AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT FOR THE KING JAMES BIBLE.wmv

[TextusReceptusBible]

If you read Beza's footnote, he had a manuscript backing the reading. Just google Revelation 16:5, you will find more info than James White lets on.

[IshMelamaid]

The footnote says that a manuscript Beza was working with included the term "and" and was followed by a worn spot. He than filled in what he presumed once filled the worn spot based on what he thought was a pattern in John's writing.  This is not a manuscript "backing the reading." This is an educated guess-- that has never found mss support. Besides which, to support this reading you have to abandon reliance on the majority text-- which means you would have to abandon your basic argument.

[IshMelamaid]

All I've been saying is that the TR is not = to the Maj. Text. However, since you ask, I think it makes little sense to limit ourselves to a 16th century edition of the NT that was produced with quite limited resources when we have access to nearly 6000 mss now. Even if you opt to follow the Byzantine tradition, we can better represent that now than they did in the TR. There are even interlinear Bibles available using the actual Maj. Text. If the Maj. text is the point, why not use those.

[IshMelamaid]

The only people that use the term Textus Receptus the way you are are King James Only folk. The TR is not the manuscript group. The manuscript group is Byzantine. The TR is the scholarly edition of the NT produced by the men I mention based on the mss they had access to (not even close to 5000). It differs from the majority/Byzantine text in many, many places (i.e. 1 John 5:7, Matt 10:8; 27:35; Luke 17:36; John 3:25; Acts 8:37; 9:5; 15:34, etc.)

I'm sorry, but your sources are just wrong.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid dont be sorry,u are wrong

[IshMelamaid]

Okay.  Go get a resource that details what variants come from what manuscripts (such as Comfort's book that I already mentioned). Look up the verses I provided. You will see for yourself that the TR is not equal to the Majority Text as you claim. You are suffering from a category error common to KJVO literature.

[TextusReceptusBible]

@IshMelamaid The Textus Receptus was formerly known to academia as the Majority Text, until the late 1980's when Farstad created his "Majority Text". So the Textus Receptus being the first to have Majority Text has ownership, but to avoid confusion, the term "Textus Receptus" is sufficient.

[IshMelamaid]

@TextusReceptusBible

Even if this is so, it does not change the fact that the Greek texts that the KJV were based on differs from the majority text in hundreds of places. If your argument is that a translation should follow the Byzantine text tradition, then you have to demonstrate why the KJV is still correct where it departs from this tradition. It is inconsistent to stand of a case of Byzantine superiority and fully back the KJV at all points

[TextusReceptusBible]

@IshMelamaid Zane Hodges authored a text in a book called “The Majority Text” which is also a misnomer. He only used 414 manuscripts which is only 8% of the extant manuscripts. How could that be considered the majority?

[IshMelamaid]

@TextusReceptusBible

Sorry, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. Let's put it this way. Is your argument that the KJV is best because it follows the majority text? If so, do you support the hundreds of places where the KJV (via the various editions of the TR) departs from the majority. If so, why do you contradict your own argument in this respect? You must address this if your argument is to have any validity at all.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid if ur not king james only,then u are completely wrong.u trust the alexandrian text type.what are u thinking?

[IshMelamaid]

Ah, the typical circular login. If you aren't KJVO, you're wrong-- never mind the evidence. The KJV is right because the KJV is right. You assume I trust the alexandrian text type. Maybe I simply love the TR and am offended when it is mistakenly equated with the Majorty Text. Or, maybe I follow the Majoruty Text and resent when it is equated with the TR when the TR actually differs from in in many places. Perhaps I just want you to get a firmer understanding of your own preferred text.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid btw,i didnt claim that the kjv translators had access to 5000 mss-now ur building a straw man.

[IshMelamaid]

Well, I didn't exactly say you did either. I am challenging your claim that the TR is the same as the Majority Text. You made this claim implicitly in the opening of the film when you claimed that "there's over 5,000 mss that compile" the TR. Then you directly stated the claim later when you offered "Majority Text" as an alternate name for the TR.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid so far,ive only had time to look at 2 of the verses uve mentioned on the receptus online and they are nearly identical with kjv-what are u talking about?

