John Owen had his opinion about which textual evidence was more correct based upon what was available to him in the 17th century. I do no recall Owen ever writing that he believed that the TR was "inspired". That would have been unlike Owen to make such a claim knowing the process that took place throughout the centuries and for nothing else the reality that there were copiest errors. Since we do not have the ORIGINAL handwritten autographs which came from Moses, the Apostles and others, e.g., the writer of Hebrews, EVERYTHING we have is a copy all of which were also handwritten by a human being, many of which were unregenerate. Yes, God the Spirit attended the transmission of the Scriptures, but none but the originals were written by the Spirit's inspiration and were thus infallible and inerrant. As I have written here on numerous occasions and elsewhere, it is impossible to make a statement, e.g., that the TR is the ONLY true infallible and inerrant manuscript evidence. And again, the majority of the variants which exist between alternatives which others prefer are extremely minor. No crucial, fundamental of the Christian faith is compromised between them. How these texts are TRANSLATED is a far more important matter to my mind because a bad translation can and has resulted in heretical doctrines being embraced and taught in the Church.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]