Some Follow Up Questions with Dr. DiVietro

Introductory Note:
Bob, the owner of KJVOnlydebate.com had some additional interaction with Dr. DiVietro concerning his TR-Only position. With Dr. DiVietro’s permission, we are reprinting his responses here.

KJV Only Debate:
Do you follow the Scrivener Greek Text or the Cambridge KJV in the few places where they differ? (Or is some other Greek Text available that you would hold to more closely than Scrivener’s?)

Dr. DiVietro:
We know that the actual texts translated by the KJV 1611 translators were lost with their notes in the 1660 fire of London. We also know that Scrivener started with the Bezae 1598 and inserted the readings followed by the 1611 translators wherever they differed from the Bezae text.  He stated that he thought he had listed them all but there was the possibility of inadvertent omissions. Therefore the Scrivener text is not inerrant.

I do believe that the 1611 translators did their homework and translated the historic text as they received it in manuscripts, versions, lectionaries and the church fathers.  They did not follow any given TR or MT printed text. They had multiple sources at the table.  Where an absolute difference occurs between the KJV and the Scrivener text I assume that Scrivener inadvertently missed it.

KJV Only Debate:
If you side with Scrivener, would you have a problem saying the KJV has a few errors in places where it doesn’t follow the TR?

Dr. DiVietro:
No, I would not say that. The TR is not a single printed text. That idea is a straw man constantly erected to avoid the genuine issues.  The TR is not any particular edition of Erasmus or Stephanus or Elzivir or Scrivener or anyone else. It is the text you will read if you simply pick up and read the vast majority of NT manuscripts.

There is no such thing as a pure Alexandrian, pure Western, pure Byzantine manuscript.  Yes there is variation between the TR manuscripts but the main stream of the text is clear.  The problem is that people want to lock down the TR to a given manuscript or printed form. It is the RECEIVED text. It is how the text looked when someone received a manuscript.

When I differentiate between the TR and the modern eclectic text it is because there is absolutely NO manuscript that supports the eclectic text. Not even B, Aleph, L or f44 f46 or any of their other allies is followed consistently.  And yes, I have either facsimiles or photographs, as well as the printed text of most of these.

The modern text is created by choosing the most aberrant reading in any given opportunity with the assumption that that it is most original.  The result is a patchwork of readings resulting in an incomplete, often errant theologically, biblically, etc. text.  Read the intrinsic and external sieves for discovering the ‘true’ reading of a manuscript or a text type (Alexandrian, byzantine, etc). These sieves are completely biased against any reading in the Textus Receptus.  Behind the sieves you will find that textual criticism, conservative or liberal, is based on the thesis that the biblical text evolved from the primitive form to the TR (or MT).  The evolutionary theory states that the text at the beginning was rough, incomplete, and inaccurate. Through the years the scribes smoothed it and it evolved into the form known as the received text.  This is contrary to the Bible doctrine of the origin and preservation of the scriptures.

KJV Only Debate:
E.F. Hills was transparent about a few errors in both the TR and the KJV, yet he remained TR-only. Would the admission of a few small errors in the TR materially damage your textual position?

Dr. DiVietro:
Errors or variants?  I have not found a single mistranslation of the Greek (I am not as accomplished in the Hebrew) in 35+ years of studying the King James Bible when I compare it to the Greek texts that I possess.  I rarely preach on a text without checking the underlying Greek or Hebrew.  Hardly a day goes by that I do not read some passage in its original language. This has been my practices since Bible college.  People always make this kind of abstract question but never refer me to a specific passage accompanied by the supposed error and the basis of declaring it an error.
If you have a specific example in mind I’d be glad to consider it.

Do I think that the KJV might have a translational inaccuracy? No, I think they accurately translated whatever they translated.

Do I think it is possible that they might have made a wrong choice of Greek or Hebrew reading? Without any specific in mind I take the same position Dean John Burgon took. If an analysis of ALL the manuscript evidence demonstrates an irrefutable error of judgment then I would consider correction. Until that occurs, and it has not yet been shown to me that it does, I continue to trust the work of almost 100 years of textual and translational attention paid by Tyndale through the 1611 translators.

I would no more trust today’s textual scholars and translators to correct the King James Bible than I would trust the present politicians to rewrite the US Constitution. In my opinion, the scholarship, the knowledge, the dedication and the corporate effort do not exist in today’s academic community.

