My comments have been inserted in brackets. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
[Well of course. That is all true, except for where you used the word "theory".
If I were to quit believing the Bible, I would indeed be an "apostate".
Notice how Penfold does not believe that the word of God should be our "hobby horse". I wonder what he thinks our "hobby horse" should be?]
[It is true that no two Hebrew or Greek manuscripts have all the words, but how about TEXTS? You left out that one, Penny! Now answer me this Bible corrector: since "no two Greek or Hebrew manuscripts are exactly the same and none contain, in a single publicly accessible place, all the words of the original New Testament and only those words", HOW COULD THEY EVEN POSSIBLY BE "PERFECT"? Perfect means complete! I believe the word of God is in English because the Bible promised preservation to "all nations" that would "continue in his [God's] goodness".
Now the question is, how could the word of God in the "original languages" of Hebrew and Greek be intact? God quit using the Hebrew and promised to send His word to the Gentiles. The Hebrews had the benefit and spiritual blessing of God's word (Ps. 147:19-20, Rom. 3:1-2) BUT NOW the Gentiles get it (Rom. 11:13-25, 15:27, 16:25-26). Penfold missed all of the truth of Romans 3:1-2 with 11:13-25 with 15:27 with 16:25-26.
And what does Penfold mean by, "Ultimately it is by faith. By faith they ‘believe’ that God supernaturally guided the KJV translators to pick the right Greek and Hebrew words and translate them perfectly every single time, despite often having several options from which to choose" There are many problems with that statement:
A.) We were told to walk by faith, not by the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 2:4-13, 2 Cor. 5:6).
B.) We were told that God is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:6-7)
C.) The KJB is not a "translation" it is a TRANSLATION PLUS REVISION. "translated our of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised"!!! Therefore sometime the KJB does not even line up with the Hebrew and Greek and does not "correctly translate" anything. But I do not believe that the Hebrew and Greek carry any more authority than the French, German, Dutch, Spanish, and English that the KJB was a revision of.
D.) Anyone who believes that the original autographs were inspired believes that God chose through the human author every word correctly even though there were many options. This is no different than what King James Bible believers believe about preservation. The same God that made the words pure (inspiration) is the same God that keeps them pure (preservation) according to Psalms 12:6-7 and 1 Peter 1:23-25.]
[Yes, but more importantly than that, it is also scriptural!]
[Well if Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27 all mean what they say, that the word of God "liveth and abideth forever", than YES we must "have all the words of the original and only the words of the original". That is what we must have in our Bibles if we are going to call them "the word of God" because the word of God is "pure" "very pure" and "true from the beginning" (Ps. 12:6, 119:140, 119:160). If our Bible has any mixture of error in it, then it is NOT and CANNOT be called "the word of God".
The font such as "italics" has no bearing on the KJB's preserved words. For example, if I sent you an email using ARIAL font, but you forward it to someone using COURIER, it is still my words no matter what font you put it in.
As for spelling updates in the English language, that does not effect the preserved text.
The KJB of 1611 did not contain the apocrypha as part of the Old and New Testaments--they excluded it from the Bible. The KJB of 1611 contained several sections and was a huge book. One section was called "The Old Testament" and had a cover page and headers that said "Old Testament". This ran from Genesis to Malachi which then said "the end of the prophets". Then they had a section that they titled "APOCRYPHA" which means "books whose authors are not known; whose authenticity, as inspired writings, is not admitted, and which are therefore not considered a part of the sacred canon of the scripture" (Webster's 1828 dictionary). After this, they then had a cover page and headers for the New Testament. King James himself said he rejected the apocryohal books because "I am not a papist". Meanwhile Penfold forgot to mention that the Greek manuscripts behind the modern versions such as the NASB, LB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NWT, etc. contain the apocryphal books inside both their Old Testament and New Testament.
[This is a printers error in the 1611, though it did not effect the meaning of the text. The TR from which the KJB came from contains the word "the" (art the Christ = ει ο χριστος ) .]
[This is a printers error in the 1611, not an error in text. In fact, this is a grammar change and not really a word change. "Tell" and "told" are variants of the same word. The TR from which the KJB came from says "tell Jesus", λεγουσιν τω ιησου.]
[The word order does not matter here, both say the same thing. This printers error was fixed, because again the TR has the current KJB reading χριστω ιησου.]
[Ha, LOL. Penfold is trying to compare printers errors in the early printing methods (not a KJB textual issue) with the textual differences between the Alexandrian translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) and the King James Bible. What a laugh! There is no comparison. I have a Bible that has a ink smeared line on it that it got from the printer, however, if I got some liquid paper and covered up the ink smear, would I be "omitting" the word of God??? NO! I would be correcting a printers error. These corrections are not textual, unlike the differences in the modern versions and the KJB.
