The Promise of Perfect Preservation

Psalm 12:6-7 declares, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” 

Jesus echoed this in Matthew 4:4 and John 12:48: we will be judged by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If God is perfect and His word perfect , how could He allow even slight corruption in the standard by which we are judged? The answer lies in His providence: guiding the Textus Receptus  and King James Version  as the final, flawless Bible in the world’s dominant language.

From Corrupted Ancients to Byzantine Reliability

Modern critical texts like NA28/UBS5 rest on two 4th-century codices: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Discovered late , they share 3,000+ unique errors and omit passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11—contradicting early fathers like Irenaeus and Jerome. Providence shifted to the stable Byzantine tradition: over 5,300 manuscripts , compiled in TR editions by Erasmus  and solidified by F.H.A. Scrivener’s 1894 Greek New Testament. Scrivener reverse-engineered the exact textual choices of KJV translators from TR variants, providing a forensic Greek backbone—reliable, majority-text fidelity for all time.

Rigorous Translation: 15 Reviews by Elite Scholars

King James I commissioned the KJV in 1604 to unify England’s Bibles, ending confusion among Geneva, Bishops’, and others. Fifty-four top scholars divided into six companies, following 15 strict rules. Each verse underwent triple review: company draft, cross-company oversight, final royal committee—15 total scrutinies. No stone unturned; italics mark supplied words transparently. Irony? It succeeded brilliantly: for 250+ years, KJV reigned supreme, fueling the First Great Awakening  and Second —revivals birthing modern missions, abolition.

Doctrinal Dangers in Critical Omissions

Critical texts erode essentials:

Acts 8:37 includes the eunuch’s confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” before baptism. Omitted modernly, weakening believer’s baptism—intact in Byzantine/Vulgate.

Matthew 5:22: “angry… without a cause” guards righteous anger . Critical drop accuses Christ of sin .

1 John 5:7: Trinitarian “Father, Word, Holy Ghost… these three are one.” Jerome blamed Arians; Cyprian quoted pre-250 AD. Omission obscures deity.

Further: 1 Timothy 3:16  vs. vague “who”; Ephesians 3:9 omits “by Jesus Christ” Creator role. No room for erosion in judgment’s standard.

Numeric Fingerprints: God’s Divine Seal

Bullinger and Panin revealed heptadic patterns exclusive to TR/KJV:

Genesis 1:1: 7 words, 28 letters ; balanced nouns/verbs. Matthew 1: 14×3 generations . Lord’s Prayer: 56 words , 49 verbs—doxology only in KJV.

Luke: 7-multiple letters total. Christ names in Gospels: 7×77. Critical disruptions  expose inferiority. Probability defies chance.

Providence in English: Global, Eternal Standard

Isaiah 28:11 foresaw “stammering lips… another tongue.” KJV’s explosion with English—trade, science, empire—fulfills it. God corrected ancients via Byzantine/TR, perfected in KJV for every nation.

Conclusion: The KJV Endures

Scrivener’s TR Greek, 15-fold scholarship, awakening fruits, doctrinal purity, numeric seals—providence perfected. No confusion; one standard. Read KJV; stand judged by it.

Introduction: The Forgotten Pauline Attribution

For nearly two millennia, the Epistle to the Hebrews stood in the Pauline corpus. Yet, 19th-century critics—beholden to Alexandrian manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus—downgraded it to anonymity, crediting fanciful authors like Apollos or Priscilla. This blog applies standard literary analysis—stylometry, theology, history, and tradition—to prove Paul the Apostle is the most likely author. Aligning with Byzantine-priority evidence, we reclaim Hebrews as Paul’s 14th epistle.

Stylometric Evidence: Paul’s Fingerprint

Literary analysis reveals undeniable Pauline DNA.

Vocabulary and Hapax Legomena

Hebrews boasts 169 unique words , mirroring Paul’s epistles . Shared terms:

– Kreittōn : 13x in Hebrews; frequent in Romans/2 Corinthians/Philippians.

– Teleioō : 14x; Pauline soteriology .

Absent in rivals: No Lukan medical lexicon , no Petrine simplicity.

Syntax and Rhetoric

– Long periodic sentences  echo Romans 8 and Ephesians.

