Is the KJV inspired?

[SavedByGrace]

The Majority text is something else then, correct?

The MT is another name for the Byzantine text

 

[Yeshua1]

In two major places the Byz does not follow the TR


there are always "evidences" to the contrary! When I first started out in textual criticism, over 35 years ago, I remember writing in a note in my KJV Bible, that 1 John 5:7 was not part of this Epistle. My conclusion then was based on what I had read in Dr A T Robertson's works. Years later I decided to invistigate this for myself, and after a long time of first hand research, I concluded without any doubt, that on this verse, Dr Robertson, and others like him, were very much mistaken in their conclusions. I have zero doubt that I can prove to anyone from the Greek grammar of verses 6-10, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Apostle John to have written, "For there are three that testify", only in verse 7.

I here challenge anyone to show from the Greek, that the words, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one", in complete, are not the work of the Apostle John.

Does this affect the doctrine of the Trinity at all though?

 

[Yeshua1]

Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Estienne (better known by his Latin name, Stephanus), and Theodore Beza, were the Greek editions that were used for the textual basis of the KJVNT. Beza's was the most followed of the three.

Isn't it true that even Dean Burgeon saw the need to revise and update the many mistakes he found in the Kjv and the TR?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Does this affect the doctrine of the Trinity at all though?

no, as this Great Doctrine is not found in just one verse, though a very clear one!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Isn't it true that even Dean Burgeon saw the need to revise and update the many mistakes he found in the Kjv and the TR?

very much so. even in the present edition of the KJV, there are errors! Like Isaiah 48:16, "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me", but the Hebrew order of words, as in the LXX, are, "And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.". also Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, and Acts 2:47, etc, etc

 

[Yeshua1]

very much so. even in the present edition of the KJV, there are errors! Like Isaiah 48:16, "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me", but the Hebrew order of words, as in the LXX, are, "And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.". also Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, and Acts 2:47, etc, etc

Dean Burgon and His Phantom Manuscripts – Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[SavedByGrace]

Dean Burgon and His Phantom Manuscripts – Alpha and Omega Ministries

ah, James White and his so called "evidences", what a JOKE!

there is no textual scholar that I know of, who can produce a work on 1 Timothy 3:16, for the reading "theos", that is better than what Burgon has done. Burgon is A+++ as a textual scholar, neither White, Wallace, Metzger, etc can be placed in the same!

 

[John of Japan]

The Majority text is something else then, correct?

Different methodology, but still a Byzantine text. "Majority" is a synonym for "Byzantine" in textual criticism.

 

[John of Japan]

In two major places the Byz does not follow the TR

I know that. It doesn't change the Byzantine character of the TR.

 

[John of Japan]

ah, James White and his so called "evidences", what a JOKE!

there is no textual scholar that I know of, who can produce a work on 1 Timothy 3:16, for the reading "theos", that is better than what Burgon has done. Burgon is A+++ as a textual scholar, neither White, Wallace, Metzger, etc can be placed in the same!

White is not even a textual critic. And his doctorate is from a degree mill.

 

[John of Japan]

because there are 100's of differences between the TR and Byz text, and that is only in the Four Gospels

Right. So do you say that the TR was not done from Byz. mss?

 

[John of Japan]

Whe I refer to "corrupt", I have in mind passages like 1 Timothy 3:16, where θεος has been wilfully (especially after the very strong objection to it by George Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, who was on the 1881 committee) changed to the grammatically nonsensical reading ὃς, which is also admitted to by Dr Charles Ellicott! Likewise, in 1 John 5:7, there is very strong internal Greek evidence from the grammitical construction, as well as very early Patristic evidence from Tertullian, Cyprian, and even the heretic, Pricillian, that John did indeed write the words, "ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. καὶ οὖτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν", etc, etc.

So, did they "break" God's Word, then?

 

[John of Japan]

because there are 100's of differences between the TR and Byz text, and that is only in the Four Gospels

Do you have a list? I really don't think this is true. I've compared the TR and Byz for most or all of the NT. There are whole chapters that are exactly the same, and the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.

 

[John of Japan]

Do you have a list? I really don't think this is true. I've compared the TR and Byz for most or all of the NT. There are whole chapters that are exactly the same, and the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.

Matt. 6 is an example of a chapter which has no differences between the TR & the Byz.

So, I'm having a conversation with Dr. Robinson about this. (We became friends through my son who taught for him when needed.) He tells me that there are over 1800 differences between the TR & the Byz. Textform that he edited with Pierpont. However, he agrees with me that the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.

Maybe I'll do a thread later on the differences in Matthew.

 

[John of Japan]

Conversing with Dr. Robinson about this, he shared his phraseology about the TR being a Byz. text with me. I think this is important.