Now I will answer Penfold's questions:
1.) "was the 1611 KJV really the infallible, inerrant and perfect word of God?" Yes, every verse that did not contain a printers error was indeed infallible. I have a book called Seventy-Five Problems written by Loyd Streeter. The book is around 220 pages, but about 10 of them are blank. The printer messed up and did not print content on those pages. Does this mean that Loyd's book has errors in it? No. All it means is that the printer did not print you an accurate copy on every page. This is not "corruption", this is an accident. It has nothing to do with the KJB itself.
2.) "Which is it?" Neither one was or is corrupt. The original KJB and the KJB of today are identical aside from updates made in the English language.
3.) "This argument alone spells the end of the myth of a ‘perfectly preserved imperfection free KJV’." I wonder why Penfold won't come out and plainly state that he does not have a final authority and that he does not believe that God has perfectly preserved His words? Penfold does not believe in a "perfectly preserved imperfection free" ANYTHING!
Meanwhile, editions of the NIV and NASB are also numerous and they are actual textual changes and not editing printers errors. But Penfold won't mention that, because he is a punk.]
["KJV only’ advocates state categorically that God must have kept a perfect Bible somewhere - otherwise His promises to preserve His word are worthless" OF COURSE WE STATE THAT! YOU DON'T??? WHY NOT? Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27.
"yet many of them teach that no language in the world has a perfect Bible except English" Who does that? The Bible says that it is available to "all nations" (Rom. 16:25-26).
"Samuel Gipp, a KJV only author, asserts that if a Russian wants to read the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God, he has to learn English and read the KJV!" That is Dr. Samuel Gipp actually. And the reason he said that is because there is not a Russian Bible that lines up with the preserved words found in the KJB. But there are languages that have perfect Bibles other than English, or so I am told by some fellow KJB believers that have worked on translating Bibles. I have a link to a French KJB on my KJV Sites List page.]
[This is classic. Penfold is a idolater. He worships and obeys "the wisdom of men" rather than have faith in God's word. He believes that Church History is our authority in such matters. I am not mispresenting Penfold, read what he says. He plainly stated that if we cannot come up with the infallible word of God in one book prior to 1611, than he will not accept the idea that we have one now. Penfold bases his belief in the word of God on CHURCH HISTORY and not God's word. "When a KJV onlyite asks ‘‘Where is God’s word today?’’ reply to him as follows: ‘‘Where was God’s word in 1610?’’ If he replies ‘‘I’m not interested in 1610 — I’m interested in where the word of God is now ’’ you know you have a sophist on your hands who is not prepared to discuss the issue sanely and sensibly."
The truth of the matter is that Church History is NO authority, only the word of God is, and I can trace the book I have in my hand back to 1611. That is 400 hundred years, that is enough "church history" for me. But I can also trace most any reading found in the KJB all the way back to the 150-800 AD. That is certainly enough "church history" for me. Penfold's logic is the same as those who do not believe in the Pre-Tribulation rapture. They claim that if they cannot find anyone that teaches that doctrine in church history than it must not be true. That contradicts 1 Corinthians 2:5, That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Penfold should enlighten us and let us know what God meant in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. Penfold doesn't know!
By the way, I have never compared the TRs, but I have read the works of those that have and they say that after Erasmus onward, the changes were minor and not textual. Though the only way to know for sure is to check for yourself.]
[And who said that men were the authority? Who ever said that God inspired people's cross references, maps, and foot notes that they put in Bibles? NOBODY. The position of King James Bible believers is that the word of God liveth and abideth forever, not cross references/maps/notes. ]
[The Greek word is neuter, so the KJB is a perfect translation. Just like the Lord is called "it" (Gen. 3:15, Matt. 14:27-28) "that holy thing" (Luke 1:35), and "that which" (1 John 1:1). Why does Penfold think he can tell God what words He should use to describe Himself?
Why didn't Penfold bring up this: all the new perversions such as the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV, etc. all refer to Satan as "the bright and morning star" or "the day star" in Isaiah 14:12? Those are both titles for Jesus Christ. Here is my blog post on that: http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/corrupt-bibles-morning-star-in-isaiah.html
 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
"Lucifer" (vs 12) is the KJB translation of the Hebrew word "hêlêl". The word "Lucifer" is one of the English words for Satan, the word itself being derived from the Latin bibles. The word as an adjective, as used in Isaiah 14:12, means "light bringing".
Satan falls from heaven as lightning and he also transforms himself into an angel of light (a false light).
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore "Lucifer" (adj. "light bringing") is an adequate description of Satan.