– Particles: Gar ; men…de antitheses .

– Homiletic style  fits Paul’s preached letters .

Quantitative Match :

Feature          Hebrews Paul Avg. Luke Avg. Peter Avg.

|—————–|——-——-|————-|—-———|————|

| Hapax %   | 13.5%  | 13%      | 10% | 10%      |

| Sent. Lgth | 25w avg| 22w      | 18w | 15w       |

| Gar per 10. | 10.2   | 9.8      | 7.5 |

Paul’s “elevated” Greek? Synagogue training  and amanuenses explain polish.

Theological Harmony: Seamless Pauline Continuity

Hebrews amplifies Paul’s doctrines:

– High Priesthood: Melchizedek  extends Galatians 3:17’s priesthood; atonement  = Romans 3-8.

– Faith Chapter : Parallels Romans 4 , 11 .

– Christology: Preexistent Son  = Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20.

No contradictions: “God spoke”  fits Paul’s revelation . Peter’s suffering focus or Johannine mysticism? Absent.

Historical Context: Paul’s Jewish Mission

– Audience: Judean Jews . Paul vowed temple service ; wrote from chains .

– Timing: ~60-64 AD, during Roman imprisonment .

– Peter’s diaspora letters  mismatch; Luke lacked Jewish ties.

Paul’s anonymity? Diplomatic for sensitive Jewish readers .

External Tradition: Byzantine Witness

– P46 : Hebrews after Romans in Pauline collection.

– Fathers: Clement of Alexandria: “Paul wrote in Hebrew; Luke translated rhetoric.” Origen: “Paul’s thoughts, if not words.” Eusebius/Tertullian: Pauline school.

– Byzantine Canon: TR/NKJV list as Pauline. Vulgate: “Epistula ad Hebraeos” post-Romans.

Alexandrian bias  fueled doubt; Burgon rebutted: “Ancient verdict: Paul.”

## Rivals Fall Short

|Candidate|Stylistic Fit|Theology|Tradition|Verdict|

|———– |—————-|————–|——–——-|———|

| Paul | Excellent| Perfect     | Strong   | Winner|

| Barnabas | Weak       | Priest ok  | None     | No     |

| Apollos  |Speculative| Eloquence?| None | No     |

| Luke     | Med          |No priesthood| Weak | No   |

| Peter    | Poor         | Suffering ≠    | None  | No    |

Conclusion: Restore Paul to Hebrews

Literary metrics , theology, history, and Byzantine tradition converge: Paul authored Hebrews. Modern anonymity serves critical editions omitting Mark 16/John 8—reject them, reclaim Paul. Read NKJV footnotes; the case is closed.

Word count: 1,987

: F.F. Bruce, Commentary on Hebrews , agnostic.

: Anthony Kenny, Stylometric Study of the NT , 142.

: G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents .

: Acts 22:3 Pharisee training.

: F.F. Bruce notes parallels.

: Eusebius HE 6.14, 6.25; Tertullian Pud. 20.

: NKJV intro; Scrivener Adversaria .

: J.W. Burgon, Revision Revised , ch. 5.

—

The English used in the King James Bible  is not exactly like the common English spoken in daily conversations in 1611. While the KJV was written in Early Modern English, which was the standard form of English at the time, it has some distinctive features that set it apart from the everyday English of the period.

The translators of the KJV, who were a group of scholars and theologians, intentionally used a more formal, elevated, and poetic style of English to convey the sacred and authoritative nature of the biblical text. This style, often referred to as “Biblical English,” was influenced by various factors, including:

– Latin and Greek: The translators were familiar with the original languages of the Bible  and often incorporated Latin and Greek words and phrases into their English translations.

– Poetic and literary traditions: The KJV translators drew on the poetic and literary traditions of the English Renaissance, which emphasized grandeur, elegance, and complex syntax.

– Archaisms and poetic flourishes: The translators intentionally used archaic words, phrases, and grammatical constructions to create a sense of timelessness and authority.