"The TR Scrivener edition is a *general* representative of the Byzantine text, but it is still only a sub-representative, just as are many "Byzantine" MSS themselves to varying degrees."

 

[SavedByGrace]

Conversing with Dr. Robinson about this, he shared his phraseology about the TR being a Byz. text with me. I think this is important.

"The TR Scrivener edition is a *general* representative of the Byzantine text, but it is still only a sub-representative, just as are many "Byzantine" MSS themselves to varying degrees."

What do you make of this from Dr Stanley Porter (I am quoting second-hand, so please feel free to correct it wrong)?

"“The distinction between the Textus Receptus, on the one hand, and the Majority text or the Byzantine texts, on the other hand, is one worth making here, if only briefly. All of these Greek texts are often referred to as forms of the ‘traditional text.’ The Textus Receptus is any form of the Greek text that goes back to the edition of Erasmus and the several late manuscripts he used. The Textus Receptus is a more restricted and limited form of Byzantine text, but it is not the Byzantine text as found in the edition of Robinson and Pierpont, or the Majority text found in the edition of Hodges and Farstad. Daniel Wallace notes that Hodges and Farstad’s edition of the Majority text differs from the Textus Receptus in 1,838 places. Aland and Aland list fifteen verses that they indicate are in the Textus Receptus but not in the Nestle-Aland critical edition. Four of those—Luke 23:17; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-8a—are not found in the Majority text (Farstad and Hodges) or the Byzantine text (Pierpont and Robinson) either. I note also that the portions where Erasmus or others translated from Latin back into Greek, such as the final six verses of Revelation and 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma), are also not part of the Byzantine text or the Majority text.”

(How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation, p.52)

 

[Conan]

Do you have a list? I really don't think this is true. I've compared the TR and Byz for most or all of the NT. There are whole chapters that are exactly the same, and the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

 

[SavedByGrace]

Do you have a list? I really don't think this is true. I've compared the TR and Byz for most or all of the NT. There are whole chapters that are exactly the same, and the vast majority of the differences do not change the meaning in translation.

Can you please ask Dr Robinson, why some VERY IMPORTANT doctrinal texts have been "corrupted" in his Greek version. I shall give 3 such examples.

1. Luke 1:35, "εκ σου" (out of you) is missing. This, like Matthew 1:16, teaches very clearly, that the Human Nature of Jesus Christ was derived from that of Mary (sin excepting). Some of the early heretics, as do some even today, denied this very Important teaching, and taught that Jesus simply "passed through" Mary, as water does a tube, without actually parttaking of the tube! On what textual authority is this omission, seening that the KJV (Beza) have it? Justin in the 2nd century quotes it!

2. The whole verse of the Eunich's confession on Jesus Christ as SON OF GOD, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", has been OMITTED!!! Ireneaus also in the second century quotes it!

3. The clearest single text for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, has been EXPUNGED!!! Tertullian, Cyprian, among others knew of this in their GREEK and LATIN NT!

These are SERIOUS CORRUPTIONS to the Word of God, and makes this "translation" a modern day attack on the Authority and Infallibility of the Holy Bible!!! SHAME on Dr Robinson!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

thanks, you saved me my important time! see my response in #78

 

[John of Japan]

What do you make of this from Dr Stanley Porter (I am quoting second-hand, so please feel free to correct it wrong)?

"“The distinction between the Textus Receptus, on the one hand, and the Majority text or the Byzantine texts, on the other hand, is one worth making here, if only briefly. All of these Greek texts are often referred to as forms of the ‘traditional text.’ The Textus Receptus is any form of the Greek text that goes back to the edition of Erasmus and the several late manuscripts he used. The Textus Receptus is a more restricted and limited form of Byzantine text, but it is not the Byzantine text as found in the edition of Robinson and Pierpont, or the Majority text found in the edition of Hodges and Farstad. Daniel Wallace notes that Hodges and Farstad’s edition of the Majority text differs from the Textus Receptus in 1,838 places. Aland and Aland list fifteen verses that they indicate are in the Textus Receptus but not in the Nestle-Aland critical edition. Four of those—Luke 23:17; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-8a—are not found in the Majority text (Farstad and Hodges) or the Byzantine text (Pierpont and Robinson) either. I note also that the portions where Erasmus or others translated from Latin back into Greek, such as the final six verses of Revelation and 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma), are also not part of the Byzantine text or the Majority text.”

(How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation, p.52)

The TR is "more restricted and limited" in the sense that Erasmus only had six mss, as I recall. On the other hand, Robinson/Pierpont used at least 100's of Byz. mss out of a possible 1000s. I do know that Dr. Robinson has collated every single mss with the Pericope Adulterae. So to that extent (I hate to say) I agree with Dr. Porter (who goes to seed on Greek verbal aspect).