Featured King James vs the original Greek

Can you share the scripture for this please?
(Context being you say only the originals were inspired)

 

All of the Textus Receptus New Testaments are critical, edited Greek New Testaments.

 

You present no scriptural case for suggesting that the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles continued after the completion of the New Testament.

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12).

All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16).

The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

 

then it is obvious that you don't know what a "critical" NT is!

 

one reading has "μονογενὴς θεὸς", and another, "μονογενὴς υἱὸς". Which is the one that the Holy Spirit Inspired?

MT & TR reads: "μονογενὴς υἱὸς"
CT of N&A 28/UBS5 reads: "μονογενὴς θεὸς"

The New Testament by the Unitarian, George Noye, reads: "the only begotten God"

The Liberal scholar, William Barclay, has:

"No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God"

In both editions (1969, 1985) of the Kingdom Interlinear, by the JW's, they adopt the reading, "μονογενὴς θεὸς".

 

No, it is the opposite. You are denying that Erasmus, Stephen, Beza made Critical decisions, just like every other textual critic/editor on this planet called earth.

 

Yes the TR is correct here. But who gives a darn what the kingdom interlinear says, or george noye? Why would you consult them? Consult others, not them. This shows clearly you do not know how to consult evidence. Only picking irrevenlant sources! The ultimate strawman!

Let go of the error full kingdom interlinear. Let go of george noye. Do not consult them. Quit thinking they are important or worthy to consult

 

The term "Critical" New Testament means that they have variant readings usually in the footnotes that are for each verse, from the manuscripts, versions, church fathers, etc. like in this picture

 

The TR is WRONG, as the older and much better evidence from the Greek manuscripts, and Church fathers, support the reading, "μονογενὴς θεὸς".

I am NOT using the versions by the JW's and Noyne/Barclay, to show any textual support. BUT, to show that even these who deny that Jesus Christ IS Almighty God, in their own editions, actually ADMIT what their theology denies!

So your accusation of "strawman" is rubbish!

God no One Has Seen, The Unique God...- John 1:18

 

Many may soundly consider a critical text to be one that involves textual criticism, and textual criticism was involved in the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions. Several of the early Greek TR editions were also printed with an edition of the Latin Vulgate's NT or with a Latin NT translation made by Erasmus or Beza or both, and these Latin translations in effect provided a type of critical apparatus sometimes suggesting possible Greek variations inferred by the Latin translations.

The 1550 Stephanus TR edition, which was regarded as the standard TR edition for many years, had a critical apparatus. KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Doug Stauffer wrote: “His 1550 edition was the first Greek New Testament with the critical apparatus providing the variant readings and symbols to indicate manuscript evidence” (One Book One Authority, p. 587). KJV-only author Tim Fellure asserted that Stephanus “is generally regarded as the first true textual critic” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 130). Edward F. Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Robert Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Plain Introduction, II, p. 189). Samuel Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128).

 

The NT by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), is basically that by the humanist, Desiderius Erasmus. The only thing "critical" about the edition by Stephanus, is that he added variants from only the 15 manuscripts that he had. It was in 1707, when the English scholar, John Mill, after 30 years work, published what is the first real "critical Greek New Testament". He had an apparatus drawn from 78 Mss, in addition, from the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, and quotations from the early Church Fathers.

The term Textus Receptus, is first used in the 1633 edition of the NT, by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, in which they say, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum". Well over 20 years after the 1611 KJV!

 

In the glossary for A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix, critical text is defined as follows: "an edited text of the Bible that attempts, by critical comparison and evaluation of all the manuscript evidence, to approximate most closely what was in the autographs" (p. 638).

This definition does not assert that a text has to include a critical apparatus to be a critical text.

 

well, Geisler and Nix don't know what they are talking about!

 

Seems that some KJVO do not understand that both the TR and the KJV used same textual criticism that they dislike so much in the CT/MT and MV!

 

For a Critical Text to be used in Textual "Criticism", it cannot be as image 1, but, like image 2

 

for your info, the KJV is 1611, the term TR, 1633!

 

2 Peter 1:21
John 14:26

 

Critical in textual criticism does not mean using the Alexandrian text, means making decisions based upon textual evidence and sources used!

 

Is not the only begotten Son also God Himself ?