Featured Has the KJV been proven to be based on a superior text?

I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text.

I have read the KJV over 50 years so I am properly interested in knowing about the accuracy and reliability of its underlying texts.

I wrote my first book on the KJV-only issue, accepting the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.

In checking out KJV-only claims, I had learned that their claims for the KJV were not too reliable and accurate. Since then, I have also learned that a number of claims for the Textus Receptus are not so reliable and accurate.

 

KJV-only advocates or TR-only advocates seem to be unwilling to deal with it using consistent textual measures/standards applied justly.

KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates refuse to apply the same exact measures/standards to the two collated texts, and they for the most part ignore the third collated text (majority text or Byzantine text) unless when they attack it using unjust divers measures. KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates will not name and identify any textual measures and standards that they are willing to see applied consistently and justly including to the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions.

There is way too much clear indication or evidence of the use of unrighteous judgments based on use of unjust measures [double standards] in KJV-only and in TR-only allegations against the Critical Text and against a Majority Text.

 

What is your definition of few [fewer than 10, fewer than 100, fewer than 1,000, fewer than 2,000]?

Some have identified as many as 1800 differences between the Textus Receptus and a majority Byzantine text although some or perhaps many of those may be minor or may have little effect on the translating. Do you consider 1800 to be a few?

 

Jan Krans referred to "the many instances in which he [Erasmus] inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin" (Beyond What Is Written--Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 11) so that number may be greater than ten although he does not define what he means by "many".

Besides the passages Revelation 22:16-21 and Acts 9:5-6, Jan Krans later commented "in most cases the peculiarities are restricted to a single word" (p. 62).

The "many" suggested by Jan Krans may include any minor cases where Erasmus may have changed a Greek verb tense from what was found in his Greek manuscripts based on the Latin, may have changed the spelling of Greek words as found in his Greek manuscripts, or may have added or omitted a Greek article.

Jan Krans has a chapter on "Erasmus' Conjectures" [Chapter five] with the first subheading being "Conjectures inspired by the Vulgate" (pp. 91-108). He identified and discussed claimed examples at the following verses (Matt. 15:5, Matt. 21:20, Mark 7:3, John 4:46, John 10:26, Acts 27:14, 2 Cor. 1:6-7, 2 Pet. 2:12), and the second subheading being "Pure Conjectures" (pp. 108-133).

Adding together the readings added from the Latin Vulgate plus the textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza would number more than ten.

 

Your opinion is incorrect as you misrepresent or misunderstand my scripturally-based position.

 

Your assertion or allegation is clearly wrong. I accept the fact that the TR and CT differ much more than the TR and the MT differ.

I do not advocate and recommend the Critical Text, but I do admit the truth that it would be wrong according to the Scriptures to apply unjustly different measures/standards to it than would be applied to the Textus Receptus and to a Majority Text. How would it be just to condemn the Critical Text for minority readings and conjectures while accepting, rationalizing, excusing, or defending minority readings and conjectures in the Textus Receptus?

While I once was basically TR-only, I am now inclined to lean towards a Majority Text or Byzantine Text priority view.

My position is to advocate the applying of the same exact measures/standards justly as the Scriptures themselves would teach, and it is the scriptural teachings concerning making righteous judgments and applying the same measures justly that would lead me away from the inconsistent TR-only position.

 

Consistency according to scriptural truths or scriptural standards or consistency according to the Scriptures' advocating the applying of the same exact measures/standards.

 

Your assertion is clearly incorrect. Many times I have favorably quoted assertions by KJV-only authors and TR-only authors when I find those assertions to be correct and true.
I have even quoted them to support points that I raise so it is clear that I do not oppose everything that KJV-only authors and TR-only authors assert.

 

My posts would provide plenty of examples. One example is where I favorably quoted KJV-only authors and TR-only authors concerning their statements about the doctrine of inspiration.

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite contended: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 32). D. A. Waite observed: “The accurate view of Bible inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse refers to the way that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were produced by God’s true plenary verbal inspiration” (p. 20). Dennis Kwok asserted: “No translation can claim to be 100% equivalent to the original language Scriptures” (VPP, p. 19). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Phil Stringer asserted that “there is not the slightest hint of any such doctrine [that God repeated the miracle of ‘inspiration’ in 1611] anywhere in the King James Bible” (Unbroken Bible, p. 15). Phil Stringer noted that “when God wanted to describe the means of inspiration He chose to call it ‘God-breathed’” (pp. 60-61).

D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).

H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite as noting: “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’). Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’ It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma. It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (Cleaning-Up, p. iv). Ralph Earle asserted that the Greek word “literally means ‘God breathed’--theos, ‘God,’ and pneo, ‘breathe’” (Word Meanings, p. 409). Marvin Vincent also maintained that this word comes from the Greek noun for God and the Greek verb ‘to breathe’ and meant “God-breathed” (Word Studies, IV, p. 317). E. W. Bullinger defined the Greek word as “God-breathed, God-inspired” (Lexicon, p. 414). Waite asserted: “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma). This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine. It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv).

David Sorenson asserted that “the need of the hour is for God’s people” “to rise above the emotional attachment and inaccurate assumption that a given translation of Scripture has been directly inspired” (God’s Perfect Book, p, 210). KJV defender Ian Paisley noted: "And let me emphasize that inspiration has only to do with the writing of the original Scripture and is divinely limited to that. Inspiration has not to do with the translation of the Bible into English or any other language" (Fundamentalist Digest, January/February, 1995, p. 15). Charles Kriessman asserted: “The proper interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that it refers solely to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that were originally given by God” (Modern Version Failures, p. 48). Thomas Strouse wrote: “The word behind ‘is given by inspiration of God’ is theopneustos, meaning literally ‘is God-breathed.’ Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa [original autographs] is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (The Lord God, pp. 42-43). Solomon Caesar Malan wrote: “Strictly speaking, ‘verbal inspiration’ as it is called, can apply only to the inspired autographs of the holy men who wrote the canon of Scripture” (Gospel, p. xiii). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Homer Massey added: “Strictly speaking, the inspiration (as it has been discussed) only took place when God moved upon the human writers of Scripture in their original writings. No claim should be made for that which cannot be clearly proved by Scripture” (Ibid.). Robert Sargent noted: “The inspiration of the Scriptures was miraculous” (English Bible, p. 231). After discussing the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, John William Burgon asserted: “Our remarks apply in strictness only to the sacred autographs” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 64).