Featured How can you be honestly a KJVONLYIST?

And still come to the wrong conclusions anyways sometimes! Four facilities are better than one. Independent journalism is better than mainstream media bought and payed for.

 

I have here in my study several or more recent (less than 25 years old) commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the New Testament (including four entire volumes on the Greek text of the 25 verses found in Philemon). These commentaries are not on the NA28, the SBL Greek text, or any other published Greek text, but on the Greek text of the individual book of the New Testament that the commentary is addressing. Altogether, my commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament number in the hundreds and the authors, with no exceptions and working independently of one another, find from their own research that the textual basis of the KJV is severely corrupted. On the other hand, critics of this research are living, with no exceptions, in mud huts and are solely depending upon stone tools.

 

This post is blatantly dishonest! The words, “but by every word of God,” have NOT been omitted from any translation of the Bible (it is not possible to omit words that were never there!), but they were added to the KJV—not by God, but by men with less that good educations. Furthermore, the textual basis for there words, although found in many severely corrupted manuscripts, are NOT found in our best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. For a list of these many manuscripts, see the textual apparatus found in the NA28.

 

That is a good thing. They should come in handy when discussing textual variants. But they are based on something. Whether they create their own independent Greek Text they are still based on something. There is likely some stone tools in there.

Severely corrupted (mistakes) or some corrupted (mistakes) ? Amazingly the stone huts somehow got things right sometimes ? How can that be?

 

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful KJV.

 

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful KJV.

 

Any historical evidence of that? I don't know of any.

Usually books about supposed contradictions in Scripture will simply point out that both quotes could be correct without contradiction. Each author had his own purpose in the quote.

This, then, becomes a problem of textual criticism.

Again, I know of no historical proof of the Gospels, say, being originally in the form of letters. The format of a letter is culturally driven. In an English letter (not meaning an email!), the greeting and date come first, with the author's name at the end. In a Japanese letter, all three come at the end. We know the format of first century letters through the epistles of Paul and the many letters in the papyri. The Gospels show no signs of such a format.

I would tend to disagree. Yes, the doctrine was extremely important. However, many manuscripts of the NT have corrections in the margin, showing that many early Christians were indeed very careful about their copies of Scripture. For example, see "The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus" by Jesse R. Grenz in the Tyndale Bulletin, available on the Internet as a PDF.

 

This is the absurd position of the late Peter Ruckman and his followers. It completely ignores the problem of which version is "inspired" in languages other than English!

 

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful NASB.

 

I stick with the Holy Spirit of God and the exceedingly fruitful NASB

 

The difference in our opinions is that I have historical data on my side, as already shown in my post on the actual form of a first century letter. There is no historical data that any of the non-epistolatory books of the NT were ever in letter form on any one of the mss of said books.

 

Greek texts are merely the starting point for the study of the integrity of the Greek text of a book in the New Testament. Very detailed exegetical commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament include discussions on such issues as:

The quality of the major textual variants,
The sources of the major textual variants
The theological basis of the major textual variants
The theological implications of the major textual variants

Moreover, and very importantly, these commentaries include hundred and even thousands of bibliographical entries for further investigation.

The most comprehensive (2,183 pages) commentary on the Greek Text of Luke is that of Darrell L. Bock published in two volumes (1994, 1996). However, this commentary devotes a large portion of it to exposition and the exegesis is too brief for my liking. On pages 384-385, Bock writes,

Some manuscripts cite the whole of Deut. 8:3 (Bys, A, D, Θ), but the different forms that the longer version of Luke 4:4 has in the manuscript tradition argue against the presence of the longer reading (see UBS on this text.)​

The second most comprehensive (1,703 pages) commentary on the Greek Text of Luke is that of Joseph A. Fitzmyer published in two volumes (1981, 1985). This commentary is devoted to very detailed and technical exegesis. On page 515, Fitzmyer writes that the words, “but by every word of God” are “undoubtedly not original,” but an “addition in some Lucan mss.”

John Nolland, in his three-volume (1989, 1993, 1993) 1,478 page exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Luke writes in a note on page 176, “A number of Greek texts add in various forms the add ional phrase found in Matthew at this point.”

Another excellent exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Luke is that of I. Howard Marshall (1978, one volume, 928 pages). On page 171, Marshall writes, “In many MSS the quotation is completed by the inclusion of Dt. 8:3b, as in Mt. 4:4, but the evidence for omission is decisive….”

There is, of course, the three-volume (1,532 pages) French commentary on Luke by François Bovon in the “Hermeneia” series but I do not own a copy of it.

Whether the applicable data is from Greek texts of the New Testament, commentaries on the Greek text of the individual books of the New Testament, or further, more detailed and comprehensive sources, the data incontrovertibly supports to a very high degree the NA28. To deny this fact is blind foolishness.

 

All of the epistles of the NT, as well as many non-NT papyri letters. But Luke called the book of Luke a "treatise," not a letter, did he not?

 

Yep.

Absolutely not.

There is a little bit of controversy about that. The Greek word anothen (ἀνωθεν) in Luke 3:1 is usually translated "from the beginning" as in the KJV, but it can also be translated "from above" (cf John 3:31). In his commentary on Luke, Son of Man, John R. Rice argues that it should be "from above" in that verse, showing inspiration rather than investigation. I'm okay with either rendering myself, but either way it is definitely part of Scripture.