KJV Only Debate:
Are TR advocates generally willing to admit errors in the TR or do they prefer to speak of either the KJV or the TR as a final authority that is error free?

Dr. DiVietro:
We both realize that we are speaking in the abstract. (And I know that the Riplinger/Ruckman/Coneyite advocates will accusing me of seeking a revision of the KJV.)  I take the same position as Dean Burgon.

I am not willing to admit ERRORS in the Textus Receptus body of preservation. There are variants within the Textus Receptus. The KJV translators dealt with those variants and made definitive judgments. Since I do not have the qualifications nor the body of evidence they used by which to challenge their accuracy I do not.  And as stated above until and  unless someone does a comprehensive examination of all the evidence, not just a select group of mss, or a recount of the same reasoning of the modern critics, I see no reason nor safe process by which to correct the KJV.

KJV Only Debate:
What are your thoughts on the NKJV?

Dr. DiVietro:
I attended a pre-publication meeting of the NKJV hosted by a local bible book store. Representative of Bible colleges and many pastors attended the meeting.  I sat next to John Kohlenberger’s brother.  At this meeting, the Thomas Nelson vice-president showed a film strip of the history of the King James Bible.  He then made a statement which etched indelibly into my mind.  Although I may not have it letter perfect I am attempting to recount not paraphrase.  He said something to the effect of:

We are all educated people here. We would never say this to our congregations but we all know that the King James Bible is an inferior translation based on inferior manuscripts.  But every time we have tried to give your people a better more accurate bible they have rejected it.  So we have taken the King James Bible and the texts from which it came and modernized it. We have introduced some minor changes to provide  you a bridge to get your people away from the King James Bible and eventually to a more accurate Bible.

As a result I have never even given the New King James a comprehensive look. From time to time I have compared passages. I have noticed a few grievous errors of translation, (i.e. saying that Jesus drank wine when no place in the KJV or the TR does it say that he did) and find that the original footnotes restored at least 2,000 of the Westcott-Hort alternative readings.  It changes things like everlasting to eternal and vice versa for no other apparent reason than to secure a copyright. No one has shown me a significant correction or clarification that justifies my moving to it.  In general I find it neither scholarly nor significant.

Advertisements

Interview with TR Advocate Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pt 3

Today is the final installment of our interview with Dr. Kirk DiVietro. We asked him some specific questions about the King James Bible as an English translation.

KJVO Debate:
What specifically distinguishes your position from the general KJVO positions?

Dr. DiVietro:
I am not King James Version Only. I am Textus Receptus/Masoretic Text only. As I stated above I believe any time the proper Greek/Hebrew texts are accurately translated we have the words of God in English. I do not believe the King James Bible or any other translation is divinely inspired. I do believe an accurate translation preserves the inspired words into the English language.

KJVO Debate:
Do you believe the Word of God in English exists only in the King James Bible?

Dr. DiVietro:
I answered it above. In addition to that comment I add this caveat. The King James Bible is the only English translation that I trust 100% to accurately translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Its process beginning with Tyndale and ending in 1769 with the present revision of the Cambridge King James Bible was careful enough to produce an accurate reliable English Bible.

KJVO Debate:
One of the biggest criticisms of the King James text is that it is unreadable. Share with us how you answer that criticism in a practical way.

Dr. DiVietro:
Again it is nice if you can make a translation both easily readable and accurate. However, that is rarely possible, especially when working with an ancient language. Most of the readability problems in the King James Bible do not come from old English. It does not take a great level of intelligence to understand that thee, thou, and ye mean ‘you.’ The same is true of the -est and -est endings of verbs. The difficulty of the King James Bible is primarily because it attempts to keep the word order and nuanced grammar of the original languages. The translaters were attempting to replicate the full impact of the original language. Some words like propitiation were coined specifically because there was no English word which carried the full impact of the word. It cannot be rendered more ‘readable’ without sacrificing accuracy. There are other such conventions and phenomena.

KJVO Debate:
Some commenters have asked you to comment on the recent works to update the text of the KJB. What are your opinions of the MKJV, AKJV, KJV2000, and LITV?

Dr. DiVietro:
I have not done extensive research into any one of these revisions of the KJB. The English language has not changed enough to make most readers of the KJB uncomfortable and asking for a revision. It is still the most popular form of the Bible. There are not enough changes to legitimately justify a copyright. There are not enough changes that have been recognized by consensus as being necessary.

KJVO Debate:
Given the opportunity, how would you steer an update of the KJB text? Does there need to be an update?

