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

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).

 

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?

 

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.