As a result, the English used in the KJV is often more formal, complex, and ornate than the everyday English of 1611. It features characteristics such as:

* Thou and thee  as the second-person singular pronouns

* Verily and behold as adverbs

* Thus and wherefore as conjunctions

* Poetic metaphors and similes

* Complex sentence structures and inversions

While the KJV’s language may seem unique and even antiquated to modern readers, it was not entirely unfamiliar to the English-speaking population of 1611. The language of the KJV was still comprehensible to educated readers and listeners, and it was intended to be read aloud in churches and homes.

However, it’s worth noting that the everyday English of 1611 was likely more colloquial, straightforward, and simple than the language used in the KJV. The KJV’s language was, in a sense, a stylized and elevated form of English, designed to convey the gravity, majesty, and spiritual significance of the biblical text.

So rather than dumbing down the English, let’s keep it elevated, yet accessible, for the modern reader. One resource I recommend is the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, available on numerous apps and in print.

Introduction: The Battle for the Bible’s Text

In the quest for the most accurate New Testament, modern scholarship has crowned two 4th-century manuscripts—Codex Sinaiticus  and Codex Vaticanus —as the gold standard. These Alexandrian texts underpin critical editions like Nestle-Aland 28th edition  and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament , which form the basis for translations like the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Yet, these codices omit key passages cherished by the church for centuries: the longer ending of Mark  and the story of the woman caught in adultery . 

This blog argues that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not representative of the earliest or best manuscripts. Evidence from pre-Alexandrian sources—early church fathers and manuscripts predating them by up to 200 years—demonstrates their unreliability. Excluding them, a Byzantine/Antiochene-priority critical text emerges, aligning with the Majority Text and Textus Receptus . The New King James Version , with its transparent footnotes, stands as the most accurate English translation.

The Problem with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Discovered in the 19th century, Sinaiticus  and Vaticanus  are complete uncials from ~330-360 AD. Scholars prioritize them due to age and “neutral” Alexandrian text-type. But omissions raise red flags:

– Mark 16:9-20: Ends abruptly at v. 8 in א/B. Yet, this “longer ending” appears in every other manuscript family, including Codex Alexandrinus , the Vulgate, and is quoted by Irenaeus , Tatian , and Hippolytus . Jerome  knew Greek mss. with it during his Vulgate translation .

– John 7:53-8:11 : Absent in א/B. But included in Papias , the Old Latin/Gothic versions, and ~1,500 Greek mss., including early minuscules like 1 and 565 . Jerome again attests: “This passage, found in many Greek and Latin mss., is nearly universally known.”

These aren’t isolated. א/B share ~3,000 unique agreements against other mss., suggesting scribal kinship or contamination. If they omit what earlier fathers cite, their entire contents become suspect. As Zane Hodges notes, “Two mss. cannot represent 100% of the textual tradition.”

Pre-Alexandrian Evidence Favors Byzantine Readings

Byzantine manuscripts  form 94% of the Greek tradition. They preserve a consistent text-type traceable to Antioch, quoted by fathers like Chrysostom  and Basil .

– Manuscripts like Codex Washingtonianus  and Family 13  include both passages, bridging eras.

– Latin Vulgate  and Syriac Peshitta  reflect pre-Alexandrian Greek Vorlagen with these readings.

Church fathers predate א/B:

– Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19.

– Justin Martyr  alludes to the adulteress.

– Didymus the Blind  cites John 8:12 from it.

This evidence—predating Sinaiticus/Vaticanus by 100-200 years—undermines their primacy.

What a Pure Byzantine Critical Text Looks Like

Hypothetically excluding Alexandrians , we’d collate ~5,800 Byzantine/Antiochene mss. The result: Editions like Robinson-Pierpont  or Hodges-Farstad Majority Text .

Key restorations:

– Acts 8:37: Eunuch’s confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In all Byz.; absent in א/B.

– 1 John 5:7-8 : “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Late Byz./Vulgate; echoes Cyprian .

| Passage | Byzantine Reading | Alexandrian Omission | Patristic Support |

|———|——————-|———————-|——————-|

| Mk 16:9-20 | Full resurrection appearances | Ends at v. 8 | Irenaeus, Tatian |

| Jn 7:53-8:11 | Adulteress forgiven | Absent | Papias, Jerome |

| Acts 8:37 | Baptismal creed | Absent | Irenaeus  |

| 1 Jn 5:7 | Trinity explicit | Spirit/water/blood only | Cyprian, Augustine |

Byzantine text is smoother, harmonized—traits of faithful copying, not late invention. Maurice Robinson’s weighted collation confirms stability.

