The New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe.

The man who regards these doctrines as merely the mistaken beliefs of the Christian Church is consistent if he gives them only a minor place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so minor as to leave his New Testament textual criticism essentially the same as that of any other ancient book. But the man who holds these doctrines to be true is inconsistent unless he gives them a prominent place in his treatment of the New Testament text, a place so prominent as to make his New Testament textual criticism different from that of other ancient books, for if these doctrines are true, they demand such a place.

Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the consistently Christian method and the naturalistic method.

These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.

Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine.

Begin with Christ and the Gospel and follow the logic of faith. This is the principle that must guide us in our graduate studies, especially in the biblical field. If we adhere to it, then everything we learn will fit beautifully into its place in the Christian thought-system. But if we ignore Christ and adopt a neutral approach to knowledge, we will soon lose ourselves in a wilderness of details and grow more and more chaotic in our thinking.

following are excerpts form he Book "The King James Version Defended" by Edward F. Hills, Th.D., Th.M.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

2 Kinds of Text Critics - Faith based, meaning the Bible is the Word of God, Inspired, Inerrant and Preserved OR Naturalistic, meaning the Bible is a human Book, it matters nothing what the Bible says.

2 Kinds of Methods - Faith based, using the carefully copied Manuscripts from within the Church, its widespread usage and availability among the Saints OR Naturalistic, meaning an attempt to RECONSTRUCT a new Text from highly corrupted Manuscripts (mostly) outside the Church, rarely used and not accessible for the Saints. This Reconstructionism will constantly change the Greek Text and the resulting Bible translation will drift further and further from the Truth.

Here is an excerpt from Daniel B. Wallace, Senior Professor of New Testament Studies, PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary. A Modern Text Critic.

The Paper is titled" Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

Amazingly, he considers himself a conservative Christian.

"What is the textual difference, then, between the (new) KJV NT and other modern translations? In a nutshell, most modern translations are based on a few ancient manuscripts, while the (new) KJV NT is based on a printed edition of the Greek New Testament (called the Textus Receptus or TR) which, in turn, was derived from the majority of medieval manuscripts (known collectively as the majority text [MT] or Byzantine text). In one respect, then, the answer to the question “What is the most accurate New Testament?” turns on the question, “Which manuscripts are closest to the original—the few early ones or the many late ones?”

In this paper it is not my objective to answer that question. Rather, I wish to address an argument that has been used by TR/MT advocates—an argument which is especially persuasive among laymen. The argument is unashamedly theological in nature: inspiration and preservation are intrinsically linked to one another and both are intrinsically linked to the TR/MT. That is to say, the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration necessitates the doctrine of providential preservation of the text, and the doctrine of providential preservation necessarily implies that the majority text (or the TR) is the faithful replica of the autographs. Inspiration (and inerrancy) is also used for the Byzantine text’s correctness in two other ways: (1) only in the Byzantine text do we have an inerrant New Testament; (2) if any portion of the New Testament is lost (no matter how small, even if only one word), then verbal-plenary inspiration is thereby falsified.

If inspiration and preservation can legitimately be linked to the text of the New Testament in this way, then the (new) KJV NT is the most accurate translation and those who engage in an expository ministry should use this text alone and encourage their audiences to do the same. But if this theological argument is not legitimate, then New Testament textual criticism needs to be approached on other than a theological a priori basis. And if so, then perhaps most modern translations do indeed have a more accurate textual basis after all."

As you can imagine, in summary, he, like all modern Text Critics, do not allow any arguments "theological in nature". In other words, they do not allow Scripture to have any say. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" means absolutely nothing to him. What good is it to believe in Inspiration when the words are not Preserved for us today? If only the originals are Inspired and than are lost, why bother?

And YES, Inspiration and Preservation can ONLY be linked to the Traditional Text the Churches have used continually since the Apostles. These Manuscripts were widely available, carefully copied in Scriptoriums and used by the Believers. This is what Christians believe. So, Wallace is correct in his statement saying that the most accurate translation is the King James Bible!

Why do these Text Critics elevate just a few "ancient" Manuscripts? They come from Garbage Mounds, Gnostic Compounds, and are influenced by Gnostic writings from Egypt. Go, test the Ink of Codex Sinaiticus and you will see it is just as fake as Archaic Mark. Why do they ignore the overwhelming support from early Translations and Church Fathers quotations for the Traditional Text?

Dear born again Christian, stay away from false Prophets like these modern Text Critics. They do not have in mind the things of Christ.