How?
What do you think would stand up under scrutiny come Judgment Day?
What if getting the words of Proverbs 3:5-6 correct was a matter of life and death this very day?
Granted, I am not saying that such a thing is going to happen. I am speaking hypothetically. I am simply stressing the importance of getting those words correct right now.
Or what if you were offered a million dollars or more to arrive at the correct understanding of Proverbs 3:5-6?
Would you not spend an entire week, if you were allowed, using various AI programs and pouring over every Hebrew lexicon, every relevant early Jewish or Christian writer, and every historical source you could get your hands on?
Would you not investigate whether the meanings of certain Hebrew words were later distorted or reinterpreted by modern scholars, later lexicons, or those influenced by postmodern thinking?
Would you not search for ancient Hebrew writings outside of Scripture, if available, to examine how those same words were used? Would you not obtain screenshots of the original sources and compare them carefully to determine which interpretation was correct? Would you not examine the grammar, historical usage, and definitions supplied by older authorities rather than simply accepting the conclusions of modern scholars?
I believe that if you genuinely followed such a course of investigation, you would eventually come out on the side of the Received Text and the KJV.
I say this because my own research has revealed a recurring pattern of bad doctrines and questionable translation choices within the Modern Bible Movement.
Now, imagine that receiving that million dollars depended upon your ability to demonstrate, with actual historical evidence, when a particular interpretation or translation of a biblical word first appeared, how its meaning was understood before that time, and whether a later change in interpretation was later adopted and wrongfully justified.
What if you could not demonstrate these things? What if you could not provide the historical documentation necessary to establish the correct truth that should be obvious?
You would not receive the money.
And that is precisely the problem I see with your approach. You don't have the precise words of God and yet you act as if you are able to figure that out when the next guy who thinks like you will disagree with you about those precise words. True preservation demands that God has given us a standard of a perfect set of his words. If not then the jots and tittles that Jesus speaks about have failed us. However, that is not possible. The words of Jesus will last perfectly forever long after both of our bodies have turned into dust.
You may sincerely believe that your interpretation is correct, but sincerity alone does not establish the meaning of a biblical word.
In my opinion, the training you have received has been insufficient because it has encouraged an approach to Scripture that treats the Bible almost like a piece of meat to be chopped up and divided according to the conclusions of modern scholarship, rather than carefully examining the words as they were historically understood and received.
The question is not merely whether you are willing to return to the text. The question is whether you are willing to investigate the actual words of that text thoroughly enough to discover whether what you have been taught about them is correct.
....
If getting Proverbs 3:5-6 correct were a matter of life and death, I would absolutely study the Hebrew text, compare usages, examine lexicons, investigate historical sources, and test every interpretation I could find.
But notice what follows from that admission.
If I must compare sources, examine evidence, weigh arguments, evaluate lexicons, and test interpretations, then I am doing the very thing I've been talking about all along.
I'm examining evidence, not merely assuming the conclusion beforehand.
The question is not whether we should study deeply. We should.
The question is whether the conclusion is established before the investigation begins.
You seem to be arguing:
God perfectly preserved His words.
Therefore there must be a single perfect textual standard.
Therefore the Received Text/KJV tradition is that standard.
The point under debate is step three.
I agree God preserved His Word.
I agree Christ's words will never pass away.
I agree not one jot or tittle shall fail.
What I continue to ask is: Where does Scripture identify the specific manuscript tradition or translation that serves as that final standard?
That is the question.
You accuse me of not knowing where God's perfect words are between two covers.
I would simply observe that believers who affirm perfect preservation have disagreed for centuries about which set of words that is. The disagreement itself proves the answer is not as self-evident as you suggest.
Most importantly, I think you're creating another false dilemma: Either the KJV/Received Text is the final standard, or all we have are dead words from men.
I reject both halves of that equation.
Scripture is living and powerful because God inspired it, not because I have perfectly solved every question of textual history.
The Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures, not because they already possessed a completed theory of manuscript transmission.
So I come back once again to the same point: Can the case for a particular textual tradition be demonstrated from the text, the manuscripts, and the historical evidence?
If it can, let the evidence speak.
But if the conclusion must be assumed first and every piece of evidence interpreted through that assumption, then what is being defended is not merely the text of Scripture, but a particular theory about how God must have preserved it.
That distinction is the heart of our disagreement.
