The King James Bible Defended

[dmatic]

Thanks Wiskey! Fascinating reading. What a history.

So, according to my limited understanding, no originals exist? I have often wondered if the "Greek New Testament" is not original...but, rather, a translation of the original Hebrew or Aramaic?

From the article: "Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original."

[CaryC]

Note:

The two most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the Textus Receptus, dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, and the Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, first published in 1881. These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the discovery and evaluation of surviving New Testament manuscripts, and, not surprisingly, with often differing results.

Of early Christian writers before the fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the writings of Origen, whose Scripture quotations are exceedingly numerous.

From above.

New article below:

Modern Bible Versions, and Westcott and Hort by Pastor Tobin Pederson When it comes to the various Bible versions of our modern day, most readers assume that all Bibles are created equal, with perhaps differing degrees of readability. By the same token, most have rid themselves of the "ancient" King James Version and upgraded for a newer model, such as the NIV , or NASB, etc. When the modern Bible reader is asked if they are familiar with the two Textual Bible Critics, Westcott and Hort, most have never heard of them. They are not aware nor concerned that almost all the modern Bible versions of our day are built upon the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, commonly called the Westcott-Hort text. In my own NIV Student Bible (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, Copyright 1986, 1992), there is no mention of Westcott and Hort, but a mere reference to "textual criticism."
“Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism.”
Though these quotations say nothing of Westcott and Hort, they are hidden behind the words “accepted principles of textual criticism“. Textual Criticism To understand Westcott and Hort, you must first understand textual criticism. This requires us to reach back in history to the days of the apostles, when the New Testament was written in the original Greek language - sometime between 33-100 AD. Since the original books of the Bible do not exist any more, it becomes necessary to translate the Bible from copies of the original. The word MANUSCRIPTS is used to describe these copies or parchments which still exist. There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek content. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly. Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand (5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus. Since 99.9% of these manuscripts agree, we can be comforted knowing that God has preserved His Word among us. You could say that “Over five thousand witnesses agree, this New Testament is God’s holy Word”. Not only do we have 5000+ manuscripts which are nearly identical, but the Lord Himself promises us through His Word to preserve His Scriptures for the sake of mankind. In Matthew 24:35 Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but My words shall not pass away." Isaiah 40:8 says, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand forever." See also Is. 30:8, 59:21, I Pet 1:23. The point here is simple. God has promised to preserve His Word among us, and God always keeps His promises! Likewise we dare never put confidence in man. "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Ps. 118:8 Putting our confidence in God and not man, it seems apparent our Lord has kept His promise and that His Word is faithfully preserved in over 5000 witnesses!

Now we have said that 99.9% of those 5000+ manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly, but what about the other .1%??? These are commonly called the MINORITY TEXTS, but they are also known to many as the corrupted manuscripts. For much unlike the 5000+, these five
manuscripts are radically different. They do not even agree with each other. Their names are as follows:
Codex Vatican (B) Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) Codex Alexandrian (A) Codex Ephraemi (C) Codex Bezae (D) If we are to understand the foundation of the NIV , it is critical to understand that the NIV is translated from these five manuscripts above which do not agree with one another. But what does this mean and is it important? Take, for example, five men who are eye witnesses to a crime. In the court room they tell it to the judge as it is, yet when the judge hears each of their stories, the witnesses do not agree. The judge then listens to the other side which holds over 5000 witnesses. These 5000 agree perfectly as to what happened.