There are many angels of God, yet there is only one "THE angel of the Lord" and that is Jesus Christ (Gen. 48:16, Exod. 3:2-6, 23:20-23, 32:34, Acts 27:23, Gal. 4:14). There are many sons of God (Gen. 6:2-4, Job 1:6, 2:1), but there is only one "THE Son of God" (Dan. 3:25, John 20:31). There are many "morning stars" (Job 38:7, Rev. 1:20) but there is only one "THE bright and morning star" (Rev. 22:16, Num. 24:17, Mal. 4:2). At least that is how it is in the REAL Bible, the KJB. But look at how the modern perversions have freely given Christ's titles to Satan.
Note: Day Star is another one of Christ's names: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" (2 Pet. 1:19)
AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!
Isaiah 14:12 How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!]
COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 How you’ve fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn! You are cut down to earth, helpless on your back!
COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 “How did you come to fall from the heavens, morning star, son of the dawn? How did you come to be cut to the ground, conqueror of nations?
CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 You, the bright morning star, have fallen from the sky! You brought down other nations; now you are brought down.
EASY TO READ VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 You were like the morning star, but you have fallen from the sky. In the past, all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down.
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, ·morning star [or day star; or shining one; still addressing the king of Babylon, though sometimes applied to Satan], ·even though you were as bright as the rising sun [ son of the dawn]! In the past all the nations on earth ·bowed down before you [or were laid low by you],
but now you have been cut down.
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, you morning star, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the ground, you conqueror of nations!
GOOD NEWS TRANSLATION
Isaiah 14:12 King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground.
HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations,
you have been cut down to the ground.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, Day Star, son of the Dawn! How you have been thrown down to earth, you who laid low the nation!
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!Why would you use a "bible" that gives Christ's names to Satan? (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:5-6, Jer. 23:30, Jer. 23:36, 2 Cor. 2:17, 2 Cor. 4:2, Rev. 22:18-19)
[Penfold simply does not know what he is talking about. No Greek Text says "passover" in Acts 12:4. They all say "pascha". Pascha has historically been used by Greeks to mean BOTH "passover" and "easter". There is no Greek word for Easter other than pascha! The Greek word Pascha means Easter. Check any Greek source. Buy an Oxford Greek Dictionary, a Greek Easter card, or go to Google Translate.com .
As for Luke 22:1, Dr. Peter Ruckman says,
" Note that "the feast of unleavened bread" in verse 1 is defined as "the DAY of unleavened bread" in verse 7. This means that "the feast of unleavened bread" in verse 1 is not the seven-day feast that starts the day after Passover (Lev. 23:5-6). The Passover is called "the feast of unleavened bread" here because the Passover lamb was to be eaten with bread (Exod. 12:8, 18; Num. 9:11; Deut. 16:2-3).
The reason this is so important is because all the critics of the AV say that the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistake; the proper translation should be "Passover" (once again the NKJV reads with the NASV and NIV). But Acts 12:4 couldn't possibly be a reference to the Passover, for "Then were the DAYS [plural] of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3). "The DAY [singular] of unleavened bread"--the Passover (Luke 22:1;7)--was over and done with (Lev. 23:5-6). "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is obviously a pagan feast--celebrated by a pagan, Roman Idumean (Edomite) who worshipped "Ashtaroth" (Judg. 2:13, 1:6; 1 Sam. 7:3; 1 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:13)--that conincided with the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3)--NOT Passover."
(The Book of Luke, Bible Believer's Commentary Series by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman) ]
[All the other English versions prior to the KJB use the same expression, "God forbid" (Wycliffe 1380, 1395; Tyndale 1525, 1534; Coverdale 1535; The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1539, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557, 1587, 1599, 1602, and the Douay-Rheims version of 1582). I wonder why Penfold did not mention that? Probably because he just so happens to hate ONE BOOK. In fact, according to Mr. Will Kinney's research, look at all the versions that use the same phrase:
""God forbid" is also the reading found in John Wesley's N.T. translation of 1755, Mace N.T. done in 1729, Whiston's Primitive New Testament of 1745, the Worsley Version of 1790, the Book of the New Covenant 1836 (Granville Penn), the English Revised Version (of Westcott-Hort fame) of 1881, and the American Standard Version of 1901. The Douay version of 1950 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version of 1952 in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, J. B. Phillips has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, and The Update Bible of 2003 have "God forbid" in all the same passages as does the King James Bible.
