In Defense of the Textus Receptus

Taylor, Jim. In Defense of the Textus Receptus: God's Preserved Word to Every Generation.
Cleveland, GA: The Old Paths Publications, 2016.

The author is a missionary with Armed Forces Baptist Missions.

According to the title, this book is written in defense of the TR, but it also attempts to defend the KJV.
Taylor admitted: "There are differences between the King James Version and the Textus Receputs" (p. 46). The author claims that the KJV "is completely trustworthy" (p. 20).

On the other hand, the author does argue against claiming that the KJV is inspired and that the KJV is preserved. In Appendix G, the term inspiration is defined as follows: "A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded" (p. 328). Taylor asserted: "As a theological definition, inspiration is a process" (p. 33). Taylor asserted: "Inspiration cannot extend to copies because inspiration is a process which was completed when the original autograph was finished" (p. 39).

Taylor asserted: "But in a strict biblical sense, preservation only applies to what God has given by inspiration, and not what has been accomplished by translation" (p. 57).

This is likely one of the better KJV-only books, but at some points its claims or arguments are weak and poor. Perhaps one of its poorer sections is appendix C concerning the Majority Text.

 

Jim Taylor claimed: "Although the Textus Receptus is not a 'family' per se, yet it is constructed solely from manuscripts in the Byzantine family" (p. 22).

Taylor's use of the adverb "solely" makes his statement factually incorrect. His statement would be ignoring the fact that some readings in the printed TR editions came from the Latin Vulgate, which is not part of the Byzantine family.

If he had used the adverb "mainly" or "mostly" instead of "solely", his statement would be true

 

Jim Taylor wrote: "Some hold to the King James Version from an unbiblical position" (p. 24)

 

Jim Taylor claimed that the KJV "is completely trustworthy" (p. 20) does a consistent, just application of his claim suggest that actual errors in KJV editions are "completely trustworthy"?