So here is the dilemma when it comes to the "witness" of the Greek manuscripts. Do we listen to the 5000+ witnesses, or do we listen to the 5? Which group do you think would be more trustworthy? At this point we have entered the realm of “textual criticism”. A textual critic is one who picks and chooses what part of whose story they will believe to be true. They make themselves the judge. For example, the witness “Codex Vatican B” (one of the five), a Greek manuscript of the New Testament, testifies that the last 12 verses of Mark do not exist. In other words, the manuscript “Codex Vatican B” does not contain Mark 16:9-20. Now take your Bibles and look at Mark 16:9-20. If you have a King James Bible you see it is about the resurrected Christ,....quite an important part of Scripture. The King James men used the Majority text (5000+) and simply translated it as is. But if you have a NIV Bible, between verses 8 and 9 there is a line and a large space along with this caption in brackets:
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20]
After this bracket in the NIV they then list verses 9-20 (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, Copyright 1986, 1992, pg 1104).
For the reader of the NIV this note in brackets must at least cause doubt to enter one's mind as to the authenticity of these verses. They might argue, "My Bible says the “earliest” manuscripts do not have this verse!" But does this reader know of the thousands of other manuscripts which do contain this verse? The one who writes “the earliest manuscripts.....” is the man we call a textual critic. He picks and chooses what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t, based upon his education, beliefs, and ideals. His method of picking and choosing which verses belong and which verses don't, is called the eclectic method. The Westcott-Hort text is an eclectic text. They are the judges as to what belongs in the Bible and what does not.
The whole problem with textual criticism is that man becomes the judge of what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t. A textual critic sets himself up as judge over God’s Word, when no man has such a right. The Scriptures are not to be privately interpreted. The Bible teaches “No Scripture is of private interpretation”. No mere mortal dare add to, or subtract from God’s Word (the last chapter in Revelation teaches this). Textual criticism is flawed because man’s judgment is by nature flawed with
bias. It is comparable to a judge with a criminal past, making a judgment based upon the witness of five liars, and at the same time ignoring the unified witness of over 5000 men. Can his verdict be true? We know the verdict and outcome before the trial is over. So our modern Bibles today have been translated by men who make themselves judges. Instead of simply translating what the majority of witnesses agree to, they translate from their own fancy, the false witness of the five. In like manner, if a scientist is also an evolutionist and aetheist, do we need to hear his science before we know his verdict? Assuredly his verdict will be against the six literal days of creation.
Westcott and Hort were the original textual critics of their day. Though they no longer live, their legacy lives on in the form of a corrupted Greek text. The influence of their methods blackens and corrupts every modern translation of the Bible available (NIV, NASB, NKJV , NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV , TEV , GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY , and the New Word Translation). Readers of these new Bibles are quite unaware that they are reading the translation of a corrupt text. Without thinking or looking deeper into the matter, they blindly assume that every Bible is the same. They assume some are just more easy to read than others. But we must remember that Bibles are translated by men, and thus corruption is possible. Westcott and Hort did what was unthinkable.....they picked through five Greek texts which did not agree with each other, and came up with a new revised Greek version of the Bible. All modern Bibles of the day have therefore not been translated from the 5000+ Majority text, but from the 5 disagreeing witnesses. Which Bible do you think is more reliable? Isn't it better to trust that God preserved His Word in the 5000+ witnesses rather than the five witnesses who do not agree with each other? The KJV is a straight translation from the Majority text. The NIV (and others) is taken from the five Minority texts, which do not agree. We don't even know what part of which text they used and where! The consensus however is they favored the Aleph and B text more than the others.
The Men Who Made Themselves Judges And what do we know about these men who made themselves the judges over God's holy Word? Much has been written about them, but also their own recorded words shed light on their beliefs. The following is information is take from two sources, G.A. Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions, and Mr. Joseph Van Beek's tract, KJV vs NIV.
“In 1841 an old manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was discovered lying on a shelf in the Vatican library. In 1844 part of another old manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) was found in a wastebasket in St. Catherines’s monastery (the other part was found in 1859). It is generally believed that these were from the 50 that Eusebius prepared for Constantine. In 1853 these two Cambridge professors, Westcott and Hort, began to prepare a Greek Text based primarily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. They passed by the Traditional Text (Textus Receptus) which was the text upon which the King James Version is based. Instead they used the corrupted manuscripts of the Gnosticism-Origen-EusebiusJerome-Augustine lineage." (Joseph Van Beek‘s tract: KJV vs NIV, pgs 5 & 6)
As to the personal beliefs of Westcot and Hort: 1) They never claimed or testified that the Bible was verbally inspired or inerrant. 2) They denied the Genesis account of creation and questioned whether Eden ever existed......Instead they praised Darwin’s 1859 theory of evolution. 3) Hort wrote, “The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to his death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” 4) Hort wrote, “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus worship have very much in common in their
causes and their results.” Westcott found a statue of Mary and a crucified Christ in a remote chapel and wrote, “Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours.” Please note that neither Westcott nor Hort believed that the Bible was God’s Word. Hort did not believe in the complete blood atonement of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, calling such doctrine "heresy". Both found nothing wrong with the worship of Mary.