Dr. DiVietro
No, I would not steer an update of the KJB nor do I think there a need for an update. The quality of scholarship both on the committee and in the born again, Bible believing pastors and educators of English speaking people to do a quality job. I would not feel qualified to serve on a revision committee. I would not tamper with the words of God.

Author’s Closing Remarks:

On behalf of the authors of this blog, I want to thank my father for his gracious interview. While the TR-only position is held by a minority of textual scholars, it is not nearly as marginalized as mainstream publications tend to make it. The far more vocal KJVO provocateurs like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger have unfortunately monopolized the spotlight of the KJVO side of the debate. Even if you disagree with at TR-only advocate like Dr. DiVietro, you must admire their desire to have and know the Word of God.

One final note. Dr. DiVietro is not interested in engaging in the debate of this topic. He has expressed that his desire is only to present his position. Others are free to agree or disagree.

Interview with TR Advocate Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pt 2

We continue our conversation with Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Franklin, Massachusetts. Today, we provide his answers to some questions about the Greek text of the New Testament.

KJVO Debate:
What, in your opinion, is the single best reason to reject the modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament?

Dr. DiVietro:
The best reason to reject modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament is that they are based on theories and procedures that guarantee a wrong result. The theories were created by non-bible believers who reject divine origin and preservation of the scriptures.

The foundational thesis of modern textual criticism is that the Bible evolved by natural processes. The advocates vary on the origin of the Scriptures. But they agree that once the original scriptures were created God abandoned the preservation process. The scriptures were subject to the same corrupting influences of any piece of literature. This process reached its culmination with the printing press. The printing press froze the text and allowed perfect reproduction.

As the theory goes, the text when frozen by the printing press was the result of 1500 years of evolution. The existing text therefore not be the text when first produced. In the same way that geological and biological evolutionists try to regress the evolutionary process they decided that they would have to regress the evolution of the Scriptures.

A logical seive was created to do the regression. All manuscripts were assembled (in theory) and classified by their readings. An assumption was made that the earlier the manuscript text the more accurate. Since no two manuscripts can be demonstrated to have a direct ancestor-child relationship individual readings were isolated and analyzed. They were organized into ‘families’ by the geological region of their widest circulation. It was then speculated that there were separate distinct texts circulating in specific areas. Although no perfect pure regional manuscript was ever discovered scholars conjecture those texts and build them artificially by isolating geographical readings no matter what manuscript they appear in. (Much like Q is conjectured as a base for the Gospels)

Once they created their archetype texts and families of manuscripts they had to purify their artificial texts. If Alexandrian manuscripts disagree on a reading the true reading has to be determined. How? By picking the most unlikely, obscure, aberrant reading as the original reading, on the assumption that subsequent editors would ‘correct’ obtuse readings, the theorists conjectured ‘earliest’ and ‘oldest’ readings. Becuase the process is weighted against the historic, traditional readings a brand new text arose. This text appears NOWHERE in the physical manuscript evidence. It is completely eclectically created. You cannot pick up ANY NT manuscript and read the modern text although it is most dependent on the Vaticanus Manuscript and its allies.

KJVO Debate:
You have said elsewhere that you have rejected the idea of text families. What motivated that move and what do you suggest in place of that theory?

Dr. DiVietro:
I reject them because they assume the opposite of Bible truth. God said he revealed his word. It was perfect at its revelation. He further says he preserves his word. The concept of families rejects both statements. If the argument of families were used to explain where the aberrant variant readings came from I might accept the premise. Things don’t develope upward without intelligent intervention. According to modern theory the New Testament developed from a text which was grammatically, historically, theologically, biblically inaccurate into a consistent cogent uniform New Testament.

In addition ‘families’ are impossible to discern. The manuscript evidence as it appears today is like the result of a bomb hitting a 2000 year old cemetary. Modern scholars claim they can reassemble the bodies and tell who is related to whom without DNA. They claim bones found next to each other must be from the same individual, and individuals thus assembled found close to each other must be related.

KJVO Debate:
A few years ago, you presented a paper to the DBS – survey on the supposed LXX quotes in the New Testament. Can you share what you discovered?

