Why is textual criticism only wrong when it disagrees w/ the readings in the KJV?

Icthus...

With all due respect, let me say that these 5 examples. plus quite a few more, have been covered in this forum. At this time, let me respond to just ONE of them...Timothy 3:16.

Reading the preceeding verses clearly shows the antecedent of the pronoun "He" in V.16 to be "God". There's no other possible antecedent to be found within those verses. It's not that Dean Burgon & the KJV are wrong; it's that both "God" and "He" are correct.

This points out the fact that the KJVO myth is NOT based upon FACT, but is based upon guesswork and fishing stories, with a good deal of imagination & wishful thinking thrown in.

Let's look at some EVIDENCE against the KJVO myth which is supported by PROVEN, INDISPUTABLE, EMPIRICAL FACTS.

First, there's no manuscript support for the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4, neither in the Greek mss of Romans, nor in the Masoretic Text's 1 Kings 19:18, which Paul was quoting.

Next, "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is clearly incorrect; there's simply no defense against the FACT that EASTER DID NOT EXIST when Luke wrote Acts, and he couldn't possibly have been writing about it. He used the Greek word "pascha", which in Luke's time meant nothing but "Passover".

Finally, there's "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30. That was NOT the order of events, as we all well know. Later versions corrected this goof by saying, "slew by hanging".

As for my statement that most of the assertions made by KJVOs are wrong, I stand by it, backed by FACTS, many of them from the AV 1611 itself, as opposed to the KJVOs' opinion and guesswork.

 

If you were to read my last response, you will see that I clearly said that I did NOT believe in a perfect KJV, as I am sure that Scrivener, Burgon or Sharpe, neither did either! I am NOT, as I have said more than once, concerned by the grammar or word choice of the KJV, and these are secondary problems. My main concern is the Greek "text" used by the KJV, that is by far the most reliable than all of those produced by, Lachaman, Tischendorf, Alford, etc.

As for the 1 John 5:7 issue, after about 5 years of intense invistigation into both the external and internal evidence, I have no doubt that the reading of the KJV here is 100% correct, and that God, in His providence, ensured that Erasmus restored what was removed by enemies of the Truth!

Titus 2:13 "the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (KJV)

Who ever said that this is wrong? There is NO suggestion in the above reading, that one Person is not meant by the construction of the English grammar! Look, for example, at Galatians 1:4, where we read in the KJV: "according to the will of God and our Father". Surely only one Person is to be understood here? Why not then in Titus 2:13 which is exactly the same? Likewise in 1 Thessolians 1:3, "in the sight of God and our Father", etc. It should be remembered that the Greek particle, "kai", which is commonly rendered in English, "and", also has the meaning, "namely", in an "explanatory" use! In which case Titus 1:13 could easily read: "the glorious appearing of the Great God, namely our Saviour Jesus Christ" No objection can be raised here with the grammatical construction! I am quite happy with the KJV reading as it also clearly shows that Jesus Christ is meant by the whole verse, and NOT the Father and Jesus!

 

Yes, as I would also use 1 Timothy 3:16, as my own research has shown that the KJV is 100% correct at both places. The evidence is there.

One must not be swayed by statements that you would read in commentaries, and the footnotes that you find in Bibles. Where they claim that "all Greek manuscripts" do not have verse 7 in 1 John chapter 5. I will not disagree here, even though there are a couple of very late (15th or 16th century) Greek manuscripts that do have it. However, it is very important to bear in mind, that when we are dealing with the evidence of the Greek manuscripts, we can only go by what has come down to us, as a great many of them were destroyed by the fire by the Muslims, when they destroyed the Library in Alexandria, Egypt, the home to many old manuscripts! The verse was known to, and quoted by Cyprian (200-258), who though was of the Latin Church, yet had a Greek New Testament. It was also known to other Church father.

A very good example of Greek manuscript evidence can be found for the woman found in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, which is omitted in most of the modern versions, though in the KJV. The oldest Greek manuscript that we have with this passage, is of the 5th or 6th century, Codex Cantabrigiensis, which is a Greek-Latin manuscript. All the other Greek manuscripts that have this passage are of a much later date. Yet, Jermoe (342-420 A.D.), says that this passage was found "in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin" (C.Pelag.ii.17). What happened to these "many" Greek manuscripts?

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma
after God. Titus 2:13 in the 1611 KJV
has:

"the glorious appearing of the great God,
and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

 

Yes, Icthus, many mss were burned in that series of fires. The first one was in 48 BC, accidentally set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC. The last one was in 391 AD when the Temple of Serapis was converted into a Christian sanctuary.

But does that mean that any of God's word was lost? NO! What we now have is what He wanted us to have...every last word.

Several times I've asked if it coulda been GOD'S PROVIDENCE that Codex Sinaiticus was found by Tischendorf before it was burned. Same for Vaticanus. If it was so bad that the RCC kept it hidden for centuries, why did they not destroy id centuries ago? Can God not keep His word from becoming polluted? Or, is the answer that He chose for those mss to survive, while He allowed hundreds of others to be destroyed?

Some KJVOs holler that God has purified His word seven times. If that were true, then His selective preservation of mss would be part of that process, correct? Therefore s'more of the KJVOs shoot their own theory in the foot.