The following are quotes of Westcott and Hort, found in Riplinger’s book. Westcott - “I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” Riplinger, pg 622
Hort - “Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . . There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” Riplinger, pg 621
Hort - “[T]his may be cowardice - I have sort of a craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text issued by men who are already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulty in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms. (Hort’s letter to Westcott regarding their writing other things.)” Riplinger, pg 623
Westcott - “I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes. . . I suppose I am a communist by nature.” Riplinger, pg 624
Westcott - “our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” Riplinger, pg 625
Westcott and Hort were spiritualists. They sought out contact with the spiritual world (talking with the dead, etc.). Riplinger speaks much on this subject and also aligns them with the New Age movement. They started the “Ghostly Guild” in 1851 and before that the “Hermes Club” in 1845. Riplinger links the spiritualist teachings of Westcott and Hort to the occult teachings of Madame Helena P. Blavatsky who wrote the Lucifer magazine. Westcott, Hort, and Blavatsky are all forerunners of the modern day New Age movement which aims at one world religion.
Conclusion
The conclusion is obvious. Any modern translation that is based upon Westcott and Hort's Greek text cannot be trusted, for it is based upon five manuscripts which do not even agree with one other. The KJV, on the other hand, is based upon the Majority text, over 5000 witnesses agreeing. This is to say nothing of the hundreds of church fathers who quoted their Scriptures in sermons, writings, etc., which also testify to the standard of the Majority text. Even the casual reader of the Bible, if he were to compare a modern translation (NIV) with the KJV , will easily find numerous differences between the two (Consider Revelation 1:11, Heb. 2:16, Col. 2:9). Even a brief comparison of passages between the NIV and KJV will yield useful information. Therefore it is unwise for the sincere Christian to readily accept modern Bible translations assuming them to be accurate and faithful to the Word of God. They are anything but. To learn more about Bible versions and the many problems with modern translations, consider the following:
David Otis Fuller, D. D. Which Bible Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 49501
David Otis Fuller, D. D. Counterfeit Or Genuine Mark 16? John 8? Grand Rapids International Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49501
Pastor R. W. Shekner, Comparisons, Anchor Publications (anchorbooksandtracts.com)
Taylor and Young, Distorted Scripture, Anchor Publications (anchorbooksandtracts.com)
G. A. Riplinger New Age Bible Versions A V Publications, Box 388 Munroe Falls, Ohio, 44262 1-800-435-4535.

http://www.orthodoxlutheran.org/pdf/...leversions.pdf

[Wiskey Reb]

[QUOTE]

Thanks Wiskey! Fascinating reading. What a history.

You're welcome...always happy to dispel myths and innaccuracies that waylay peoples faith.

So, according to my limited understanding, no originals exist? I have often wondered if the "Greek New Testament" is not original...but, rather, a translation of the original Hebrew or Aramaic?

No originals are known to exist. Some speculate about Aramaic or Hebrew originality, and certainly Hebraisms are present in the text when the conversion is made. That alone doesn't constitute proof. There is no reason to reject the body of evidence which proves the NT to be the most verifiable document of ancient history apart from the Tanakh. But accepting the TR as the only acceptable text negates any such evidence from possibility. If one wants an emotion based faith, I suppose that's ok. If one wants a defendable faith, one will be grateful for the body of evidence. But in the end, KJVO fundamentalists reject the way G-d chose to preserve His word, and demand from Him that He preserve it in a way that He did not choose. And in order to maintain an appearance of right, they protect their chosen text from scrutiny and propogandize innacuracies about the others.

