This post wishes to present several resources dealing with a potentially complex and deep topic. The debate of Textual Criticism.
Several of these works come from the website Text and Translation.
The reason I find this website and these works refreshing is because of the Critical Text debate (CT). It was not until the late 19th century that there were no other English Bibles except for those that are from the Geneva Bible, the Puritan Bible, and the King James Version. That changed when Wescott and Hort wrote their own Greek New Testament which gave way to all of the modern versions we see today.
Why do I say this? Because of the significance of the TR vs the CT debate and the fact that the points and arguments put forth by the TR adherants are outright ignored by the CT side.
Dean Burgon, in his work Revision Revised, puts forth an innumerable amount of arguments, and issues that have, to this day, been largely ignored and unanswered (or even just downplayed as being tiresome). But still, before finding the Text and Translation Website, I had always wondered, were there any modern scholars who held to the belief of preservation of the Word. Yes there are.
Why do I post this here? Because there has been, from my research, a resurgence of Textual Criticism debate. One one side is the belief that God preserved His Word down through time and we have the Word of God in our hands. On the other side is the Word of God is not really known and we must critique the Words to see if we can discover the actual Word of God and even then we may not truly know what was really the Word of God because we lost the original writings. Because of this, I cannot sit back and hope for the best. I love my church family, and I love the truth, and I want both to be going in the same direction.
One of my goals in ministry was and is not to force people into one Bible or to make this a flash point of contention. I have simply taught from what I believe is the Word of God and then answered questions as they came up. If asked, I do have my opinion and am more than happy to discuss this.
However, if anyone starts to delve into this field of study, it can get very confusing, very quickly. And I want to help start this branch of study out on an equal footing.
Even more dishonest, and the other reason I am writing, is there is a predominate belief that all of the evidence of the ancient manuscripts, and all of the earliest readings support one side of this debate. The CT side.
I say this is dishonest, because this would tend to lead those who start studying, to believe that the TR is made up of just a few, minority manuscripts with very little support. This is not the case. In fact, majority of the earliest and oldest manuscripts support the TR! This is and has been documented beyond doubt, except for those who do not like the TR manuscripts.
There are other works that I will point out to read. I will post them here, not because I agree with them or with some of their positions, but I believe it will bring a good, well rounded understanding of this debate. My encouragement is to enter this discussion with prayer and seeking the Holy Spirit's leading and guiding.
In defense of the Textus Receptus (Not necessarily a KJV-Onlyist position):
In defense of the Critical Text (I have these here for intellectual honesty. Not because I agree with these positions at all)