It strikes me that Brandenburg is simply assuming his conclusion; he wants to argue that the words of Scripture--each yodh and tittle and so on--are preserved--and thus he begins with that very assumption.  Lost in the matter is the basic, real, debate over whether the very word "word" (logos I presume) refers to individual words, or a message--say as in John 1:1--and really the entire debate over translation methods of word-word accuracy vs. idiomatic translation.  

Never mind, of course, the manuscript evidence.  But that for later.

Jay that's really the whole matter. Mr. Brandenburg rightly wants an exegetical response to what he is saying but there is no connection between his exegesis and his particular position. 

I wish I could take what Jay quoted as a joke, but given that even Brandenburg is slipping into some pretty nasty personal attacks, calling someone "secular" and accusing someone of "eisegesis" for disagreeing with him about Psalm 12, I've got to say that this is pretty much a faith-killing doctrine.  Let's walk through it;

If indeed Psalm 12 and other passages clearly don't say what KJVO advocates say they do, we must first conclude that in effect, they're setting their "teachers" up as a higher authority than Scripture.  Sola Scriptura and the First Fundamental are, as far as I can tell, GONE with those who are KJVO.   What you are going to get is authoritarian leadership that uses clearly sinful methods (slander, insults, etc..)  to spread their doctrine.

In doing so, they are simultaneously going to inoculate people to the Scripture precisely because it is the leader, not the Scripture, calling the shots.  And I'll be blunt; I was part of a "closet KJVO" church for a while, and my family is good friends with a family at an openly KJVO church, and what I've seen is simply not pretty.  I've seen my Methodist step-father pointing out that if what he heard is indicative, he's concerned that my kids would not learn much theology.   We left soon afterwards.  I've seen my kids' friends ask legitimate questions of their pastor, only to have him appeal to his authority.  He had no Biblical answers, and my view is the kids were right.  I've seen a church treat excommunication as if it were some feature of Biblical fidelity.  I know several families that were victims of that debacle.

Sorry, but unless there's a benign kind of KJVO out there that I've never seen, it's a cancer on the body of Christ, one that infringes on the First Fundamental and all of the Solas.  It needs to be excised, put in a theohazard bag and burned.

I've got no objections to the doctrine that God's Word will be preserved--the question is not whether, but HOW, and the answer to that simply needs to be consistent with the manuscript evidence.  And if someone argues that a Psalm in Hebrew indicates which Greek manuscripts--written down 1000 to 2000 years later--would be authoritative, and that this furthermore indicates which translations of that Greek manuscript are allowed, and those half a millenium later than the manuscripts, again....

...it's worth noting that Wilbur Pickering's work is not only based on the Majority Text, not the TR, he also appears to have done a new translation.  If one goes a couple of clicks further, the societies to which Pickering belongs include at least one where he is a director that make it very clear that the MT text he's chosen is NOT the TR by any stretch of the imagination.  Would love to see KJVO activists like Brandenburg dance around that one.  

Along these lines, it's worth noting is that what I experienced at the wannabe KJVO church was that the "pastor" ** would use any resource as long as it agreed with his conclusion, and the fact that one source contradicted the other completely was of no importance.  For example, he'd teach the Chick KJVO theory, which argues that the perfect text is the Old Latin, simultaneously with David Sorenson's TR advocacy, without seeing any contradiction.  As long as it was a club to use on his enemies, he was good with it.

**"pastor" is in quotes here because I can not in good faith refer to him with that title.  He was an abuser of the Word of God, not a shepherd of God's people.

In Pickering's world, what that means is that he's decided some textual variants don't matter, so "completely identical" means that manuscripts are separated by spelling errors, grammatical errors, and the like.  In other words, he's set the bar just high enough so that F35 can sneak through, but (perhaps) other text groups cannot, and of course comparing group A to group B fails this test.  He admits as much in the link to his book provided above.  

That's not scholarship, but gamesmanship.  Same basic thing with ellipses and taking quotes out of context.  And when Brandenburg not only falls for it, but believes (pretends?) that it has something to do with his preferred text group, the nicest thing we can say is that he's not much of a scholar.  

JBL, Kent's summaries remind me of yesterday's "FactCheck" from the Washington Post, which started by admitting that a set of Trump claims was factually correct, then proceeded to change the question, and since the answer to a different question is not as Trump stated, declared him to be a liar because his answer wasn't the answer to their question.  No matter how well you did the summaries, you'd be accused of bias.

You might make it pay, though.  :^)

Reading that summary is just plain sad to me, since Brandenburg really doesn't make any attempt to answer criticisms.  A couple of favorite places where he just blips by are when he claims the first century church just knew what Scripture was, and where he denies that the wording of many OT quotes is more consistent with the LXX than ancient Hebrew manuscripts.  It is as if he is unaware that Peter had to commend Paul's writing to many churches, that Paul had to note that "All Scripture" is given by inspiration of God, and that Paul also had to defend his ministry vs. the "super-apostles" in 2 Corinthians.   For that matter, Jerome was actually attacked for translating the OT out of Hebrew instead of the LXX--it's not like this textual analysis thing is new!

KJVO/TSKT is such a waste of perfectly good brain cells.  

...if the trajectory of preservation moves forward, not backward, please explain to me why the 1516 Textus Receptus is our standard understanding of the best rendition of the original New Testament.  The trajectory is forward, but it's been in neutral and nobody has touched the clutch for 501 years now?

I would agree that the trajectory of textual understanding ought to move forward, and that those involved in discovering and analyzing ancient manuscripts ought to be using that clutch.    But that reality will tend to lead us away from, not towards, a TR position, I dare say, unless we put an extraordinary amount of weight on the the source for some major differences between the TR and the MT; the text of the Vulgate and the assumption that Jerome had an ancient manuscript with those verses in it in that form.  Given that this was the only Catholic Bible for over a millenium, and still ranks as "THE" important translation for Catholics today, suffice it to say it would be odd to give it that weight among fundamental Baptists.

....they can be a great resource for checking one's logic, but appealing to the number and type of commentaries is simply argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad vericundiam, appeal to popularity or appeal to authority.  One always "loses" that kind of argument simply because your opponent simply has his own echo chamber and collection of authorities.

(not picking on you, T. Howard, just pointing out a rhetorical reality)

But that said, we do know that the commentaries give a great picture of what may, or may not, follow from a given passage given what we know of history and the like.  And I am with Jay in not interacting directly with Kent on this topic simply because he doesn't seem willing to really address contrary evidence, even when it's an obvious characteristic of his own sources.  (e.g. Pickering's use of MT f35 group, which is not TR, to prove "perfect" manuscripts, and his "interesting" definition of "perfect" matches)