From the article: "Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original."

Don't take that to mean they are corrupted. Rather, all bodies of ancient text have variations from the others, which proves authenticity of source rather than negates it. If KJVO'ers would only use the same scrutiny of the TR as they do with all the other sources, an honest discussion might be possible. Unfortunately, like so many of the KJVO internet sources posted here, the information is so innaccurate, and it is repeated over and over again, that the rule of actually tracing their information to sources has been lost, and is now merely a mantra that is propogandized into acceptance. Ultimately, the fundamentalists want exclusivity. And they think that by narrowing accepted texts to a half dozen, they can maintain that exclusivity. They have really done the opposite and rendered their text and evidence for it as subjective and based on blind faith and presupposition as any other religion....and it becomes just another religion, as is reflected in the character of fundamentalists as seen in their behavior.

If you use a decent Bible, it will, as closely as possible, represent an academic and unbiased assessment of the whole body of text, not just codexed compilations by prior scholars.

[dmatic]

Thank you CaryC for another excellent reading. I am learning something! From that article, if I did not read it incorrectly, Translations from the "majority text", that text 'received', which is a compilation of all the 5366? manuscripts that "agree with each other", not in exact Greek content, but in "principle"(?), are translations that can be trusted, the main one being the KJV?

From the article: "There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek content. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly. Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand (5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus."

Wiskey, you seem to also side with this sentiment?, though you include: "If you use a decent Bible, it will, as closely as possible, represent an academic and unbiased assessment of the whole body of text, not just codexed compilations by prior scholars."? The five "codexed manuscripts that do not agree with each other, are seemingly the basis upon which modern 'translations' are borne from? From the article provided by Cary, these would not be considered "decent Bibles", then?

[CaryC]

Thank you CaryC for another excellent reading. I am learning something! From that article, if I did not read it incorrectly, Translations from the "majority text", that text 'received', which is a compilation of all the 5366? manuscripts that "agree with each other", not in exact Greek content, but in "principle"(?), are translations that can be trusted, the main one being the KJV?

From the article: "There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek content. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly. Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand (5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus."

I would have to say that is generally correct. And as far as I know the KJV as published today is the Only One that does that. There are other older ones not in publication today that may also use the Majority Text.

According to what side of the aisle one supports will depend on it's slant. For instance, in this article: Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
By Douglas Kutilek........Douglas Kutilek is an outspoken opponent to KJV Onlyism. You can google him and bible-researcher.

He then states:

The two most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the Textus Receptus, dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era

Which makes it sound like the Textus Receptus is a single document that first appears during the Reformation, which started in 1517, as if it appeared out of no where. Which is not the case, there are over 5000 of them. In an attempt to put it on the same level as the Alexandrian Text Type in the "Critical Text", which did sort of appear out of no where and those documents (5) have no history, meaning they were not in use, and weren't copied.

In 411 AD the Council at Carthage named the 27 Books of the New Testament, the ones we have today. Not to get side tracked on to what some would call "The Catholic's gave us the Bible" which is incorrect, but to stay focused on The Bible itself, we ask, "What did they base that decision on?" It was based on the common knowledge of the 27 books, or rather manuscripts which were in existence at that time and recognized and accepted, and used in "Church's" all over the ME and Europe as "inspired" at the time. Those manuscripts were the Majority Text, the 5,000, not the 5.

One of the points those that back the "Critical Text" use, is the age of the manuscripts. The material used, in some cases "papyrus", then there are a couple more until you get to codex's which was the first book forms and written on both sides. This type of material wore out, and aged particularly when in use, rather quickly and to preserve the text, they would have to copy it. Therefore some of Majority Text don't carbon date as far back as the Critical Text is because it wore out and had to be replaced. Giving it a newer date.