Dr. DiVietro:
I discovered that in John, Acts and Hebrews, no Old Testament quotation came directly from the Septuagint. Even those who advocate the idea that the New Testament writers used the Septuagint readily admit that if an accurate translation of the Hebrew text varied from the Septuagint the writers translated the Hebrew. Simply stated, if an independent translation of the Hebrew and the Septuagint agree it is assumed that the writer quoted the Septuagint. If they vary he used the Hebrew. Why does that make more sense than assuming that they used the Hebrew text and when the Septuagint agrees it is becaust the translator of the Septuagint got it right?

Further I found there is no direct evidence of a Septuagint (except for the possible translaqtion of the Pentateuch) in the pre-christian era. The Septuagint as we know it appears first in the writings of Origen near the end of the 2nd century AD. The modern text ASSUMES the Septuagint origin of the OT quotes and whenever it finds a variant that agrees with the Septuagint elevates it above the historic reading.

KJVO Debate:
Is there an extant, perfect manuscript copy of the TR? If so, which? If not, could you explain briefly why you believe the TR tradition to be superior to the texts used in the Critical Text?

No. There is not a perfect manuscript copy of the TR. No intelligent student of the manuscripts would say there is. Every manuscript is handwritten. In that volume of work it is impossible for any one copyist not to make some inadvertant error. However, if you pick up any TR manuscript (about 95% of the manuscript evidence) you will find a clear mainstream. Any given manuscript will have an eddy of error from time to time but when compared against the stream it is easily identified as an aberration.

In contrast, the modern text cannot be found in any manuscript. Its manuscript evidence resides primarily in 2-5% of the evidence. It requires the ‘scholar’ to arbitrarily adopt a given reading from any given manuscript to create or ‘restore’ the text.

The Textus Receptus tradition comes from the eastern churches which continued to use Greek as their primary active language into the 15th century. The manuscripts are not museum pieces. They are the Bibles they were using. They come from an area of the world which is not especially condusive to preserving biological materials. As manuscripts deteriorated from use they were disposed of lest they give rise to bad readings. This area of the world was the area to which the documents of the New Testament were originally addressed. The churches of this area would most likely have been the depository of the most accurate copies of the New Testament making restoration after persecution possible.

Many of the modern readings are consistent with the dialect of Alexandria preferring classical greek grammar rather than koine greek.

There are just too many factors which weigh against the accuracy of modern textual conclusions.

KJVO Debate:
In discussing things with me (Erik), you made an excellent point about the reason we should trust the Byzantine texts and the faulty reasons why Westcott and Hort rejected them. Could you explain that to us?

I’m not exactly what observations Erik has mentioned to you. I have partially explained it above. I will summarize here.

  1. The Byzantine text has been demonstrated to be at least contemporary with Codex B/Aleph. (See The Byzantine Text-type by Bruce Sturz)
  2. The B/Aleph group of manuscripts is not consistent in its source texts. There is no one manuscript which is 100% “Alexandrian” in its readings. There are many that are TR.
  3. The B/Aleph group of manuscripts shows signs of being edited to a more classical Greek from a Koine source.
  4. Westcott-Hort and the other textual critics were trained in classical Greek. Their assessment of the TR was that it was terribly corrupted is a result of their training. The idea that Koine Greek was a defined dialect would not come into existence until after their work.
  5. Manuscript B (Vaticanus) was traced over three times. The original readings are obscured below the latest retracing. The authority of the edited text of Vaticanus is questionable.
  6. The modern critical theory denies the doctrine of divine preservation and some of the advocates deny the divine origin of the Scriptures. Their logical grid for determining original readings is biased toward the obtuse.
  7. Westcott and Hort as well as Gladstone wanted to remerge the English church with Rome. They knew that the authority of the King James Bible had to be broken before that would be possible.
  8. Several members of the 1881 Revision committee were unsaved. Several were unitarians.

KJVO Debate:
What are your thoughts on the Byzantine/Majority Text Platform? How does it differ from the TR?

Dr. DiVietro:
As I read the introduction of the Majority Text I was lead to believe that it was not what it claimed to be, a text created by simply counting manuscripts and choosing the majority supported reading. Instead there was a formula which accepted the Von Soden classifications of readings. This was not a simple majority method. As a result about 4-5000 of the W-H readings were rejected leaving 2000+ variants from the Textus Receptus. The Majority Text advocates still are based on the assumption that original text was lost and needed to be restored by the work of its editors. When the smoke clears the best that can be said is that Majority Text is as close to the original as manuscript evidence allows.

