Featured Is the KJV inspired?

overall an excellent text, better than the Byzantine text that some go on about!

 

When used at the end of every sentence, it is.

 

Both MT and CT though at least as good....

 

The theological concept of inerrancy in bibliology does not have to do with textual criticism (omissions, additions, etc.). (For the record, I don't like the term "corruption" when used for Scripture. God's Word cannot be corrupt.) It involves errors of science, history, internal contradictions, etc. I can take the TR, Byz., UBS, or even Hort & Westcott (I have the 1886 American edition), and answer any objections in these areas.

 

getting there, though the TR is not without its own faults, as the great John Burgon admitted that it too needed to be "revised". The KJV is mainly based on the Greek text of Theodore Beza. The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure, "extum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt.", this is after the 1611 KJV.

 

Would seem that the Majority text should be the choice of those not trusting in the CT

 

it is well known in the study of Textual Criticism, that there are mss that have been wilfully corrupted by copyists. I have seen them form myself over the years when comparing many Bible passages. This is a fact, that sadly does exist.

 

Think John was stating that the term itself seems to bring in the notion means manuscripts are bogus...

 

The term "corruption" is, of course, common in textual criticism. But again, theologically you cannot corrupt God's Word. "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

The word "corrupt" in 2 Cor. 2:17 means something different now than it did in 1611: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." In 1611, "corrupt" meant to dilute something, and that is the meaning of the Greek word.

 

Um, the TR is a Byz. text. This is why we could use it as the source text for our Japanese NT with no regrets.

 

yes, but only in a wider sense?

 

Wider sense? Don't know what you mean. All of the mss Erasmus used were Byz., so it's a Byzantine text. I'm pretty sure Dr. Robinson (of the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform NT) would agree.

 

Whe I refer to "corrupt", I have in mind passages like 1 Timothy 3:16, where θεος has been wilfully (especially after the very strong objection to it by George Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, who was on the 1881 committee) changed to the grammatically nonsensical reading ὃς, which is also admitted to by Dr Charles Ellicott! Likewise, in 1 John 5:7, there is very strong internal Greek evidence from the grammitical construction, as well as very early Patristic evidence from Tertullian, Cyprian, and even the heretic, Pricillian, that John did indeed write the words, "ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. καὶ οὖτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν", etc, etc.

 

because there are 100's of differences between the TR and Byz text, and that is only in the Four Gospels

 

When I read KJVO use of that term though, they seem to be stating that those holding to other then TR are using corrupted as in intentional done tom prervert the scriptures. not honest mistakes!

 

The Majority text is something else then, correct?

 

Is it true that Eramus though used at times readings from Latin Vulgate, and other times still do not know even today where he received those in from?
Also. is it not true that the 1 John 5:7 was not found in his first 2 editions, and he "found it" in the third edition?

 

There are also evidences to support that John did not write that in that way though also....

 

In two major places the Byz does not follow the TR

there are always "evidences" to the contrary! When I first started out in textual criticism, over 35 years ago, I remember writing in a note in my KJV Bible, that 1 John 5:7 was not part of this Epistle. My conclusion then was based on what I had read in Dr A T Robertson's works. Years later I decided to invistigate this for myself, and after a long time of first hand research, I concluded without any doubt, that on this verse, Dr Robertson, and others like him, were very much mistaken in their conclusions. I have zero doubt that I can prove to anyone from the Greek grammar of verses 6-10, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Apostle John to have written, "For there are three that testify", only in verse 7.

I here challenge anyone to show from the Greek, that the words, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one", in complete, are not the work of the Apostle John.

 

Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (better known by his Latin name, Stephanus), and Theodore Beza, were the Greek editions that were used for the textual basis of the KJVNT. Beza's was the most followed of the three.