The Alexandria Texts, (Critical Text) in most cases, and you will note in your margins "not in older manuscripts" or" in older MSS" of some fashion have an older date, because they were not in use, and stayed in basements, etc.... albeit in dryer climates (where they could mummify) and thus were preserved, giving them an older date.

Personally the question I think that should be asked is why WEREN"T they in use?

Part of what is meant by in "Principal" is that not all of the manuscripts for a particular book are wholly intact.

So in a manuscript that had say I CaryC 1: 1 it read "Life is,......." and then it was tore, well worn, ink bleed, etc....

And then there was another manuscript that had I CaryC 1: 1 and it read ".....is a circus." Meaning the first part is not legible.

Going through all the parchments, and manuscripts that dealt with I CaryC 1: 1 You would come to the conclusion that I CaryC 1: 1 was "Life is a circus".

You might find another that is ".....is a circus"; "Life is a......" Then a whole one "Life is a Circus", etc....

So with the amount of evidence one could say in principal the manuscripts agree.

[CaryC]

We have covered the two types of committee's/translators, that publish a Bible.

1) a single person, and noted at least some.
2) a committee, group of people, noted some of those and also noted that even then it is not guaranteed that there will not be some type of influence over the text.

We have covered the two different groups of text used when composing a Bible.

1) Majority Text 5000+
2) Critical Text 5

There is one other thing to consider. The method of translation of which there are 2

1) word for word, taking into account sentence structure, and grammar, and correcting for the new language.
2) thought for thought.

Updated August 25, 2016
Let me say this right off the bat: there is a lot I could write on the subject of Bible translations. I'm serious -- you would be surprised at the huge volume of information that's available regarding the theories of translation, the history of different Bible versions, the theological ramifications of having separate versions of God's Word available for public consumption, and much more.
If you're into that kind of thing, I can recommend an excellent eBook called Bible Translation Differences.





It was written by one of my former college professors named Leland Ryken, who is a genius and just happens to have been part of the translation team for the English Standard Version. So, you can have fun with that if you want to.
On the other hand, if you want a brief, basic look at some of the major Bible translations today -- and if you want something written by a non-genius type like me -- then keep reading.
Translation Goals

One of the mistakes people make when they shop for a Bible translation is to say, "I want a literal translation." The truth is that every version of the Bible is marketed as a literal translation. There are no Bibles currently on the market that are promoted as "not literal."
What we need to understand is that different Bible translations have different ideas of what should be considered "literal." Fortunately, there are just two major approaches on which we need to focus: word-for-word translations and thought-for-thought translations.

Word-for-Word translations are pretty self-explanatory -- the translators focused on each individual word in the ancient texts, deciphered what those words meant, and then combined them together to form thoughts, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, and so on. The advantage of these translations is that they pay painstaking attention to the meaning of each word, which does help preserve the integrity of the original texts.





The disadvantage is that these translations can sometimes be more difficult to read and comprehend.
Thought-for-thought translations focus more on the complete meaning of the different phrases in the original texts. Rather than isolate individual words, these versions attempt to capture the meaning of the original text within their original languages, and then translate that meaning into modern prose. As an advantage, these versions are typically easier to comprehend and feel more modern. As a disadvantage, people aren't always certain about the exact meaning of a phrase or thought in the original languages, which can lead to different translations today.
Here is a helpful chart for identifying where different translations fall on the scale between word-for-word and thought-for-thought.


https://www.thoughtco.com/a-quick-ov...lations-363228

Be careful. There are some charts out there that show which are word for word and which are thought for thought. For instance the NASB is considered a word for word, but it also uses the Critical Text.

It's your Bible choose wisely.