Interview with TR Advocate Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pt 1

Author’s Disclaimer:

What follows is an exchange of some questions and answers with Dr. Kirk DiVietro, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Franklin, Massachusetts. Dr. DiVietro is a prominent member of the Dean Burgon Society and a Textus Receptus advocate. (He also happens to be my father, so forgive my bias if I say that he is one of the more well-reasoned TR advocates.) His comments appear as they were provided to us. If clarification is needed, please request it in the comments and I can either clarify it or ask Dr. DiVietro for more information. Today’s portion of the interview covers Dr. DiVietro’s basic information and some of his associations. Tomorrow, we will see his views on the Greek text.

KJVO Debate:
For starters, could you give us a little background about yourself, your faith and your scholarly career?

Dr. DiVietro:
I was saved Palm Sunday 1971 at the age of 18 years old. I came from a Christian home which loved and respected the Bible. When I was growing up, my family attended independent Baptist or baptistic churches. Despite this orientation I tried to objectively discover the teachings of the Bible. I spent hours reading and analyzing the bible to find the doctrines revealed by God in his word. Today I am a baptist by conviction forged by the Scriptures and not by any affiliation.

I was married in April of 1971. In September 1972, I began my formal preparation for the ministry by enrolling in United Wesleyan College in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The school was both Arminian and Neo-orthodox in orientation. There was also a pro-charismatic element. I attended UWC for three semesters until I was asked to leave becuase of my conservative convictions, especially surrounding the nature of the Bible itself.

In January of 1974, I transferred to Lynchburg Baptist College which became Liberty Baptist College and presently Liberty University. Liberty at that time was a firm Bible-oriented, soul-winning, fundamentalist Baptist college. The theology department was primarily 4 or 5 point Calvinist in their orientation. The one point they debated was the limited atonement.

After graduating from Liberty, I started an independent baptist church in New Jersey which I pastored for 13+ years. During that time I continued my education through a small Bible school in Maryland. I earned a B.Th. and Ph.D. there. These degrees do not have wide recognition although the school was accredited in the state of Maryland.

In 1992 I moved my family to Massachusetts, where I took the pastorate of Grace Baptist Church – the congregation I still pastor.

For several years I taught as a part-time professor at Baptist Bible College East (now Boston Baptist College) in Boston, MA. When it drifted away from firm biblical footing I resigned. During my experience at BBCE I returned to Liberty for a M.A in Religion, and a M.Div. Since leaving BBCE, I have taught as a guest professor in seminary and was sought as a full time seminary professor in two seminaries. Neither position materialized.

KJVO Debate:
You do not hold what might be considered the “typical” King James Only position. Tell us about your journey to a TR-only position.

Dr. DiVietro:
I am not sure what you mean by “typical” King James Only position. Let me state clearly what I believe and then tell how I came to believe it.

  • I believe that the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus are the preserved, inspired words of God.
  • I believe that the modern versions of the Greek and Hebrew texts has been corrupted by theories advanced by unsaved biased ‘scholars.’
  • Whenever the true words of God have been accurately translated into the English language we have the preserved authoritative words of God in English.
  • The only place where I have the confidence by experience that this has been done is in the King James Bible. I use, as do most KJB advocates, the 1769 revision of the Cambridge text of the KJV of 1611. I have never found a verse which is inaccurately translated when compared to the Greek or Hebrew-Aramaic from which it was translated.

Many people think that only uneducated, traditionalists hold to the King James Bible and the texts from which it came. My experience is that those who hold to the KJB and the texts from which it comes are generally more educated in the details of textual comparisons and translation than non-KJB/Textus Receptus-Masoretic Text advocates. This could only be accomplished by reading both sides of the issue. My library is rather extensive in these areas containing many of the major textual scholars of both America and Britain. It also contains many of the notes and personal papers of those who created the modern textual theories as well as facsimilies of many of the major evidentiary manuscripts. Where manuscripts were not available I gathered printed texts of the manuscripts.

My journey to this position began in my second year of College. UWC used the RSV as its standard text my freshman year. They moved to the NASB in my second year. I used a parallel Bible my first few months of school. Comparing Scriptures quickly led me to believe that there were clearly two very distinct Bible traditions. I defaulted back to the Bible of my youth, the KJB. I found fellowship with a handful of other students who were conservative bible believing Christians. We were expelled because of the liberal bend of the school.

At Liberty I began my Greek education. We used the UBS 2nd edition of the Greek New Testament at Liberty. I was told that whenever it deviated from the Textus Receptus, the TR reading would appear in the apparatus at the bottom of the page.