[IshMelamaid]

Here's an example of what I'm saying. 1 Jn 5:7 in the Majority Text reads "because there are these three testifying: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are for one". The TR adds to this"because there are three testifying in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit..." The TR reading exists in no Greek mss until the 14th century. This is just 1 example. Expecting to check this by comparing the TR and the KJV only shows you don't understand the issue at all.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid the fact that u think that the tr only consist of the mss that erasmus used shows that u dont understand the issue.

[IshMelamaid]

If you re-read my original post, you will clearly see that I metion all three men responsible for the TR-- not just Erasmus. These men could only use what they had access to (obviously).

In all you responses you still have not addressed the issue. If the TR is the same as the Majority Text, why does it depart from the Majority Text so often? Do you have a response, or are you just going to continue to say I'm wrong without addressing the evidence?

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid look,there's just too many scholars over the past couple of centuries that disagree with you for me to be persueded ur way.i fail to understand how u claim not to support the alexandrian text type on one hand,but then on the other ,u criticize me for being kjb only.what other option is there,if i dont support alexandrian bibles,are there any beside the kjv in print in english that are not alexandrian?and the book u mention is certainly a supporter of alexandrian text types.

[IshMelamaid]

I don't think you will win your argument by scholar swapping. The number of scholars who would challenge supporting the TR far outway those suppoting it. Even if you do support the TR, there is a huge leap from supportig the TR to saying the KJV is the only true Bible in English, though I will admit that the KJV is basically the only TR based Bible readily available (unless you count the NKJV). I'll post the rest of my comment as response to your other statement as it is more connected there.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid im not scholar swapping-im information trading.u suggest sources-i suggest sources.u said i assume that u support alexandrian bibles,was i wrong?btw,the majority of scholars do consider the tr to be the majority text-not that it matters.the majority is often wrong,but go ahead and call it what u want.i dont care.the point of the vid is that alexandrian bibles are off and that's why im kjb only.if u are not kjb only,u must support the alex bibles.end of story.that's no assumption.

[IshMelamaid]

"scholars do consider the tr to be the majority text"

Nope. The TR relies most on the Byzantine traditon, but it's not the same. Take Rev. 16:5 for instance. In the KJV and Beza's TR it reads, "which art, and wast, and shalt be." Beza intentionally changed the Greek term for "Holy One" to "shalt be." He anticipated future mss evidence would prove him right. How many Greek mss read his way? NONE. Not the majority, not the minority. None. Why should we trust Beza's guess here?

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid so your saying that the alexandrian bibles are more accurate or what?

[TextusReceptusBible]

@IshMelamaid Re Rev 16:5 ~ Research it here: google ~ "kjv today Revelation 16:5 beza"

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid lety me suggest somebooks;the origen of text types by ernest c.colwell,studies and documents by jacob geerlings also read anything u can get ur hands on by dean burgon.these scholars all referr to the tr as the majority/byzantine.i realize there are variations in all mss of any text group,but they are still members of that group.i dont see what's so important about what u call it.the fact is that the kjv is accurate and the modern bibles arent.look past life way for crying out loud!

[IshMelamaid]

You and other KJVOist build arguments based on the TR following the majority of the mss. KJVOist often call the majority text the TR. The problem is that the the scholarly NT editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza (the REAL TR and basis for KJV) departs from the Majority Text in many places (i.e. where they had to reverse-engineer from the Vulgate for lack of mss, etc). Thus, the "TR-follows-majority-text" argument is deeply compromised. Calling the TR the Majority Text obscures this fact.

[IshMelamaid]

The TR is not the same as the Majority text and is not based on 5,000 manuscripts. The TR is a scholarly edition of the mss that Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza had on hand. These men had to make textual choices just as modern scholars do-- except that they had far fewer mss to deal with. Look up Beza's conjectural emendation at Rev. 16:5. One man's unsupported change t the text is in your KJV today.

I recommend Comfort's NT Text and Translation Commentay to asses each textual variant.

[prewrathrapture333]

@IshMelamaid your wrong-the tr is the manuscript group used in the early greek churches.the mss that erasmus had came from the tr.there are still bible translated in other languages from the tr today.are you asserting that they are translated only from the mss that erasmus had on hand?