Has the KJV-only claim that the KJV is based on a superior original-language text been proven to be factually true or has it been merely assumed to be true?
D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 95). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite again claimed that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 53). Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132).
Seeming to contradict his own unproven claims about “a type of text known as the Traditional Text,” D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). D. A. Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98). Waite asserted: “Each manuscript is a lone and independent document” (p. 50). Waite acknowledged that “nobody on this earth has examined all the manuscripts that we have” (p. 121). John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42). Waite asserted: “There are no such things as ‘families’ of Greek manuscripts” (Fundamental Deception, p. 56). Waite declared: “I do not believe there are any ‘text-types’ of Greek manuscripts, only individual manuscripts” (Bob Jones University’s Errors, p. 11). Waite claimed: “Each manuscript is like an orphaned child with no ability to say where it came from” (p. 41). Waite asserted: “Manuscripts of the Greek language are simply manuscripts. None are related to each other” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 53). Waite declared: “”Every manuscript is independent of all others,” and Every manuscript stands alone” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 64, 72). Michael Bates asserted: “There are no families; there are only manuscripts” (Inspiration, Preservation, p. 218).
According to a consistent, just application of Waite’s very own statements, how could he accurately claim that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text” [a text type] known as the Traditional Text that is represented by 5,210 “orphan” Greek manuscripts that cannot be classified as belonging to one another and that have not all been carefully examined and completely or totally collated?
Was Waite’s claim about 5,210 Greek manuscripts mere assumption or speculation since he cannot prove it to be true by presenting the results of any complete, accurate collation of all those 5,210 manuscripts that demonstrate all of them to be “almost perfect mirrors of one another”?
Can Waite back up his assertion and name or identify all the specific “thousands of Greek manuscripts” that agree with each and every reading of the Textus Receptus? Since Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza did not examine and collate 5,210 Greek manuscripts, their varying Textus Receptus editions cannot factually be said to be based on them. The textually-varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus were based on an imperfect and incomplete collation of less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts along with an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Some readings found in the Textus Receptus are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts so that it is impossible for those readings to be based on thousands of Greek NT manuscripts.
Is it a serious distortion or even a falsehood to claim that the varying TR editions were based on 5,210 Greek manuscripts?
Do some of Waite’s claims concerning 5,210 manuscripts and the TR contradict his own assertion that Greek NT manuscripts are not related to each other and that every manuscript stands alone?
Did Waite in effect contradict his own assertion that “there is no such thing as ‘Text type” when he tries to advocate “a type of text”?
Does some repeat D. A. Waite's claims concerning a superior text without proving them to be true?
D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 95). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite again claimed that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 53). Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132).
Seeming to contradict his own unproven claims about “a type of text known as the Traditional Text,” D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). D. A. Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98). Waite asserted: “Each manuscript is a lone and independent document” (p. 50). Waite acknowledged that “nobody on this earth has examined all the manuscripts that we have” (p. 121). John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42). Waite asserted: “There are no such things as ‘families’ of Greek manuscripts” (Fundamental Deception, p. 56). Waite declared: “I do not believe there are any ‘text-types’ of Greek manuscripts, only individual manuscripts” (Bob Jones University’s Errors, p. 11). Waite claimed: “Each manuscript is like an orphaned child with no ability to say where it came from” (p. 41). Waite asserted: “Manuscripts of the Greek language are simply manuscripts. None are related to each other” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 53). Waite declared: “”Every manuscript is independent of all others,” and Every manuscript stands alone” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 64, 72). Michael Bates asserted: “There are no families; there are only manuscripts” (Inspiration, Preservation, p. 218).
According to a consistent, just application of Waite’s very own statements, how could he accurately claim that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text” [a text type] known as the Traditional Text that is represented by 5,210 “orphan” Greek manuscripts that cannot be classified as belonging to one another and that have not all been carefully examined and completely or totally collated?
Was Waite’s claim about 5,210 Greek manuscripts mere assumption or speculation since he cannot prove it to be true by presenting the results of any complete, accurate collation of all those 5,210 manuscripts that demonstrate all of them to be “almost perfect mirrors of one another”?
Can Waite back up his assertion and name or identify all the specific “thousands of Greek manuscripts” that agree with each and every reading of the Textus Receptus? Since Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza did not examine and collate 5,210 Greek manuscripts, their varying Textus Receptus editions cannot factually be said to be based on them. The textually-varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus were based on an imperfect and incomplete collation of less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts along with an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Some readings found in the Textus Receptus are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts so that it is impossible for those readings to be based on thousands of Greek NT manuscripts.
Is it a serious distortion or even a falsehood to claim that the varying TR editions were based on 5,210 Greek manuscripts?
Do some of Waite’s claims concerning 5,210 manuscripts and the TR contradict his own assertion that Greek NT manuscripts are not related to each other and that every manuscript stands alone?
Did Waite in effect contradict his own assertion that “there is no such thing as ‘Text type” when he tries to advocate “a type of text”?
Does some repeat D. A. Waite's claims concerning a superior text without proving them to be true?
