Why King James Only? (Antioch vs. Alexandrian)

[MrSaundersc]

soooo If catholics are bad, and a text was found in a catholic trashcan how is that text a bad text?

[DinoDude65]

You know what really makes me sad is that YouTube 'censored' the word God in your annotations :(

[Keruaran]

Athanasius of Alexandria didn't have a King James Bible, and the scriptures he read from weren't Byzantine either.

[skip8619]

The Textus Receptus and The Majority Text are not the same thing. They are close, but they do not agree in all places. The Textus Receptus was the amalgamation of about 10 manuscrips, the Majority Text is made of hundreds of them that were discovered through modern archaeology methods.

[MrRoycelong]

It seems the issue here is not so much the KJV, but the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated. One objection I have is that Erasmus changed the ending of the Bible. Erasmus, a Catholic Priest, took the last 6 verses of revelation not from Greek manuscripts, but from a Latin manuscript and rewrote the verses in Greek. So if it's OK to use a KJV, then its perfectly fine for anyone to add whatever verses they want and makeup whatever ending to the Bible they can imagine.

[RebeLYELL777]

AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! MA MANZZ!!!!! BE BLEEEESSSED how on point ...How excelent!!! ANTIOCH!!!!!!! ANTIOCH AMENNNNNN!

[REVAN2338]

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU YOU CUNT, FUCK OFF, JUST DIE IM SORRY I CANT BE PEACE FULL OR USE LOGIC RIGHT NOW JUST DIE, PLEASE DO IT YOU FUCKING ASS WHOLE

[vedinthorn]

@JesusIsMyAnswer The KJV wouldn't exist without the Greek or Hebrew. At the very least you should study a KJV with an 1800s and older Oxford English dictionary to understand the word meaning differences between very modern English and the English used in the KJV.

[Paulomycin]

Just FYI, the 5:47 portion onward contains a fatal error in the third line of the subtext. It's spelled "Masoretic."  Highly distracting to say the least.

[HermitintheRain]

In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. Isaiah 19:24-25

While I am in agreement about the unreliable manuscripts used by all modern translators; that they are rooted out of Egypt is not a reliable premise to draw such a conclusion.

[HermitintheRain]

Egypt had and has a special place in God's purpose. It was in fact Egypt where our Lord was taken in infancy to flee from Herod. It was in Egypt where the Lord purposed to grow the children of Jacob into a nation. The problem with using the Alexandrian texts has nothing to do with geography as much as it has to do with the mixing of gnosticism and eastern mystery traditions into its content and removing, where possible, references to Jesus being both the Christ and the Son of God.

[HermitintheRain]

Modern translators, if they were truly interested in making a translation that was more readable by being in modern English could do so by simply using the same manuscripts-both for the OT and NT-that were used by the translators of the KJV. But that is the revelation. They are not interested in making it readable in modern English. Rather they are looking for, and think they have found, by using the less reliable Alexandrian texts, to interject their desired view and remove that which offends.

[vedinthorn]

@HermitintheRain They are interested in both readability as well as accuracy. They all say Jesus is God, by the way, so I'm not sure what offensive view they are trying to remove that you are talking about.

[vedinthorn]

@HermitintheRain Then they did a bad job because Alexandrian MSS and modern translations keep numerous references to not only Jesus being Christ and Son of God, but God Himself.