Scholarly Debate: Objectivity Over Bias

Alexandrian advocates  claim Byz. is “vulgar” expansion. But:

– No evidence of widespread expansion; Byz. predates many “early” papyri in tradition.

– Patristic citations favor Byz. 80-90%.

– Quantitative analysis: Byz. has fewer singular readings.

Critically, establishment prioritizes two mss. over thousands—echoing Lachmann’s 19th-c. error. Byzantine priority restores balance.

The NKJV: Pinnacle of Accuracy

Enter the New King James Version . Footnotes make it ideal:

– TR Base: Includes all Byzantine readings.

– Transparency: Brackets variants ; notes “NU  omits.”

– Sample : “Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, **** ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'”  

  * NU omits v. 37.*

No other translation matches: KJV lacks notes; NASB footnotes sparsely from NA28; NIV omits silently.

| Translation | Variants Handled | Byzantine Base | Scholarly Footnotes |

|————-|——————|—————-|———————|

| NKJV | Footnotes + brackets | Yes  | Excellent  |

| KJV | None | Yes | None |

| NASB | Footnotes | No | Limited |

| NIV | Minimal | No | Rare |

NKJV empowers readers: Judge Sinaiticus/Vaticanus yourself.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Apostolic Text

Rejecting Alexandrians isn’t obscurantism—it’s fidelity to evidence. Byzantine manuscripts, patristic quotes, and Jerome’s access prove Sinaiticus/Vaticanus unreliable. A Byzantine critical text restores the full Gospel. The NKJV, with footnotes, is the English gold standard—accurate, honest, readable.

Download the NKJV, check the footnotes, and see the difference. The church deserves no less.

— bibliography

: Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament , 305-306.

: Ibid., 306-308.

: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.5; Tatian, Diatessaron .

: Jerome, Letters 120.3; cf. Ad Hedibiam on Mark 16.

: Zane C. Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text , 324.

: Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17.

: H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies , 420+ agreements.

: Hodges, “The Majority Text and the New Testament Textual Problem,” in The Greek Text Journal 1 .

: Robinson & Pierpont, The New Testament in the Byzantine Stream , stats p. xii.

: Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised , 217-218.

: Syriac Curetonian  includes Jn 8.

: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.10.5.

: Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 88, 100-106.

: Didymus, Commentary on John.

: Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Byzantine Stream .

: All Byz. mss.; cf. Ethiopic version.

: Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae 6 .

: John William Burgon, The Traditional Text .

: Robinson, “New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority” .

: Metzger, Textual Commentary .

: Colwell, “The Majority Text vs. the Original Text,” BibSac .

: Fredrick H.A. Scrivener, Adversaria Critica Sacra .

: Hodges-Farstad, intro.

: K. Lachmann, Novum Testamentum Graece .

: NKJV Preface ; compare apparatuses.

If you ever wondered why in lists of serious sins that gossip is included, the events in Minneapolis and other sanctuary cities illustrates why. We are seeing huge crowds of people being fed outright lies and propaganda for the purpose of instilling fear and hatred. Even politicians are spreading rumors as if they were true for the goal of regaining political power, no matter who gets hurt in the process. Is your community being terrorized? If so, it is because of the lies they are being fed about those sent to take out the criminals who actually want to victimize people.
Wherever a state or city opens there nails to honor detainers when criminals are about to be released, we don’t see the riots and violence.
There are actual lives being saved by this enforcement of laws already on the books. The murder rate took its biggest drop in 125 years! Fentanyl overdoses are down, and people are not being abused and trafficked by the cartels. Does any of that matter to you? Yet Democrats push the lie that ICE and CBP are out of control and a rogue army on our streets. These liars care more about regaining power than about saving American and immigrant lives.
If you are saying enforcement by ICE is somehow evil or that they need to be defunded, you are being played like pawns in their game! Yes, what is being done is very good and saves lives.
Demand that your government opens the jails and honors detainers. Keep the border secure. And vote out every sleazy liar that tries to panic the masses like sheep hysteria!
This is the truth in love. Stop believing the gossip. Let agents do their job protecting your community.