List of Doctrinally Significant Variants with Secondary & Tertiary Doctrines Significantly Altered.

[Alan Gross]

"Regarding the preservation of the Greek New Testament,
there are two main schools of thought:

"(1) the Critical Texts,
and (2) the Ecclesiastical (or, Traditional, Byzantine, Majority, etc.) Texts.

"(1) Three or so Critical Texts were discovered in the 1800′s in Egypt. Most Bible versions are based off of them today. They disagree with 8% of the text of scripture that had been preserved in the Ecclesiastical Texts that the Church had been using for 1800 years. This significantly affects the Doctrine of Inspiration, as many verses you learned in Sunday School, according to the Critical Texts, are not the Word of God.

"(2) The Ecclesiastical (Majority, Byzantine, etc) Texts comprise about 5,000 manuscripts from across the world, and have been the traditional text that the Church has always used. The King James Version (Textus Receptus) comes from this tradition. The reformers and puritans were universally agreed in their affirmation of the Ecclesiastical Text, not for circumstantial reasons, but because of scriptural reasons.

At this link The Ecclesiastical Text
are resources that defend the majority, Church history view.

"Does this Issue Really Matter?

"While no primary doctrine of Christianity is lost in the Critical Texts,
many secondary and tertiary doctrines are significantly altered.

See here for a list of 40 Doctrinally Significant Variants;

from: The Ecclesiastical Text

1. 
2. 
   
   
   
3. 
   
   
   
4. 
5. 
   
   
   List of Doctrinally Significant Variants
6. 
7. 
8. 
   
   
   
9. 
   
   
   
10. 
    
    
    
11. 
    
    
    
    
12. 
    
    
    con't here:

for the balance of the 40 total variants discussed:The Ecclesiastical Text.

 

[Logos1560]

"

"(2) The Ecclesiastical (Majority, Byzantine, etc) Texts comprise about 5,000 manuscripts from across the world, and have been the traditional text that the Church has always used. The King James Version (Textus Receptus) comes from this tradition.

The twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions were not based on any collation of 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts. The printed TR editions were based on an incomplete and imperfect collation of less than 50 to 100 Greek NT manuscripts. It has not been proven that every reading in the printed TR editions is found in an actual majority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts. The TR editions with their added readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate and with 1,000 or more minority readings are not identical to the Byzantine text or Majority Text.

Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173). Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).

John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (The Revision Revised, p. 21, footnote 3). John William Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Dean Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). Burgon as edited by Edward Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1). In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). Burgon noted: “GOD has not seen fit to work a succession of miracles for the protection even of His Word” (p. 64). Burgon claimed: “To some, it may seem a matter of regret that a perpetual miracle has not guarded the ispissma verba of the Spirit; but the wiser will judge differently” (p. 77). Burgon asserted: “From the very nature of the case, he who transcribes a MS. must fall into error sometimes” (p. 66). John William Burgon maintained “that the number of various readings in the New Testament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated,” and he asserted that “in reality they are exceedingly few in number” (Causes of the Corruption, p. 16; Green, UnHoly Hands, I, p. B-5). Burgon asserted: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (Revision Revised, p. 232).

 

[Logos1560]

"Regarding the preservation of the Greek New Testament,
there are two main schools of thought:

"(1) the Critical Texts,
and (2) the Ecclesiastical (or, Traditional, Byzantine, Majority, etc.) Texts.

Instead of only two Greek texts [Textus Receptus and the Critical Text], there are at least three Greek texts: the Byzantine or Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Critical Text.

In their second edition’s preface, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont wrote: “Some early printed editions (usually Textus Receptus) and English translations include words or phrases that are not part of the Byzantine Textform” (The New Testament, p. xx). W. Edward Glenny noted: “The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51).

Charles Lantz asserted: “Erasmus created a number of Greek readings that had never been seen in any manuscript before” (Just One Bible, p. 274). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). In his book about the KJV, F. H. A. Scrivener included a partial list of "places in which the translators of 1611 have apparently followed the Latin Vulgate, mostly after the example of Tyndale, sometimes of Versions later than his, especially of the Rhemish of 1582, whereof the Epistle of the Translators to the Reader speaks so contemptuously" (Authorized Edition, p. 262).

Jan Krans acknowledged: “As is well known, some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Jan Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Jan Krans maintained that “Erasmus’ text appears as an unsteady bridge between the Byzantine and the Vulgate text, but a bridge nevertheless” (p. 108). Donald Brake noted that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93).

It has not been demonstrated that Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza collated completely and accurately anything approaching a true majority of 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts. It also has not been proven that they applied any sound textual measures consistently and justly in agreement with scriptural truths. The available evidence indicates that the textual editing or textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of likely less than fifty Greek NT manuscripts. John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of Stephens, the two possessed by Beza, and allow ten for the Complutensian, there were only thirty-two in all” (Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 253). If Erasmus checked a few selective readings in a few other unidentified Greek manuscripts, would that cursory sampling or partial collation be enough to constitute a complete, careful examination and collation of their entire text?