[Wiskey Reb]

Textus Receptus is not based on the majority text, rather, only six texts were utilized as its basis, because that's all that were available to work with.. What would become Textus Receptus was compiled and written by one man, Erasmus. Yet, Arasmus didn't choose only six texts because he deemed them superior to all others. He used them because they were all that were available to him. He wanted to use the vaticanus as well, but could not obtain access. At that time, many of the other texts were either yet undiscovered or hidden away in monestaries, etc. KJV 1611 is based on those six texts that would come to be known as Textus Receptus. The majority text is not an actual text. It is a statistical average of what the greater number of known texts use for any given word or passage. No biblical tradition has made a bible version strictly using the approach of the statistical majority of texts. KJV varies in over 1000 occurances. Other translations vary in over 3000 occurrences. The statistical majority has never been a standard for accuracy in bible translating. It is not a measuring stick for anything. It is only a statistical average among the thousands of texts, zero of which are identical to one another. Bsically, the KJV revisions after the original 1611 exist because committees of reformed theologians changed it, beginning shortly after its original publucation. These committees were not all made up of great guys, but because KJVO advocates focus on the most secular of all the others, they make up a conspiracy theory that everyones translations are based on their work, which is a lie, and ignore the glaring issues of their chosen tradition.

That aside, what is called Alexandrian text is not, by any means all from Egypt. Rather, it is a style of text which is typified by the Egyptian texts. The Alexandrian texts do not represent some seperate body of texts from all the others. They are included in the statistical averaging involved in computing the Majority text. It, the Alexandrian, represents a different type of distinction among the known body of texts. Majority text advocates diminish the Alexandrian range of texts as innaccurate and corrupt. But in doing so, they produce another problem for themselves. Well known, non-heretical earlier church authorities quoted them.

Aside from that, there was no such thing as a "majority text" designation until the modern era. Texts were texts, and experts were thankful for any that were found and added to the collective base of texts. This idea of superior and inferior groups of texts seems to have started with the very secular group of translators which the KJV only crowd supposedly wishes to avoid.

Very few experts share the loathing for the most ancient texts that the KJV fundamentalists advocate. If the Majority text is so precious, why do they not instead revise the KJV to match the majority? Because, at the end of the day, they use a double standard, and refuse to look at the KJV tradition with the same critical academic view as the others. They are KJV only by faith alone.

[CaryC]

For anyone interested Chuck Missler (who BTW at present uses the ESV) has a book entitled "How We Got Our Bible". It's about 6 bucks at Amazon, and is a great little resource.

It deals with all kinds of issues such as Masoretic vs. LXX Text for the Old Testament.

Chapter 10 is Dating the New Testament
Chapter 11 is New Testament Manuscripts
Chapter 12 The Gnostics and the Alexandrian Codices
Chapter 13 The English Bible
Chapter 14 The Westcott-Hort Heresies

A snippet from Ch. 13 The English Bible: ppgs 116-117 in referencing the KJV

"All the available manuscripts that were available during those days (1611) were at the disposal of these scholars (the 47 tasked with writing the KJV), but they primarily relied on the Textus Receptus, and the Greek text put together largely by Erasmus of Rotterdam."

Then on page 118 under Westcott and Hort:

"We find that the tides will wax and wane in every area of research. The same is true for Biblical scholarship. It became popular to disparage the Textus Receptus during the 19th century while all veneration turned to the three Alexandrian codices."

Basing their Greek New Testament, which took 28 years to complete, on what is now considered the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus documents, it is reasoned that it took 28 years to reconcile 3036 variations in the 2 documents in just the 4 Gospels alone. (Summarized from a couple of paragraphs on page 119)

Small book but a ton of stuff on how the Bible came to be in our hands.

I also don't see what happened in the 19th century as being an exception but rather one of normalcy. A lot of ....."things" started off as a trend, trendy, or was started as a need at the time, and has become institutionalized and even doctrinal in some circles. Not to even mention an attempt at undermining the Bible, Jesus, etc. in the same vein as Origen, which became so wide spread that the Council of Nicea in 312, was called to combat it. (Which was that Jesus started out a man and became God through His good works, the same doctrine held by Westcott and Hort.)

