we can hold a King James Bible, and know that we are holding God’s perfect words in the English language. Thank you so much for reading such a lengthy email, and I want to apologize for how long it has taken to respond. Thank you again, and God bless.