After one semester I discovered that I had not really learned any Greek grammar and set off to educate myself while continuing to fulfill the academic requirements. My process was simple. Arbitrarily choosing I John 5, I purchased a lexicon, two grammar books, and an analytical lexicon and started translating. I made copious notes until certain vocabulary and forms became familiar.

When I got to I John 5.13 I found that words were missing and there was no footnote explaining why. This led me to realized that someone was lying. The text I was using could not be the source of the King James Bible. I had still not made an academic or scholarly decision on the text or the translation. I was driven to find the text of the KJB and to understand the reasons for the textual differences.

I discovered George Ricker Berry’s interlinear based on the Stephannus 1550 text, which was in the greatest majority the text behind the KJB. I started to translate from it and to compare it to the UBS 2nd. I started to understand the apparatus of the UBS and by analysis of Mark, the Johanine Epistles, Revelation and a few other partial books that there was a pattern.

Between 1/3 and 2/3 of the divurgences from the TR in the UBS text were NOT documented. I also noted that if I removed two manuscripts, Aleph or Sinaticus and B or Vaticanus from the equation the documentary conclusion reversed. I knew nothing about the nature of these or any other Manuscripts.

KJVO Debate:
Probably your best known contribution to textual work is the digital texts for the Scrivener and Stephanus editions of the TR that pretty much all of us who use Logos have. Tell us how that came about.

Dr. DiVietro:
Manuscripts are not readily available for observation. I found Codex W and Z on display at the Smithsonian Institute. My trips to Washington DC brought me into contact with Dr. J. Roy Stewart who headed Baptist International School of Theology. BIST and Dr. Stewart had a library of manuscripts and manuscript analysis. While in the area I found a book called Which Bible by Dr. David Otis Fuller. This book introduced me to areas of research that could prepare me to make intelligent analysis. I enrolled in BIST.

Dr. Stewart introduced me to the computer. At the time there was no computerized Greek New Testament available for the average person. I finally discovered a program which made the UBS text available and purchased it. I was able to get below the ‘program’ and modify parts of the data base back to the TR for convenience. A newer evolution of this program allowed me access to the full text of the Greek NT.

Motivated by curiosity and need I began to revise the ascii codes of the program back to the TR. Dr. Stewart encouraged me to do the entire New Testament since no TR Greek New Testament was available on computer. He provided a photocopy of an actual Stephanus 1550 which I used as the basis for my work. I typed out the entire ascii code of the UBS 2nd Greek text. Visually and mentally comparing this printed code to the Stephannus 1550

I redlined the printed codes back to the TR and then edited the computer files so that the program would produce the Greek text with Greek characters. This would form the backbone of my Ph.D. work. In producing the text I mastered the apparatus and was able to think my way through the alterations. This work and peripheral studies brought me to a convictional dependence on the TR and MT as the source of the English (or any other language) Bible.

KJVO Debate:
You have worked extensively with D.A. Waite and the Dean Burgon Society. Tell us about that association and your reasons for working with Waite.

Dr. DiVietro:
Subsequent to finishing my Stephannus text I was introduced to Dr. D.A. Waite of the Bible for Today. Dr. Waite introduced me to the text of F.H.A. Scrivener which was published in 1881 by the RV committee to show where the TR was changed by the committee. Having read Scrivener’s notes, I became convinced that the Scrivener text (the 1598 text of Theodore Beza with 190 slight alterations) was closer to the text of the KJB. Again armed with the codes of the UBS 2nd I redlined the codes to produce Scrivener’s text. Dr. Waite put me in contact with the producer of Logos Bible Research®. Logos expressed an interest and chose to use my text in their program. It was also used in the early versions of Bible Works for Windows®.

My association with Dr. Waite brought me into the Dean Burgon Society. The DBS is a group which researches textual matters. At annual meetings papers are presented on the subject. As a member of DBS, I have had greater access to many relevent documents. I was able to do more first hand research. Through the years I have become more and more firmly convinced that the Greek Textus Receptus is the very words breathed out by God the only legitimate basis for Bible translations.

KJVO Debate:
You caught quite a bit of flak in some extreme corners recently for being critical of Gail Riplinger’s views. Most people assume that TRO/KJVO people all stick together (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Why take on Riplinger?

