The KJV Only & The Textus Receptus Only - a continuous thread

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#1
Regarding the Bible Discussion Forum, there are two problems regarding this issue:

1. Often new and new threads are being created about the KJV Only.

2. Often the KJV only belief discussion is being put into threads where it does not belong to.

So if you think it is a good idea to have just one thread, we can take all our discussions and arguments about the KJV/TR here and let other threads about other versions clean.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,624
1,381
113
#2
It would be a good idea, if people would actually "follow the rules"..... I suspect that is highly unlikely.
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#3
I wonder why would anyone add to the text? I think it would be more likely that they would remove something they do not like.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#4
I wonder why would anyone add to the text? I think it would be more likely that they would remove something they do not like.
Its simple.

Because people were making notes to the text they were using.

A copyist then saw them and if he was not sure if these belong to the text or not, he rather included them than to risk something can be lost.
 
Last edited:

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#5
Regarding the Bible Discussion Forum, there are two problems regarding this issue:

1. Often new and new threads are being created about the KJV Only.

2. Often the KJV only belief discussion is being put into threads where it does not belong to.

So if you think it is a good idea to have just one thread, we can take all our discussions and arguments about the KJV/TR here and let other threads about other versions clean.
You missed one important rule. Any thread devoted to this discussion should not be used to (1) revile those who hold to the KJV, (2) revile the KJV, or (3) revile the Textus Receptus. The thread which was started for brethren who hold to the KJV attracted a lot of KJV-bashers, when it was not even meant for them. Those people who reject the KJV should have their own thread extolling the "virtues" of their modern Bibles.
 
Last edited:

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#6
I wonder why would anyone add to the text? I think it would be more likely that they would remove something they do not like.
You are absolutely correct. The corrupt manuscripts have THOUSANDS of omissions, but relatively few additions.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#7
You missed one important rule. Any thread devoted to this discussion should not be used to (1) revile those who hold to the KJV, (2) revile the KJV, or (3) revile the Textus Receptus. The thread which was started for brethren who hold to the KJV attracted a lot of KJV-bashers, when it was not even meant for them. Those people who reject the KJV should have their own thread extolling the "virtues" of their modern Bibles.
Every thread is open and for everybody. You can say whatever you want in the OP, its on people who will come if they will be for the idea or against it.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#8
You are absolutely correct. The corrupt manuscripts have THOUSANDS of omissions, but relatively few additions.
These are not "corrupt", they are just younger, i.e. without many later additions.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#9
You missed one important rule. Any thread devoted to this discussion should not be used to (1) revile those who hold to the KJV, (2) revile the KJV, or (3) revile the Textus Receptus. The thread which was started for brethren who hold to the KJV attracted a lot of KJV-bashers, when it was not even meant for them. Those people who reject the KJV should have their own thread extolling the "virtues" of their modern Bibles.
You have done an admirable job of presenting an unbalanced view of the situation. You decry those who "revile those who hold to the KJV" and call them, "KJV-bashers". Do you see the blatant hypocrisy? Get some integrity, stop the name-calling, and try defending your assertions with something rational.

Reasoned criticism is not bashing or reviling. Pointing out errors is not bashing or reviling. Pointing out weaknesses in argumentation is not bashing or reviling. Presenting facts, even if not universally-accepted, is not bashing or reviling.

Further, people who don't hold to the KJV-only position don't necessarily "reject" it. It is far more common that they (we!) hold to the position that the KJV is not the only "pure, perfect" translation of the Bible in English. If you can't handle disagreement on this issue without misrepresenting or "bashing and reviling" those who disagree with you, perhaps you are the one who should stay out of the conversation.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#10
Just remember, when they say what they think, it is not bashing

when you say what you think, it is bashing

that should b all anyone needs to see, and a reason to not even discuss this "non issue" thus feeding the flames.
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#11
This is an interesting study. trofimus you said that the orthodox are using the textus receptus or majority text, but atleast here in Finland the orthodox church uses the same translation as the lutheran church, which would be from the older manuscripts not the textus receptus by any means.
Maybe it is different where you live.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#12
Reasoned criticism is not bashing or reviling.
OK, Dino, since you are so eager to tell others about "reasoned criticism", here is an "unreasoned" and "unreasonable" quote from your very own words:

"Also, your assertion that the KJV was deemed "The Bible" for over 300 years is without historical support or reference. In other words, it's your opinion, and is without merit in a discussion of facts."

So why did you not tell us which was "the" English Bible between 1611 and 1881? Or even 1911, since the RV did not become the ASV until then?

Any reasonable person would have said that the King James Bible was "the" Bible for all English-speaking people and nations for about 300 years, but you flatly denied that. Which translates into subtle KJV-bashing.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#13
This is an interesting study. trofimus you said that the orthodox are using the textus receptus or majority text, but atleast here in Finland the orthodox church uses the same translation as the lutheran church, which would be from the older manuscripts not the textus receptus by any means.
Maybe it is different where you live.
Thats maybe because there is no translation from the Byzantine text to Finnish, so they do not have any choice.

BTW they do not like the Textus Receptus much, they see it as a bad representative of the majority text.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#14
Any reasonable person would have said that the King James Bible was "the" Bible for all English-speaking people and nations for about 300 years.[/B]
Which makes 4 nations if I count it right.

