KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “no one denies that such a variety [among the Byzantine or traditional Greek manuscripts] exists” (Faith, p. 714), but perhaps he does not consider what some KJV-only authors have directly asserted.
The clear evidence that at least some KJV-only authors believe and advocate a fable or myth about an unmixed, pure preserved stream of manuscripts that agree completely with each other can be seen in their books. KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: “Using the legible copies of the Received Text Erasmus typeset a text on the printing press. This new printed text was letter for letter and word for word the same as the Received Text from which it was copied” (Divinely Inspired, p. 14). Ed DeVries declared that “these ‘received’ manuscripts are in complete agreement with each other” (p. 16). Ed DeVries claimed: “No one, not even liberal scholars, questions the fact that the Textus Receptus is a perfect representation of the manuscripts from which it was copied” (Ibid.). Ed DeVries declared that “the Received Text manuscripts were exact copies of the original autographs and/or of each other” (p. 17). Ed DeVries claimed: “The Textus Receptus has been proven to be a perfect rendering of the Received Text” (p. 27).
Troy Clark asserted that “he [Erasmus] perfectly copied” and that “there was not one Word change from its original form” (Perfect Bible, p. 121). Bob Kendall contended that “the TR has not one footnote” and that “the TR has no footnotes” (How Firm, pp. 28, 41). Troy Clark claimed: “Stephanus used the 16 Majority Text Greek manuscripts in the library of King Francis I and son Henry II. These were all identical, even down to the letter” (Perfect Bible, p. 144). Troy Clark asserted: “The Textus Receptus will always represent the undisputed majority of 95-99% of Greek texts that mirror agreement with each other” (p, 72). Michael Hollner claimed that “the Authorized King James Version is backed up by the majority of all existing manuscripts” and “this majority, being well over 95% in number out of some 5800 manuscripts, is called the ‘Majority Text’” (KJ Only Debate, p. 18). Mike Holloway declared: “The translators of the KJV used these 4,800 manuscripts as the basis for their translation work” (Common Sense, p. 14). Mike Holloway claimed: “There are over 5,000 footprints God left behind which line up with each other and the King James Bible” (p. 39). Al Lacy asserted: "From God's pure manuscripts came the AV1611" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 18). Al Lacy maintained that “there is a set of manuscripts that are free of error” (p. 85) and that God “kept us error-free COPIES in the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Received Text of the Greek” (p. 116).
David W. Daniels claimed that the KJV “was accurately translated from perfect copies of God’s words” (BattleCry, Sept/Oct., 2007, p. 11). Wayne Williams asserted: "There are many infallible manuscripts such as the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus to verify the preserved Scripture" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 21). Bruce Borders claimed that “over 5000 Antiochian manuscripts or parts of manuscripts are in existence today” and that “each completely agrees with the others, with absolutely no discrepancies” (The Only Bible, p. 14). Jeffrey Khoo asserted: “The Lord has certainly kept these [Byzantine] manuscripts pure and uncorrupted throughout the centuries” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129). Reed Newman quoted his father Nelson Newman as writing: “The Textus Receptus is a family of over 5,300 manuscripts (some complete, some partial) that all agree and have been in circulation and continuous use since the early church period” (Forever, p. 16). James Rasbeary claimed that “the Greek texts used by the [KJV] translators were not marred by mistakes and accumulated errors” and that “these [5300] Greek manuscripts are in agreement with each other and with the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 103).
Even D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 80, 95). D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27), that “the Textus Receptus kind of text is represented by over 99% of the 5, 255 manuscripts” (p. 52), and that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (p. 53). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132). Waite claimed: “Each of these manuscripts of the Traditional Text or Received Greek Text are virtually identical” (Foes of the KJB, p. 130).
These KJV-only authors unintentionally reveal that they are misinformed and that they believe non-true claims.
The clear evidence that at least some KJV-only authors believe and advocate a fable or myth about an unmixed, pure preserved stream of manuscripts that agree completely with each other can be seen in their books. KJV-only author Ed DeVries claimed: “Using the legible copies of the Received Text Erasmus typeset a text on the printing press. This new printed text was letter for letter and word for word the same as the Received Text from which it was copied” (Divinely Inspired, p. 14). Ed DeVries declared that “these ‘received’ manuscripts are in complete agreement with each other” (p. 16). Ed DeVries claimed: “No one, not even liberal scholars, questions the fact that the Textus Receptus is a perfect representation of the manuscripts from which it was copied” (Ibid.). Ed DeVries declared that “the Received Text manuscripts were exact copies of the original autographs and/or of each other” (p. 17). Ed DeVries claimed: “The Textus Receptus has been proven to be a perfect rendering of the Received Text” (p. 27).
Troy Clark asserted that “he [Erasmus] perfectly copied” and that “there was not one Word change from its original form” (Perfect Bible, p. 121). Bob Kendall contended that “the TR has not one footnote” and that “the TR has no footnotes” (How Firm, pp. 28, 41). Troy Clark claimed: “Stephanus used the 16 Majority Text Greek manuscripts in the library of King Francis I and son Henry II. These were all identical, even down to the letter” (Perfect Bible, p. 144). Troy Clark asserted: “The Textus Receptus will always represent the undisputed majority of 95-99% of Greek texts that mirror agreement with each other” (p, 72). Michael Hollner claimed that “the Authorized King James Version is backed up by the majority of all existing manuscripts” and “this majority, being well over 95% in number out of some 5800 manuscripts, is called the ‘Majority Text’” (KJ Only Debate, p. 18). Mike Holloway declared: “The translators of the KJV used these 4,800 manuscripts as the basis for their translation work” (Common Sense, p. 14). Mike Holloway claimed: “There are over 5,000 footprints God left behind which line up with each other and the King James Bible” (p. 39). Al Lacy asserted: "From God's pure manuscripts came the AV1611" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 18). Al Lacy maintained that “there is a set of manuscripts that are free of error” (p. 85) and that God “kept us error-free COPIES in the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Received Text of the Greek” (p. 116).
David W. Daniels claimed that the KJV “was accurately translated from perfect copies of God’s words” (BattleCry, Sept/Oct., 2007, p. 11). Wayne Williams asserted: "There are many infallible manuscripts such as the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus to verify the preserved Scripture" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 21). Bruce Borders claimed that “over 5000 Antiochian manuscripts or parts of manuscripts are in existence today” and that “each completely agrees with the others, with absolutely no discrepancies” (The Only Bible, p. 14). Jeffrey Khoo asserted: “The Lord has certainly kept these [Byzantine] manuscripts pure and uncorrupted throughout the centuries” (Kwok, VPP, p. 129). Reed Newman quoted his father Nelson Newman as writing: “The Textus Receptus is a family of over 5,300 manuscripts (some complete, some partial) that all agree and have been in circulation and continuous use since the early church period” (Forever, p. 16). James Rasbeary claimed that “the Greek texts used by the [KJV] translators were not marred by mistakes and accumulated errors” and that “these [5300] Greek manuscripts are in agreement with each other and with the King James Bible” (What’s Wrong, p. 103).
Even D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 80, 95). D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27), that “the Textus Receptus kind of text is represented by over 99% of the 5, 255 manuscripts” (p. 52), and that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (p. 53). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132). Waite claimed: “Each of these manuscripts of the Traditional Text or Received Greek Text are virtually identical” (Foes of the KJB, p. 130).
These KJV-only authors unintentionally reveal that they are misinformed and that they believe non-true claims.