 

[Alan Gross]

varying

were not

incomplete and imperfect

less than

not been proven

every reading

actual majority

added readings

not identical

not synonymous

rather corrupt

plain and clear errors

all schools of textual critics agree

will have to undergo extensive revision.

needs to be revised according to sound principles

take account of all the evidence

“did not contend for the acceptance

we do not, by any means, claim perfection

extravagant notions

needs correction

“in not a few particulars

does call for Revision

some corrections of the Text were necessary

who in his senses

a standard from which there shall be no appeal

a final standard

I find its testimony challenged

“I am not defending

without authority

calls for skillful revision

do not believe it to be absolutely identical

part of it conflicts

it calls for correction

the fullest evidence attainable

differ “in many passages

laborious revision

correct it

with confidence in hundreds of places

GOD has not seen fit

for the protection even of His Word”

a perpetual miracle

the ispissma verba of the Spirit;

the wiser will judge differently

he who transcribes a MS. must fall into error sometimes”

various readings

greatly exaggerated,

the Revisionists have erred

misfortune seriously to obscure

Looks like, in your opinion, anyone including God that had anything to do with The King James Version of the Bible is a low down, lying, dirty crook, that stands in Judgement before the Throne of Logos1560, the know-it-all of know-it-alls that pretty much knows-it-all, as a know-it-all Wizard of Smart, in case anybody is ever looking to know anything that is right about anything, ever. Did I get that right? I hope so. I'd hate for everybody at all times to have to be wrong about everything no matter what under all circumstances, since they can't be perfect like you and know-it-all all the time, and if we don't believe it? Then, just ask YOU. Perfect. Must be nice. Poor stupid KJV. Old 400 year-old piece of dung. The party's over man. Logos1560 is the new sheriff in town, now, and he will be the critic of the Johnny-Come-Latelies and their KJV for the way things are going to be from here on out and it will never be the discerner of the thoughts and intents of his deceitful and desperately wicked heart, because he's got this. And not a second too soon. Whew. What would we have done without being able to be rejected out of hand, across the board, by the biggest and bestest that ever did come down the path? So, relax. The words he types unto you shall judge you, buddy. BOW BEFORE THE DING! For God's sake, Help us all.

 

[Logos1560]

. Poor stupid KJV. Old 400 year-old piece of dung.

Bearing false witness, you improperly and unsoundly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said and do not say. I do not make the claims that you incorrectly allege. Your carnal smear tactics are wrong. Perhaps you are upset because your use of fallacies was exposed.

I maintain that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV, MKJV, KJ2000 are the word of God translated into English.

The KJV is a good overall English Bible translation which I have read for over 50 years.

 

[Alan Gross]

Instead of

words or phrases that are not part of

several Greek readings which did not exist

Erasmus put them in the Bible

it also differs

Erasmus created

had never been seen

Erasmus's "self-made version

no one known Greek manuscript whatever

In his book about the KJV,

places in which the translators of 1611 have apparently

especially of the Rhemish

As is well known

not derived from Greek

adopted that cannot be found

appears as an unsteady bridge

renderings do not appear

It has not been demonstrated

completely and accurately anything approaching

has not been proven

sound textual measures

consistently and justly

in agreement

with scriptural truths

available evidence indicates

the textual editing or textual criticism decisions

imperfect, incomplete

claimed: “The MSS they possessed

were only

If Erasmus checked

cursory sampling

partial collation

constitute a complete

careful examination

entire text

Looks like, in your opinion, anyone including God that had anything to do with The King James Version of the Bible is a low down, lying, dirty crook, that stands in Judgement before the Throne of Logos1560,

BOW BEFORE THE DING! For God's sake, Help us all.

 

[Alan Gross]

Bearing false witness, you improperly and unsoundly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said and do not say. I do not make the claims that you incorrectly allege. Your carnal smear tactics are wrong. Perhaps you are upset because your use of fallacies was exposed.

Looks like, in your opinion, anyone including God that had anything to do with The King James Version of the Bible is a low down, lying, dirty crook, that stands in Judgement before the Throne of Logos1560, the know-it-all of know-it-alls that pretty much knows-it-all, as a know-it-all Wizard of Smart, in case anybody is ever looking to know anything that is right about anything, ever.

I maintain that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV, MKJV, KJ2000 are the word of God translated into English.

MOD NOTE: Over the top name calling deleted.

The KJV is a good overall English Bible translation which I have read for over 50 years.

Then, back off, Jack.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Name calling is ridiculous.

People are dying and going to HELL! Must the Baptist Board be this way? Does anyone care?

Thread closed.