Other English Bible translations that use the phrase "GOD FORBID" in places like Romans 3:4 are The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Family of Yah 2001 "Elohim forbid", The Tomson New Testament 2002 - "God forbid", the Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), the Bond Slave Version 2009, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the 2011 The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible, The BRG Bible 2012,
The Common English Bible 2011 - “GOD FORBID that we should rebel against the Lord” (Joshua 22:29), “Then the people answered, “GOD FORBID that we ever leave the Lord to serve other gods!” (Joshua 24:16), “GOD FORBID that I should do that,” he said. “Isn’t this the blood of men who risked their lives?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Then Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This won’t happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22), “But as for me, GOD FORBID that I should boast about anything except for the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 6:14)
Maybe these Common English Bible translators should have consulted with Mr. Kutilek before they made all these "blunders", ya think? Oh, wait. There's more.
The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17,
The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"
The Living Bible 1971 has "God forbid" in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, 1 Samuel 26:11 "But GOD FORBID that I should kill the man he has chosen to be king!", 1 Chronicles 11:19 and in Job 22:18 "GOD FORBID that I should say a thing like that."
The Expanded Bible 2011 has "GOD FORBID" in 1 Chronicles 11:19, Matthew 16:22 and Luke 20:16.
The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - “My GOD FORBID that I should do such a thing! Am I to drink the blood of these men who went and put their lives in jeopardy?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Heaven forbid!” (Romans 3:4, 6)
The Lexham English Bible has ''God forbid" in Matthew 16:22 - "And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, GOD FORBID, Lord! This will never happen to you!”
Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 has GOD FORBID in 1 Chronicles 11:19 - “GOD FORBID that I should do this!”, and in Matthew 16:22 - “So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This must not happen to you!”"
See Mr. Will Kinney's full article here: http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/godforbid.htm
Why didn't Penfold mention any of those? Because he is a punk]
[It is missing any neither place. Titus 2:13 says "God and our Saviour JESUS CHRIST". How is the Deity of Christ not there? How about the omission of the Deity of Christ in the modern versions in 1 Timothy 3:16? Or Luke 2:33? Or Romans 14:12? etc.]
[I have no idea what you are talking about or why it matters. You sound like the type of person that has to have everything exactly to your liking. You should translate your own Bible exactly to your liking and use that from now on so that you can quit belly aching about the King James Bible.
By the way, re: churches/temples in Acts 19, the words "church" and "temple" are used interchangeably in the Bible.
John 2:21 "But he spake of the TEMPLE of his body."
Ephesians 1:22-23 "...the CHURCH, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Ephesians 2:21 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy TEMPLE in the Lord:"
1 Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual HOUSE, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
Not to mention there are CHURCHES called "Baptist Temple" or "Bible Baptist TEMPLE" etc.
The words are interchangeable, according to the scriptures. ]
[That is not difficult. But how about The Message "bible"? Is that up to date enough for you? That version uses terms like "turd", "bull dozer", "truckload", "always cooking up something nasty", and "nasty surprises". The Message is so slang that it is hard to understand. How come Bible correctors only bring up "archaic" words in the KJB and not slang words in the modern versions?
But I find your point about " obscure language" to be interesting. You believe that God has only preserved His word in Hebrew and Koine Greek, but aren't those OBSCURE LANGUAGES??? They are especially more obscure than the King James Bible.]
[Let me help Penfold state what he believes, a little plainer.
"kept His promise of preservation by letting the word of God exist as a complete entity across thousands of manuscripts but not in any single perfect manuscript" What Penfold means by this is that the word of God is everywhere but nowhere. We have no certainty of anything, all we have is scattered pieces of paper that 'scholars' can look at and tell us what belongs in our Bibles and what doesn't. The scholars can invent their own systems of deciding what manuscripts are accurate and which ones aren't.
Meanwhile the Bible says:
"your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:6)
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Ps. 118:8)
"...I trust in thy word." (Ps. 119:42)
Penfold denies that we have "all authority" and final authority which is the word of God (Titus 1:9, 2:15).
"The word of God exists wherever a faithful translation is made of what was originally written." Of course! Every 6 year old kid in Vacation Bible School knows that. What we need to know is WHAT exactly was "originally written".....you don't know and couldn't tell us if your soul depended on it.
"However, no single book, even in Greek and Hebrew, has ever existed that had every single letter and word of the entire Bible in place - in the right place." Penfold does not ever read his Bible, all he does is complain about how it is not really "pure" "holy" "given by inspiration of God" etc. If he did read his Bible, he would know that the word of God was once in Hebrew in one Book.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
As for the Burgon quote, all KJB Onlies agree with it. We all believe that not every manuscript is protected by God, there are MANY corruptions (2 Cor. 2:17, 4:2).
Penfold's arguments are based on church history and the "wisdom of men", not in the power of God.