Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[OMC]

Before we move to your new distinction between “direct textual evidence” and “corroborating evidence,” you need to acknowledge that you have substantially changed your position. Previously, you said that I had “pushed an AI until it fabricated TR-distinct readings” and treated my discoveries as essentially AI hallucinations. You now concede that the Madaba Map, the Joshua 18:22 apparatus, and the ε/η evidence are “real, citable, and verifiable.” That is exactly what I had been telling you. You are free to argue now about how much evidentiary weight those artifacts carry, but that is a different argument from claiming that the evidence itself was fabricated by AI.

Second, Bethabara does have early support connected directly with John 1:28. The Madaba Map is not my only evidence, nor have I ever needed the mosaic by itself to prove the reading. If every manuscript suddenly burned up today, and every piece of external evidence supporting the Bible disappeared with them, I would still have faith in God’s word. My faith does not rest upon archaeological artifacts or manuscript discoveries alone. Granted, those evidences are certainly nice to have, especially when helping a doubting Thomas who wants to see the evidence for himself.

#1. Origen, early third century:

Origen explicitly discusses the textual problem in his Commentary on John. He acknowledges that “Bethany” stood in nearly all the copies known to him, but nevertheless argues that “Bethabara” should be read. More importantly, Origen says that he personally investigated the geography and that a Bethabara was pointed out on the banks of the Jordan where John was said to have baptized.

I am not hiding Origen’s statement that most copies available to him read Bethany. That is part of the evidence. But it is simply false to present Bethabara as some sixteenth-century invention. Origen was arguing for Bethabara roughly 1,300 years before Beza.

Source:
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book VI, ch. 24. Use Command-F / Ctrl-F and search “most copies.”

CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book VI (Origen)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

#2. John Chrysostom, late fourth century:

Chrysostom is particularly important because he is not merely discussing geography. In his treatment of John 1:28, he says that Bethabara is found in what he regarded as the “more correct copies.” That is explicit patristic testimony concerning copies of the Gospel of John available in the fourth century.

This is especially interesting when placed beside Origen. Origen tells us that most copies available to him had Bethany, yet he defended Bethabara. Roughly a century and a half later, Chrysostom refers to Bethabara as occurring in what he regarded as the “more correct copies.” Whatever conclusion someone ultimately reaches, this demonstrates that Bethabara was part of an ancient textual dispute, not something invented by Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza.

Source:
John Chrysostom, late fourth century: John Chrysostom, Homily XVII on the Gospel of John, on John 1:28-29. Use Command-F / Ctrl-F and search “correct copies.”

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 17 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

#3. Old Syriac evidence, late fourth/early fifth-century manuscripts:

Bethabara also appears in the Old Syriac Gospel tradition. Both the Sinaitic Syriac and Curetonian Syriac support Bethabara at John 1:28. The Sinaitic manuscript is generally dated to the late fourth or early fifth century, while the Curetonian manuscript is generally dated to the fifth century. The Old Syriac translation tradition represented by these surviving manuscripts is earlier still.

This is significant because it gives us ancient versional support for the Bethabara reading itself, independent of the later medieval Greek manuscript tradition. Since Syriac is a different language, it does not tell us whether the Greek exemplar behind it spelled the name Βηθαβαρα or Βεθαβαρα. What it does establish is that the Bethabara place-name was already present in an ancient textual tradition.

Source:
Old Syriac, late fourth- and fifth-century surviving manuscripts: Agnes Smith Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels or Evangelion da-Mepharreshe (London: Williams and Norgate, 1910), p. xxviii (PDF p. 40). Lewis states: “The Sinai MS. and the Curetonian both have here Beth’abara.”
⁠https://home.cis.rit.edu/~rlepci/StC/Lewis_1910_Syriac_Gospels_OCR.pdf

#4. Codex Borgianus (T/029), fifth century:

Then we have direct Greek New Testament manuscript evidence. Codex Borgianus, commonly designated T or 029, is a fifth-century Greek-Sahidic manuscript that actually contains John 1:28 and reads βηθαβαρα.

So when you say that I would need “actual copies of John with that reading,” that is exactly what we have. This is not an archaeological artifact being substituted for manuscript evidence. It is an actual ancient Greek manuscript of John containing the Bethabara reading.

Source:
Codex Borgianus (T/029), fifth century: The NET Bible apparatus for John 1:28 lists T among the witnesses for Βηθαβαρᾷ (“Bethabara”). T represents Codex Borgianus, Gregory-Aland 029.

https://classic.net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Joh+1%3A28

Codex Borgianus T/029 manuscript/transcription:

Манускрипт GA 029 — Ин 1:24 – 3:10 — Кодекс Борджиа

Манускрипт GA 029, лист 16: Ин 1:24 – 3:10. Кодекс Борджиа.

bible.by

#5. Madaba Mosaic Map, sixth century:

Now put the Madaba Map back into this historical picture. I am not claiming that the Madaba Map is a manuscript of John 1:28. The point is that it provides independent archaeological and geographical corroboration by preserving the Greek place-name Βεθαβαρα.

This becomes especially interesting when compared with the manuscript evidence. Codex Borgianus preserves βηθαβαρα in John 1:28, while the Madaba Map independently preserves Βεθαβαρα. The principal difference between these forms is η (ē) versus ε (e), precisely the kind of orthographic variation we have independently documented.

The Madaba evidence is also particularly interesting in light of Origen. Centuries before the mosaic was made, Origen reported that a place called Bethabara was being pointed out along the Jordan where John was said to have baptized. The later archaeological evidence therefore does not create the Bethabara tradition. It independently corroborates the existence of the place-name within the ancient geographical tradition.

Source links for Mosaic Map:

Text of Madaba Mosaic Map

https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en-US/noartistknown/bethabara-the-place-of-baptism-of-st-john-from-the-madaba-mosaic-map/mosaic/asset/394135

bsba310103800l.jpg - The BAS Library

The sixth-century A.D. mosaic map found in a church in Madaba, Jordan, perpetuates one of the rival traditions concerning the location of the Biblical “Bethany beyond the Jordan.” (On the map, north is at left, the Dead Sea is at upper right and the Jordan runs north from the sea; the large oval...

library.biblicalarchaeology.org

#6. Uncial 083, sixth/seventh century:

Uncial 083, dated to approximately the sixth or seventh century, actually contains John 1:25–41 and also supports Bethabara at John 1:28. Again, this is not an archaeological artifact being substituted for a New Testament manuscript. It is another Greek New Testament manuscript containing the passage itself.

Source:
Uncial 083, sixth/seventh century: The NET Bible apparatus explicitly lists 083 among the witnesses for Βηθαβαρᾷ (“Bethabara”) at John 1:28. Use Command-F / Ctrl-F and search “083.”

https://classic.net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Joh+1%3A28

So my argument is cumulative:

1. Origen, early third century: Bethabara explicitly defended at John 1:28 and geographically associated with John’s baptism.
2. Chrysostom, late fourth century: Bethabara associated with what he regarded as the “more correct copies.”
3. Old Syriac, late fourth/early fifth-century surviving manuscripts: ancient versional support for the Bethabara reading itself, representing an even earlier translation tradition.
4. Codex Borgianus (T/029), fifth century: direct Greek manuscript evidence for βηθαβαρα in John 1:28.
5. Madaba Mosaic Map, sixth century: independent archaeological and geographical corroboration preserving Βεθαβαρα as an actual ancient Palestinian place-name.
6. Uncial 083, sixth/seventh century: additional direct Greek manuscript evidence for Bethabara in John 1:28.

This evidence was not fabricated. The artifacts are real. The reading is ancient. There is direct Greek manuscript evidence, early versional evidence, patristic testimony, geographical evidence, and archaeological corroboration.



....

None of that Bethabara material is “unbiblical” because it isn’t doctrine—it’s historical evidence marshaled to show that the TR reading has ancient witnesses; the only biblical claim in your paragraph is the assertion that John 1:28 originally read Bethabara, and that claim stands or falls on whether God actually inspired that form, which Scripture itself never specifies, because the Bible nowhere says “the original spelling of John 1:28 was X,” so the argument must be made from manuscript_evidence, patristic_testimony, and versional_support; your list shows that Bethabara is ancient, attested, and part of a real textual dispute, but none of that becomes “biblical” in the sense of inspired doctrine—what’s biblical is only what the text itself says, and the text of John 1:28 is precisely the point under dispute, so your cumulative case is historically legitimate but not itself Scripture.

 

[OMC]

Its a cumulative case. It's a historical fact that the TR/KJV is a settled text to a large body of Christians and it there is no large groups trying to continue a revision of it endlessly like the Westcott and Hort/Nestle and Aland text. A standard settled word of God is betting of Scripture verses, basic Bible history, its positive impact and influence globally, The TR/KJV stands in stark contrast to the most corrupt

Your “cumulative case” doesn’t answer the actual charge: you’re treating historical stabilization as divine finalization, and Scripture never equates the two. Yes, a large body of Christians treats the TR/KJV as settled; yes, it produced unity; yes, modern editions revise; none of that creates a biblical closure point, because the Bible never says, “My preserved text will be finalized in 1611 and never again.” Your appeal to 1 Corinthians 1:10 (“speak the same thing”) is about doctrinal unity, not freezing a printed edition; your appeal to Revelation 22:18–19 assumes a single edition to which “adding” or “taking away” must refer, but the verse itself addresses intentional corruption, not the existence of multiple manuscript witnesses; your appeal to Proverbs 22:21 (“certainty of the words of truth”) is about the reliability of God’s speech, not the immutability of one English form. You keep arguing that a stable tradition proves divine closure, but Scripture never ties preservation to one edition, one language, one century, or one printing—preservation is tied to manuscript_witnesses, not to the moment a tradition stops revising. Your unity argument is sociological, not biblical; your closure argument is theological, not textual; and your certainty argument confuses God’s unchanging Word with one human edition of it.

As I said before, my argument is cumulative and it does not rest on one piece of evidence alone. I look for patterns you obviously seem to miss. So, if Greber was an isolated incident in Bible translation, then you would get no real argument from me here. But as I mentioned before, Westcott had believed in the communion of the saints and he believed he was with those spirits a good part of the night alone in a church. Then you have J.B. Philips, as well.

Your pattern argument collapses because Scripture never teaches that the spiritual errors or mystical experiences of translators contaminate the text they handle; the Bible locates corruption in false doctrine (Gal 1:8–9), false prophecy (Jer 23:16–32), and intentional distortion (2 Cor 2:17), never in the private experiences of the men who copy or translate it. Greber’s spiritism does not make Codex Bezae corrupt any more than Phillips’s hallucination makes the English he translated corrupt or Westcott’s mystical language makes the Greek he edited corrupt; if translator‑sin contaminated the text, then the TR would collapse instantly because Erasmus used late manuscripts, back‑translated Revelation from Latin, and inserted readings with no Greek support, and the KJV translators themselves held doctrinal positions you reject. Scripture’s pattern is simple: bad actors corrupt teaching, not manuscripts (Acts 20:30; 2 Pet 3:16). Your “three translators with mystical experiences” is guilt‑by‑association, not textual evidence, and it proves nothing about the Greek witnesses themselves

That's not true. You have been told that by your Academy masters. You did not even know about the archeological evidence for the TR and you want to sit there and lecture me about the doctrinal differences between the KJV vs. Modern Bibles or the TR vs. the Critical Text doctrinal differences? Sorry, you are not qualified because you did not even know about the 26 Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles I brought

You’re treating your catalog of “77 changed doctrines” as if it were inspired data, but Scripture never says, “My preserved Word will appear in one Greek edition and one English translation with zero hard variants,” and it never teaches that doctrinal purity is measured by counting places where a later polemicist thinks a reading “sounds Catholic” or “sounds New Age.” The Bible locates preservation in God’s own action—“the words of the LORD are pure words…Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (Ps 12:6–7), “My words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35)—not in your ability to prove that one printed text has no difficult readings. When you say there are “5 places in Modern Bibles that make it appear like Jesus sinned” or “3 Arian readings,” you’re describing interpretive abuse, not necessary doctrinal content; Peter already warned that unstable men “wrest…Scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:16), and that happens with the KJV as easily as with any modern version. If the TR/KJV were the only text God preserved, you’d need a verse that says so; instead, what you have is a tradition you trust and a list of variants you dislike. That’s not the same thing as biblical proof that every non‑TR witness is doctrinally corrupt.

This is why your side is considered dishonest by us TR/KJV believes or we consider you to be one of the worse fact checkers in history. When Erasmus back translated from the Latin he said in his annotations it was only a few words and not six whole verses as the Critics like to falsely claim.

Your entire rebuttal misses the point: the issue is not whether Erasmus said “nonnulla verba” or whether later defenders clarified that Aldine Greek was used in the second edition — the issue is that the TR contains places where the Greek text was reconstructed without Greek manuscript support, which means your claim that the TR is uniquely free from conjecture is false. Even if Erasmus only supplied “some words,” those words still entered the printed Greek tradition without Greek attestation, and Scripture never says, “My preserved text will contain zero reconstructed words.” Your appeal to Aldine for the second edition doesn’t erase the fact that the first edition introduced readings from Latin, and the KJV translators used later TR editions that still carried those places. None of this proves corruption — it simply proves that your movement’s claim of a perfect, conjecture‑free Greek text is historically untrue, and Scripture itself never ties preservation to one edition’s transmission history

Millions of manuscripts were lost in World War 2 according to Dan Wallace.
The 1666 London fire also no doubt had led to a lot lost manuscripts, too.
There are also other events in history that led to destruction of manuscripts.

Your entire argument assumes that lost manuscripts = hidden early TR‑form, but Scripture never teaches that preservation works by imagining manuscripts we no longer possess; it teaches that God preserves His words in the actual witnesses He providentially leaves in history (Ps 12:6–7; Isa 40:8; Matt 24:35), not in hypothetical streams we reconstruct to defend a preferred edition. Yes, wars and fires destroyed manuscripts; yes, the present is not the totality of everything that ever existed; but none of that proves an early TR textform, because the only way to establish an early textform is by actual surviving witnesses, not by saying, “Maybe earlier ones existed that matched my edition.” When you cite Jesus’ words about jots and tittles (Matt 5:18), you’re proving preservation, not the TR—He said the law will not pass away, not “the TR/KJV will be the final settled form.” Believing without seeing (John 20:29) is about Christ’s resurrection, not about assuming a specific printed Greek tradition existed in the first centuries. You keep treating “early readings in the TR” as “early TR textform,” but those are not the same thing; every tradition has early readings, and the only way to show an early form is by manuscript_witnesses, not by theological certainty. Your logic confuses biblical preservation with retroactive textual closure, and Scripture never makes that move.

Ah, no. No, no.
What you Critical Text types think as additions are actually supported by early readings.
So you don't really know what your talking about.

Then again the lies that spread in the Academy are just said as fact these days.
Erasmus received a manuscript to order to put the Comma in his Greek text.
Yet, if you read his annotations on this point like I did, then you would know what manuscript he said he used.
That manuscript does not align with GA 61 as the critics claim, either.

Your rebuttal doesn’t touch the point I made, because the issue is not whether critics exaggerate Erasmus’s Latin back‑translation or whether GA 61 was the exact manuscript he referenced — the issue is that the TR contains readings whose Greek support is either extremely thin or absent, and Scripture never says, “My preserved Word will be found only in readings with late attestation that entered the printed tradition through editorial reconstruction.” Even if Erasmus only supplied “nonnulla verba,” those words still entered the Greek text without Greek manuscript support, and even if he later asked Basel to restore the place from Aldine, that does not erase the fact that the first edition introduced conjectural Greek that the KJV translators inherited through later TR editions. None of this proves corruption — but it does prove that your claim of a uniquely pure, conjecture‑free TR is historically false, and Scripture never ties preservation to one printed edition’s editorial history; preservation is tied to God’s own keeping of His words, not to the biographies, mistakes, or corrections of Erasmus.

 

[Qt]

I said, "Theirs is Conjecture based on theological bias or a misunderstanding of context. And Please do not try to argue someone else's argument."


Your response:

First, I am not one who is going outside the authority of lexicons and is also supported by a native of Greece.

I wasn't talking about you.

Second, you would have to show why they are incorrect and use some kind of historic support for your interpretation or understanding. Meaning, is there any place in history where other early church writers or commentators have argued over this? Then you would need to show why your position in their argument is superior.

I did by posting the context. Here it is again,
In respect to context, If I am dead and CHRIST LIVES IN ME I am living by the faith of Christ. For I have put on Christ. If I live by the faith of Christ It is God that works in me both to will and do His good pleasure. This the New Covenant, for His Law, His Word is in our hearts through Christ Jesus through His Spirit. We are a new creation, behold we are all new and of God. Reconciled, as He is so are we in this world.

With this understanding Gal2:16 should be read like this, Knowing that a man is not justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the works of the law, IF NOT through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed INTO Jesus Christ (for we have put on Christ Gal 3:26-27), that we might be justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the faith of Christ, and not OUT OF the works of the law: for OUT OF the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

For the Just (righteous) shall live by faith. The faith that establishes the Law. For the Word is in our hearts and in our mouths that we do it. That is the word of faith that we preach. For with the heart man believes INTO righteousness. (Rom 10:8-10; Deut 30:14)

justification is through faith, resting upon Jesus Christ and His faithful saving work. Galatians 2:20 is a progression of the topic with using Galatians 2:16 as the basis or foundation. It's moving into how Christ lives in Him and He is crucified to himself and lets Christ take control of his life because of God's grace

Which was said, in this that I posted above, If I am dead and CHRIST LIVES IN ME I am living by the faith of Christ. For I have put on Christ. If I live by the faith of Christ It is God that works in me both to will and do His good pleasure. This the New Covenant, for His Law, His Word is in our hearts through Christ Jesus through His Spirit. We are a new creation, behold we are all new and of God. Reconciled, as He is so are we in this world.

Which is why this translation stands, Knowing that a man is not justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the works of the law, IF NOT through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed INTO Jesus Christ (for we have put on Christ Gal 3:26-27), that we might be justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the faith of Christ, and not OUT OF the works of the law: for OUT OF the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

You keep saying that the KJV has no errors here yet keep using faithfulness rather than faith in your explanation.

See, in this life, you can either be a Bible believer or a Bible corrector.

You really don't have a Bible that you can 100% trust but we need you to give us the correct words.
Yeah, no thanks. I will stick with the historic received text and just believe it. .


....

The TR isn't reliable? I think it is.

 

[Qt]

None of that Bethabara material is “unbiblical” because it isn’t doctrine—it’s historical evidence marshaled to show that the TR reading has ancient witnesses;

Not Biblical? It is in the Bible and is a witness to authenticity of the TR and shows an error in the NA27/UBS4.

That is a fact that does not need 10 paragraphs to explain.

 

[OMC]

Not Biblical? It is in the Bible and is a witness to authenticity of the TR and shows an error in the NA27/UBS4.

That is a fact that does not need 10 paragraphs to explain.

The Bethabara vs. Bethany variant in John 1:28 arises because most early Greek manuscripts read Bethany beyond Jordan, while later Byzantine manuscripts and early patristic/geographical witnesses support Bethabara;
Origen in the 3rd century explicitly rejected “Bethany” because no such location existed east of the Jordan and replaced it with “Bethabara,” a change later reflected in the Byzantine tradition, while Eusebius in the 4th century identified Bethabara as a known baptism site and the 6th‑century Madaba Map labels the baptism location as Bethabara, giving archaeological support to the TR reading; modern critical editions (NA27/UBS4) retain “Bethany” because it appears in earlier manuscripts, while TR editions retain “Bethabara” because of ancient geographical testimony, patristic correction, and Byzantine continuity; this makes the variant biblical textual evidence, not biblical doctrine, which is why I said it is “not doctrinal”—it concerns the transmission of a place name, not any theological teaching, even though it legitimately supports the authenticity of the TR reading and highlights the geographical difficulty in the NA27/UBS4 reading.

 

[ScooterJackson]

My position on the Bibliology topic is

What's your position on the Lord having the ability, power, and authority to make sure mankind knows what He said in His Word?

Is He up to the task or is He powerless to get this done?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

What's your position on the Lord having the ability, power, and authority to make sure mankind knows what He said in His Word?

Is He up to the task or is He powerless to get this done?

By the answer that I gave you, it shows that my answer is an obvious, "Yes."


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You keep saying that the KJV has no errors here yet keep using faithfulness rather than faith in your explanation.

In Galatians 2:16, the issue is not settled for me. While I am now leaning toward the objective sense of “faith of Jesus Christ” (KJV), which would be translated into modern English as “faith in Jesus Christ,” I still see the subjective genitive sense, “faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” as a possibility. (See my side note below on the word “of.”)

Both English and Greek have semantic ranges of meaning where words can carry more than one sense depending on the context, and I believe both of these interpretations can work here while fitting the context and the whole of New Testament Scripture. As I have said before, the Greek word πίστις, translated “faith” in Galatians 2:16, can carry the sense of faithfulness or fidelity. In fact, the KJV itself translates πίστις as “fidelity” in Titus 2:10. The English word “faith” historically could also carry the sense of faithfulness or fidelity, as can be seen in the Middle English Dictionary under “feith" (Definition 5).

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED15481/

On the other hand, Mark 11:22 gives us an important example of the objective genitive. The Greek says ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ, literally using “faith” followed by “God” in the genitive, with no Greek word for “in,” yet the KJV translates it, “Have faith in God.” God is the object of the faith. This demonstrates that πίστις followed by a genitive can have an objective sense.

Commentators such as Jerome, Calvin, and Ellicott understood the first “faith of Jesus Christ” clause in Galatians 2:16 as referring to faith in Jesus Christ, which supports the objective-genitive understanding. Jerome is especially significant because he was commenting directly on the first clause and said that the Old Testament saints were “justified by the faith of Christ,” citing Abraham seeing Christ’s day, Moses esteeming the reproach of Christ, and Isaiah seeing Christ’s glory.

So I believe there is strength in both positions or understandings of this verse. In fact, it could potentially be one of those places in Scripture where both senses are intended. In other words, I currently see “faith in Christ” as the primary meaning, while “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” could potentially be a secondary sense contained within the wording. It is somewhat like what we sometimes see with Messianic prophecies, although I realize that is a crude and imperfect analogy. Granted, I am not stating that this dual-sense understanding is 100% fact, but simply presenting it as a potential possibility.

This debate over the objective genitive vs. the subjective genitive exists even among living Greek professors of our day who live in Greece and whose native language is Greek.


Side Note on the Word “of”:

There is historical English evidence showing that “of” can carry the sense of “in” in certain contexts. The Oxford English Dictionary, under “of, prep.,” sense 58 (towards the bottom of the PDF), explicitly gives “In” as a sense of “of.”

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/citations/of%2C%20prep.%20_%20Oxford%20English%20Dictionary.pdf

Webster’s 1913 also explains that “of” may be used in either a subjective or an objective sense. It gives “the love of God” as an example, explaining that this can mean either our love for God or God’s love for us. This is especially relevant because it demonstrates that “of” does not necessarily mean that the person following “of” is the one performing or possessing the action or quality.

Of — Webster's 1913 Dictionary

(prep.) In a general sense, from, or out from; proceeding from; belonging to; relating to; concerning; -- used in a variety of applications; as:

websters1913.timcieplowski.com

Webster’s 1913 further says under its definition of “in” that “in” “sometimes is interchangeable with, within, into, on, at, of, and among.” Thus, “in” and “of” could overlap in certain English constructions.

Webster's 1913

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (19th century) applies this directly to Galatians 2:16, stating:

“‘Faith of Jesus Christ’ means, as we are more accustomed to say, ‘faith in Jesus Christ.’”

Galatians 2:16 Commentaries: nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the

So there is evidence on both the Greek and English sides for understanding “faith of Jesus Christ” objectively as “faith in Jesus Christ.” Mark 11:22 demonstrates the objective-genitive construction in Greek, while the historical English evidence shows that “of” can likewise express an objective relationship and can even carry the sense of “in” in certain contexts. This does not eliminate the possible secondary sense of “faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” since both the Greek word πίστις and the historical English word “faith” can carry the sense of faithfulness or fidelity.

The TR isn't reliable? I think it is.

I am happy to hear that. I see the the final TR as the underlying Greek of the KJV, although I would not adhere to Scrivener's TR. I look to the Beza 1598 primarily and where the Beza and KJV differs in regard to translatable differences, I make a note of it. So far it is about 50-60 of them. But I am going through a multiple level pass or test on those, which takes a lot of time.


....

 

[ScooterJackson]

By the answer that I gave you, it shows that my answer is an obvious, "Yes."

Then you are way ahead of most to say they are Christians then.

Most Christians today are so open minded the devil and put in anything he wants and they'll follow it.