Dr. DiVietro:
My allegiance is to truth not positions. It is that simple. Extremists are always used to discredit an unpopular position. Mrs. Riplinger is an extremist who advocates an absurd theory. Those who stand on legitimate grounds must separate from those who through foolishness discredit that position.

The Dean Burgon Society has lost many members through the last few years because of our stand on inspiration. This stand was taken to separate from the false teachings of people like Gail Riplinger. We do not believe that the King James Bible has a claim to inspiration. Mrs. Riplinger and other extremists do. We do not want to be painted with that broad brush.

II Timothy 3:16 says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The word ‘inspiration’ is a translation of ???????????. This word comes from two words meaning ‘God breathed’. The Scriptures are not inspired because they were written by inspired men. They are inspired because God breathed them out. What language did God use to breathe them out? English? NO! He used Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. Those words are the inspired words of God.

The King James Bible, the result of over 200 years of concentrated Bible translation, beginning with Tyndale and ending in 1769, has been tweaked and fine tuned until it accurately preserves the Words of God into English. A pastor or student does not have to read Greek and Hebrew to be confident that he has the words of God but he does not have the words God breathed out in the King James Bible.

If and when English changes sufficiently to demand a new translation and if and when qualified scholars are assembled to do the work and when that work is subject to intense scrutiny and use until it creates consensus and confidence then the KJB will be replaced. I don’t see that as a condition on the foreseeable horizon.

KJVO Debate:
Some say that TR/KJB proponents are marginalized and outdated. How do you respond to this criticism?

Dr. DiVietro:
Truth is not determined by popularity. The average english speaking person is lazy and does not know his own language. He will not pick up a dictionary or a grammar book to work through a difficult passage.

To say that TR/KJB is marginalized because of this phenomena is like saying since people don’t understand the word POISON we should use the term BAD THING. Is poison a bad thing? Yes. Is a bad thing poison? Not necessarily. To hand someone an inaccurate, inexact Bible because they are too lazy to read and understand the real thing is not acceptable.

Many people can’t read a map, and so we have invented GPS devices. My GPS refuses to see my driveway and insists that I drive through the neighbor’s yard to get to my house. There is a property in Maine I have to visit on a regular basis. The GPS tries to send me down three wrong turns on the way. A GPS is a wonderful invention but it is only as valuable as its accuracy. Few people buy atlases anymore BUT an accurate map is far more valuable than an inaccurate GPS.

In the same way having an accurate translation of the very words of God is far more important than having an ‘easy to read’ modern Bible. We used to live by the bromide, “If it is new it is not true. If its true it is not new.” The Bibles being offered today are not just new translations. They have altered the very content and structure of the Bible.

KJVO Debate:
What positive contribution do you believe that TR-only proponents need to make in order to move forward in the discussion of the Greek NT?

Dr. DiVietro:
I believe TR advocates have made every positive contribution they can make. They have advanced the evidence and arguments, but they are ignored. Since their evidence does not enter the mainstream, it is ‘marginalized’ but that’s a faulty premise.

I applied to the Ph.D. program of a fully accredited seminary. I was rejected primarily because I used the KJB and MT/TR. I have the letter of rejection where this was clearly stated.

Textual criticism is a ‘good old boy’ network. If you don’t support their conclusions they will not allow you to have credentials. It is not being argued on a factual basis. This is the reason that questions like yours above about being marginalized are asked. They make the argument by character assassination rather than by facts.

Upcoming Interview – Dr. Kirk DiVietro, TR Advocate

As some of our readers may know, my father, Dr. Kirk DiVietro, is a relatively well known TR advocate (and KJV user by default, although he will tell you flat out that he is a KJV user only because he is a TR user). He holds a Ph.D. and several master’s degrees in Biblical languages, and was an adjunct professor at Boston Baptist College for nearly a decade. He is also responsible for the Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener’s 1881 TR editions that are available in Logos Bible Software. He has had interesting exchanges with people on both sides of the KJV Only Debate – from James White to Gail Riplinger.

He and I had a very enlightening conversation today, and I confess that he made some very valid and poignant points from perspectives I had not thought of before – and I grew up in the guy’s house.

He has graciously agreed to an interview with KJV Only Debate. His is a well-reasoned and doctrinally sound position on the debate. While he is not as prominent as some KJV-O Advocates, he holds a far more rational position.

You don’t have to agree with him to truly appreciate his grasp of the material and his well-reasoned arguments. I am looking forward to the interview. It should appear sometime next month.

Incidentally, here is a link to some things he shared about the New King James Version.