For example the Latin Vulgate was used by whole the Europe for 1500 years and that makes like 30 nations? This is not an argument for anything.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#15
BTW they do not like the Textus Receptus much, they see it as a bad representative of the majority text.
The Majority Text has yet to be established. The "Hodges-Farstad Majority Text" is bogus, and I already posted a link discussing that. The Textus Receptus is still the Received Text (or the Traditional Text) and is supported by the majority of manuscripts collated thus far. But the easy way out was to claim that a handful of corrupt manuscripts were superior to the Received Text (as claimed by Westcott & Hort who have been followed by all the modern critics), when in fact they were the exact opposite.

I have also posted a link to the basis for that conclusion, but I will quote from F.H. A. Scrivener, who was the leading authority on textual criticism in the 19th century, and was quoted in The Revision Revised as follows:

'The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS.WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “New Greek Text.” [Which is the same as the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts]

(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary.

(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.”

(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us.”

(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’ [Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.” SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.'
 
May 11, 2014
936
39
0
#16
Thats maybe because there is no translation from the Byzantine text to Finnish, so they do not have any choice.

BTW they do not like the Textus Receptus much, they see it as a bad representative of the majority text.
Wait wait wait. There are other "majority texts" than the textus receptus? I am clueless on this topic it seems.
I think we got one byzantine translation the 1776 lutheran one. Atleast it has 1 john 5:7 like the KJV and many other verses in a similar fashion. Or is the byzantine and textus receptus different also?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#17
Which makes 4 nations if I count it right.
Once again you are the one departing from the fact. The British Empire stretched right across the world, including Australia and New Zealand. So do you know how many countries were under the British Empire during that time? And we want to talk about "reasonable" criticism.

Here's one quotation to set you straight:

Approximately 60 modern countries were formerly colonies of the British Empire. Notable modern countries among these include Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Nigeria, Malaysia, India, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and the United States. The empire was so vast that it spawned the saying, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#18
Once again you are the one departing from the fact. The British Empire stretched right across the world, including Australia and New Zealand. So do you know how many countries were under the British Empire during that time? And we want to talk about "reasonable" criticism.

Here's one quotation to set you straight:

Approximately 60 modern countries were formerly colonies of the British Empire. Notable modern countries among these include Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Nigeria, Malaysia, India, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and the United States. The empire was so vast that it spawned the saying, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
Again, Latin Vulgate beats the KJV on every level. Is it an argument for the perfectness of the Latin Vulgate? No.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#19
OK, Dino, since you are so eager to tell others about "reasoned criticism", here is an "unreasoned" and "unreasonable" quote from your very own words:

"Also, your assertion that the KJV was deemed "The Bible" for over 300 years is without historical support or reference. In other words, it's your opinion, and is without merit in a discussion of facts."


You did not provide referential support for your statement. You did not provide historical support for your statement. That is my reasonable response to your assertion. There is a critical nuance to claiming that the KJV was "The" Bible... I have absolutely no problem with a claim that it what most English speakers were thinking of when they thought, "bible"; however, taking that general truth one step farther and implying that it gives the KJV some measure of authority is not valid. Not only does it come across as mere opinion, it also employs the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.

So why did you not tell us which was "the" English Bible between 1611 and 1881? Or even 1911, since the RV did not become the ASV until then?
I don't need to provide a counter-claim in order for my refutation to stand.

Any reasonable person would have said that the King James Bible was "the" Bible for all English-speaking people and nations for about 300 years, but you flatly denied that. Which translates into subtle KJV-bashing.
"Any reasonable person" is another logical fallacy, often referred to as "No true Scotsman". You over-generalize by using the phrase, "for all English-speaking people..." (kudos though for using a hyphen correctly). Denying your claim is not at all "KJV-bashing". It is merely giving reason(s) why I find your claim unacceptable on face value.

Your "subtle KJV-bashing" comment reminds me of the "microaggression" fantasy being perpetrated by social justice warriors these days; in other words, "Because you disagree with my view, I will find a way to silence you instead of dealing rationally with your view." I have already stated that I have no intention or inclination to bash the KJV (or you, for that matter), but you continually interpret my words as such. I hope for better. May God bless you anyway. :)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#20
Wait wait wait. There are other "majority texts" than the textus receptus? I am clueless on this topic it seems.
I think we got one byzantine translation the 1776 lutheran one. Atleast it has 1 john 5:7 like the KJV and many other verses in a similar fashion. Or is the byzantine and textus receptus different also?
Yes. Byzantine texts family are manuscripts mostly found in the former Byzantine empire, i.e. former Eastern Roman Empire. Thats also where
the eastern church (so called "orthodox) has been spread. They used Greek as their language, thats why they produced many Greek manuscrips.

Because the Western Roman Empire stopped using Greek and used Latin Vulgate instead, there were produced almost none Greek manuscripts.

Thats why the Byzantine text family of Greek manuscripts makes the majority of survived Greek manuscripts.

Erasmus (the creator of Textus Receptus) had few byzantine Greek manuscripts of not very good quality. He wished to use also Codex Vaticanus, but he cant.

-----

There are some other editions of Byzantine family you can find:
1. Robinson-Pierpoint Byzantine Greek New Testament
- text is composed on the majority of byzantine reading, so this is truly a "majority text"

2. Orthodox Patriarchal text
- honorable men of the orthodox church selected some byzantine manuscripts they think are of the best quality and based their text on them
- their criteria was that the text must be the best witness to the Church, so this text is ecclesiastical

-----

The reading of the KJV in 1J 5:7 is not the majority reading. Its taken from Latin,not from Greek. You will not find it in any majority text edition.
 
Last edited: