The case for the KJV and "Textus Receptus" Part 2

[souldude81]

Wow I am on part 2 and this guy has not made a single coherent point in support of KJV onlyism. He seems to go on a tangent with is "depth" knowledge on text origins.

[Dejan2116]

But this is not to say that Jesus isn't God, Jesus is GOD! And the New Testament clearly teaches that. But clearly, 1 Tim 3:16 said "HE", not God.

[souldude81]

So? I read this passage in it is obvious to me "He" refers to God instead of another person named "He".

Why do you think it matters?

[Dejan2116]

Hey soul, I'm glad you read my comment. The internal evidence(evidence that can explain how the textual variant arose) seems to favour the reading "He", but the external evidence(evidence that is based solely on manuscript weight) seems to favour the reading "God".

I would agree that neither readings impact our belief in the Trinity or in the deity of our Lord for all these doctrines are taught all over the NT.

A good book on the deity of Christ is B.B. Warfield's "Lord of Glory". :)

[Dejan2116]

I recommend "The King James Only Controversy" by Dr. James White, for all KJV only advocates.

Textus Receptus the Bible of the Disciples? Wow, he couldn't be more off historically. One thing I've noticed from all KJV advocates, is that they obscure truth.

No believer had the word of God until 1881? Don't KJV advocates teach that no believer had the word of God until 1611?

The Alexandrian Text is by far better than the Majority Text- the majortiy are only parts of letters, not complete

[kjvonly01]

KJV believers BELIEVE in the TR, and the MAJORITY text. If you adhere to the Alexandrian test, your neither a TR believer, and I would doubt EVERY translation that you would ever make to an English speaking party.

Ultimately, if you only speak English, then you need an English translation.

1Cor:14:19: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

[kjvonly01]

You came on my channel the other day touting the TR, which I also believe, is Gods word, (If your fully versed in Old Hebrew, and Old Greek). Then you come on this video, and bash the TR manuscripts, and adhere to the Alexandrian text as authoritative.

Jms:1:8: A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Jms:4:8: Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Gods word was around long before 300 AD in the TR.

[Dejan2116]

I must confess, I probably know Greek less than a 2 year old child in Greece. But I am learning. Actually my brother, the oldest manuscripts we have are Alexandian, not TR. I do not want to say something ignorant to make you doubt the scriptures, forgive me, but you will have to get the book I cited for you to understand, "The King James Only Controversy" by Dr. James White.

OH the Lord has washed me of my sins and showed me his truth and will continue to work in me, amen. Please unblock me

[kjvonly01]

With all due respect Dejan2116:

While you were pooping your pants and sucking on your thumb, I was already a seasoned preacher.

I knew before you were born, that the TR, or majority text IS the oldest manuscripts going back to the Isaiah, dead sea scrolls of 700 BC more than a 1000 years before the Alexandrian text was contrived in Egypt, which was a blatant violation against the council of God to his people to return there.

Jer:42:19:, Isa 30:1-3.

Who do you think you're fooling.

[Dejan2116]

Are you talking about the Old Testament or the New Testament? Because for the New Testament, the Oldest Papayri manuscripts are Alexandrian?

I pray that God molds me into the image of His Son Jesus and that I live toward His Glory, amen.

We should boast in your seasoned preaching, sorry if you didn't mean to boast in that, but its how it appears to sound. We should boast in Christ, not in our works or who we are, we are noone, God is Holy, Jesus is Lord!

[kjvonly01]

2 Cor 11:18: Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

19: For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.

[Dejan2116]

My friend, see, that is how false doctrine enters churches, when you don't go to the original languages or go to the godly scholarship of our forefathers for expert interpretation(which is a gift from God to the church:use with caution, Sola Scriptura) thats what happends.

Barnes commentary on 2 Cor 11:18:

to what the flesh had endured - to stripes and imprisonments, and hunger and peril. This is an exceedingly delicate and happy turn given to the whole subject.

[Dejan2116]

KJV only, you blocked me.. now you see why the Pharasees could not forsake tradiiton. THe power of tradition has blinded your eyes, and even if I show you proof from the KJV translators themselves, you keep your tradition instead and worship an idol of KJV onlyism, going against all the other and BETTER translation such as the NASB.

Harden not your heart, look at what the power of tradition does....

[kjvonly01]

Isa 30:1: Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

2: That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!

3: Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.

Nothing good ever came out of Egypt.

[Dejan2116]

Nothing good ever came out of Egypt? Now I must admit, when I was more ignorant of the Bible, at the KJV only websites this majorly decieved me.

Egypt was a place condemned in the Bible because they worshiped idols, not because of 'bad' manuscripts.

[kjvonly01]

These TR copied manuscripts AGREE with Isaiahs' scripture of 700 BC

They include some of the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 C.E., and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. [1] These manuscripts generally date between 150 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.[2].

[Dejan2116]

I agree, and the NASB and the NIV are also translated from the Masoretic Text(which is also where the KJV came from), but readings with proper textual criticism are also added to the NASB and NIV.

THe Masoretic text is regarded by scholars to accurately show the original text of the authors even more than the Dead Sea Scroles themselves. But what this does not do, is prove that the KJV is the only Bible.

Please try reading an NIV, I hated it too(because I was decieved) READ THE WORD!

[jinkyfc]

"but readings with proper textual criticism are also added to the NASB and NIV."

lets have a look at the textual criticism in the NIV.

NIV - 1Jo 5:7 -

For there are three that testify:

Footnote:

* Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

The NASB also has the same verse

[jinkyfc]

here is the same verse in the KJV

KJV - 1Jo 5:7 -

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

now lets have a look to see if we can prove that it is not in any manuscript before the "Sixteenth century" from the textual criticism you have created a false idol out of in the same way you claim KJV onlyist have of the Bible itself

[jinkyfc]

168 A.D. Theophilus used the word "trinity" in his letter to Autolycus. Written in Greek. Theophilus became bishop of Antioch.

177 A.D.  A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

[jinkyfc]

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

[jinkyfc]

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually."

[jinkyfc]

380A.D. PRISCILLIAN verify here Liber Apologeticus As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

[jinkyfc]

i have shown you FIVE times this verse was quoted before 400 AD.

if the "textual criticism" was correct and the niv and the nasb and other modern bibles were right to leave out the remainder of the verse because it wasn't in the originals then where did they quote it from?

where they all clairvoyant?

im sorry but you have not persuaded me. think i will stcik to the KJV :)

[Dejan2116]

It is clear that the verse comes from a Latin manuscript translation, which is the exact same latin manuscript that gives birth to the one greek manuscript that 'has the verse in it' supposedly. The comma has no chance of being original by any meaningful scholarship. It is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age - one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text

[jinkyfc]

the earliest vulaget is dated at 382

all the quotes i gave are earlier than this and the niv claims it is only in "late" copies of the vulgate

[Dejan2116]

My friend, 1 John 5:7 does is not the only proof text for the trinity, infact, many other verses in the New Testament establish this doctrine. It is unneeded, and most likely not original, since it is not in the over 5000 Greek Manuscripts that we have, it clearly comes from the Vulgate/ Latin Manuscripts, and is quoted by as an exegesis of the text, not as a part of the Greek New Testament. We find the most manuscripts in Egypt because in that dry climate they survive! :)

[edwardpf123]

1Jn.5:7 is the BEST proof text for the Trinity and it is found in a number of Gr. Mss. Morever the Old Latin is higly regarded as supporting the later Gr. manuscripts since it goes back to the 2nd

century.

[edwardpf123]

There are a number of Gr. manuscripts, that have 1Jn.5:7. The earliest goes back to the 10th century.

[Dejan2116]

Thats not true, the comma was inserted in a Greek Manuscript in the 16th century and given to Erasmus, only if you do not know the BIble well will you be hurt if 1 jo 5:7 is taken out, because there are MANY other proof texts for the Trinity all over the Scriptures. James White does an excellent job in proving the Trinity in his book called "The Forgotten Trinity" that you should get, and also get "The King James Only Controversy" and see the truth, that the KJV is not the only Bible.

[edwardpf123]

You are way behind the times in regards to textual criticism. 'There are nine Gr. Mss that have the readings listed by N/A in their 26th edition. And the N/A mentions that other Gr. MSS contain the reading in the margin'

(When the KJB departs from the Majority Text, Moorman, pg.119)

And you should read some other works dealing with the KJB issue.

See my videos for some of them. I also give the anti-KJB works below it and make some comments on them.

1Jn.5:7 is scripture.

[Dejan2116]

Really? Show me these 9 Gr. Mss, and tell me their dates? And you will see that they clearly come from the Latin. But 1 John 5:7 does not impact Biblical doctrine whatsoever, the Trinity can be clearly established by other verses, get the Forgotten Trinity by Dr. James White if you still doubt. and his other book "the King James Only Controversy". Believing textual criticis have always said that the original reading is in the manuscript tradition, and 1 jo 5:7 is not in that tradition.

[edwardpf123]

61-16th 88mg12th 221mg10th 429mg.14th 62914th 635mg11th-cited by Mezger and UBS, not N-A 636mg15th 91816th 2318 ? Never said that the Trinity couldn't be established with other passages, but 1Jn.5:7 is the clearest verse on it. Just like 1Tim.3:16 is the clearest one on the incarnation and that is why the MV remove 'God' from it. 1Jn 5:7 is in every pre-1611 Bible, I would call that the correct tradition.

[Dejan2116]

5700 Greek MSS for the New Testament, how is it that for the first 1000 years no Greek New Testament contains1 John 5:7?

It is clear that it comes from a Latin manuscript, and thats how it got its way into the Vulgate, and then into those manuscripts.

1 Tim 3:16 is an accidental scribal error. The original reading was "HE" not "GOD", the word He and God in that verse is so similar that a little line through one letter makes the word God there. Even so, Jesus is presented as God elsewhere.

[edwardpf123]

First, we don't have that many Gr. MSS of 1Jn.5:7.

Second, the Gr. texts were being preserved in Byzantine and their battle was with the Sabbalisim heresy, that God was One. Since 1Jn.5:7 supports that oneness it is suspected that many orthodox took it out to defend the Trinity

There are Gr. Mss that support the verse, Moreover, the internal make up of the Gr. demands it (law of attraction)

And we have Church Fathers who also used the verse early in church history.

[Dejan2116]

The Byzantine texts dont even have 1 john 5:7, none of them do. The only manuscripts that do have them are the ones that were inserted to Erasmus in his Textus Receptus. Yes Edward, if you learn church history, that verse was inserted into a Latin Vulgate a couple hundred years after Christ, it is not original, and then from that Vulgate it made its way into the Greek. It is not original, and it is even inconsistant with John's argument in 1 John 5. It is a clear insertion.

[edwardpf123]

The KJ isn't always Majority (Byzantine) text and never claimed to be. There is Gr. MSS evidence for the reading as far back as the 12th century. And if you would learn some recent church history, you would learn that Erasmus put the reading in because he believed it to be a true reading and it has remained in the TR since. And it is very consistent with 1Jn. who is making the case that Christ as God is recorded by both by the Trinity and the Incarnation (water and blood)

[Dejan2116]

It does not contribute to advance what the apostle is saying, but breaks the thread of his argument entirely. He is speaking of things which bear witness to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah; things which were well known to those he was writing - the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. How does it contribute to strengthen the force of this to say that in heaven there are three that bear witness - three not before referred to, and having no connection with the matter under consideration?

[edwardpf123]

And TWO witnesses are given the one in Heaven by the Trinity and one on earth, the Incarnation. And it takes TWO witnesses to make a case, not just one.

So, if you have just one witness you do have not proven your case. That is why God is appealing to the RECORD as evidence, with TWO witnesses.

[edwardpf123]

1Tim3:16 is not a scribal error. 'God' is in the passage in the overwhelming number of Mss. Dean Burgon proved that conclusively, the same Dean Burgon that White calls a 'great scholar'

[Dejan2116]

The word "God" and "He" are so similar that a simple line can change the word "HE" to "God". Since the earliest manuscripts do not contain it, it is not original either, but a line on a manuscript page must have been mistaken by the scribe to say "GOD", when it actually said "HE", and since it is so similar, literally as similar as our "A" and an upsidedown V (turn it upside down and compare it to the A.. Just the little line in the middle, easy mistake.

[edwardpf123]

Actually, if you remove the line from the 'theta' you are left with 'OS' who, not 'he' and anyone who adds'he' is adding (NASB/NIV) to what they think the Greek says. But the evidence for 'God' is overwhelming. 'A' had the reading and it was witnessed as such by many leading textual critics of their day.

So, why do modern versions not put what they think the Gr. actually says instead of the false reading 'he'? Because the sentence wouldn't make any sense, the pr.n. needs an antecedent!

[Dejan2116]

Edawrd, the oldest manuscripts did not have seperations from any word, thus in capital Greek Letters without seperation, it would be the difference between V and A both facing up, just the line inbetween.

Modern Bibles put the reading "God" in the footnoes as it should be. It is inconsistant with 1 John 5, for this simple reason

Continued.

[edwardpf123]

If you are discussing 1Tim.3:16 here and why the pronoun has no andecedent, the lack of separation between the two has nothing to do with anything. The fact is the modern versions ADD 'he' to the verse to make a sentence, since the 'OS' is 'who' and it is not referring to anyone so the modern critics have to make up a sentence. So, it wouldn't have made sense to 'OS' to be there. It makes perfect sense for 'Theos' to be there since it is in the Nominative case (the subject) of the sentence.

[Dejan2116]

My brother, a website that will be very helpful to you, an apologetic website run by Dr James White, (aomin org) Please go to it, he debated Bart Erhman a couple days ago about "Did the Bible Misquote Jesus: Can the New Testament still be Inspired in light of textual variation?"

That is the thesis of the Debate.

And when you have the time, get "The King James Only Controversy: Can you trust Modern Translations" By Dr. James White, very helpful to understand how we got the Bible.

[Dejan2116]

From the Barnes Commentary:

1 John 5:7

It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century.

[Dejan2116]

RWP commentary:

1 John 5:7

Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order.Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprians exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

[Dejan2116]

Im not arguing that the Trinity isn't true, there is no quote of 1 John 5:7 by anyone at all, except for some who quoted from the Latin insertion. Sorry, Scholars have examined all of those claims by church fathers, even in Bible commentaries, Barnes Commentary has a thorough section dedicated to the interpolation of 1 John 5:7.

[Dejan2116]

I think your confused, as I was when I was a KJV only, about what it means by not being in any manuscript before the 16th century, which is true. 1 John 5:7 does not impact the doctrine of the Trinity at all, and there are many other verses to establish this doctrine, such as Hebrews 1:8-12, or John 1:1, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1. It was written in a column of a latin translation about 400 A.D by a scribe's own interpretation and then got its way into some late latin manuscripts, its not original.

[Dejan2116]

*written in a column of a latin translation before 400 A.D* my mistake.

[jinkyfc]

380A.D. PRISCILLIAN verify here Liber Apologeticus As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

[kjvonly01]

A very accurate, condensed yet abbreviated historical overview of where, and how our Bible was produced.

A lot of material covered in a short time frame.

Amen Westcott were both absurd, and stupid.