Wed. Night prayer meeting was started by some women in New England to pray for our soldiers going to war in 1918. Today if you don't go to wed night prayer meeting, or Bible Study you're a carnal Christian.

I do have to say I did error in saying Westcott and Hort "found the Alexandrian Texts" sorry my bad.

Actually it was Tischendorf who found the Sinaiticus codex (or Codex Aleph) in the great Library of St. Catherine's Monastery. He rescued it from the burn bin, where it was being readied to warm the room on a cold February.

Anyway consider the book, it has footnotes, and end notes so you can research it to your hearts content.

However, we live in a free country and you can choose any Bible you want.

[Wiskey Reb]

For a book that offers straight and authoritative history without doctrinal bent, there are none better than this....https://www.amazon.com/Book-History-.../dp/0714845248

[Rob_0126]

Textus Receptus is not based on the majority text, rather, only six texts were utilized as its basis, because that's all that were available to work with.. What would become Textus Receptus was compiled and written by one man, Erasmus. Yet, Arasmus didn't choose only six texts because he deemed them superior to all others. He used them because they were all that were available to him. He wanted to use the vaticanus as well, but could not obtain access. At that time, many of the other texts were either yet undiscovered or hidden away in monestaries, etc. KJV 1611 is based on those six texts that would come to be known as Textus Receptus. The majority text is not an actual text. It is a statistical average of what the greater number of known texts use for any given word or passage. No biblical tradition has made a bible version strictly using the approach of the statistical majority of texts. KJV varies in over 1000 occurances. Other translations vary in over 3000 occurrences. The statistical majority has never been a standard for accuracy in bible translating. It is not a measuring stick for anything. It is only a statistical average among the thousands of texts, zero of which are identical to one another. Bsically, the KJV revisions after the original 1611 exist because committees of reformed theologians changed it, beginning shortly after its original publucation. These committees were not all made up of great guys, but because KJVO advocates focus on the most secular of all the others, they make up a conspiracy theory that everyones translations are based on their work, which is a lie, and ignore the glaring issues of their chosen tradition.

That aside, what is called Alexandrian text is not, by any means all from Egypt. Rather, it is a style of text which is typified by the Egyptian texts. The Alexandrian texts do not represent some seperate body of texts from all the others. They are included in the statistical averaging involved in computing the Majority text. It, the Alexandrian, represents a different type of distinction among the known body of texts. Majority text advocates diminish the Alexandrian range of texts as innaccurate and corrupt. But in doing so, they produce another problem for themselves. Well known, non-heretical earlier church authorities quoted them.

Aside from that, there was no such thing as a "majority text" designation until the modern era. Texts were texts, and experts were thankful for any that were found and added to the collective base of texts. This idea of superior and inferior groups of texts seems to have started with the very secular group of translators which the KJV only crowd supposedly wishes to avoid.

Very few experts share the loathing for the most ancient texts that the KJV fundamentalists advocate. If the Majority text is so precious, why do they not instead revise the KJV to match the majority? Because, at the end of the day, they use a double standard, and refuse to look at the KJV tradition with the same critical academic view as the others. They are KJV only by faith alone.

And again I say, it all comes down to, do you believe the 1611 KJV is God's preserved Word, or not.

The aspect that is missed by most 'theologians' and the 'high intellect' types, is the spiritual.

I believe that God had His hand in guiding the translators of the KJV, to preserve His Word; no matter what sources were used, or who did them. (I believe God can do that, even with men from the 1600's, as He did with the men of the time of the cross.)

Erasmus might have been a devote catholic, but I, and many others believe, that God used Him to get the ball rolling per say, onto the gathering of His preserved Word, into 1 book. Just as God guides the ways of all Kings, so I believe He did with King James, no matter his other motives for doing such.

The spiritual aspect has been long forgotten, in favor of man's intellect, which does fail.

I believe Erasmus, Tyndale, Martin Luther, King James, and the KJV translators, were moved by God to do what they did.

This is the Faith in our Creator God, to do the seemingly impossible; and yet, He does.