@Antheror Those Bibles are good, but they are not a perfect text or translation. Only the KJB is. Since we know English, and we can show that one English Bible is right, then it follows that we should promote it.
Luther's Deutch cannot be perfect since it does not match with the KJB. (Also, it is in middle High German).
@rpavich Your comment is completely misguided. There was no different "version" of the KJB in 1769. As for understanding the 1769 Edition, just look at my Youtube channel, I have a video about the 1769, and mention it many times on my Bible Protector website. Clearly, I do understand about the 1769 Edition.
Here' is all you need to know about Jim White: White is a great debater (lawyer) but an awful theologian. If you stop him from pre-defining the debate with his flawed presuppositions from the start then he's got nothing. His only tactic to winning is molding the debates parameters to his position.
I've heard him debate TULIP two dozen times and he always wins the debate by pigeon holing the topics and his opponents don't understand the trap he's laid.
@ROMANSthruPHILEMON There are many editions of the Textus Receptus (i.e. the New Testament printed in Greek from the Reformation time), there are several by Erasmus, several by Stephanus, and several by Beza. There are others as well. All these editions differ slightly, so there is no actual perfect "textus receptus". The solution to this is to have a perfect Received Text which gathers from all these sources. The point is that it isn't in Greek, it is in a translation ... the King James Bible.
@ROMANSthruPHILEMON Yes. There are many editions because Erasmus made mistakes, printers made mistakes, and people continued to refine their work. So there are different Greek Textus Receptus editions.
What I stand for is:
1. The KJB translators made a Received Text in English.
2. There are no mistakes in the KJB text (which verses belong) and translation (meanings).
3. The KJB is the final form and standard of all TR editions (despite being in a different language).
@bibleprotector The KJV translators used the 1598 of Beza. Just because other Greek New Testament editions were later all named Textus Receptus, doesn't conclude that because te KJV used the TR, that they used those editions. Also you mentioned below: "1. The KJB translators made a Received Text in English." So doesn't it also conclude that if we translate from the Greek TR into French, German, Russian, etc, as they did, that we will produce TRs in those languages? Seems rather simple to me.
@TextusReceptusBible The KJB translators did not restrict themselves to Beza's 1598, but used Stephanus' editions, and other sources too. The KJB is an eclectic TR, because it draws on various TR editions. Translating into other languages might form Received Texts in other languages, but the KJB is superior to all TR editions and superior to all other translations. That is why it can rightly be called the standard, final form of the received text because it is supersuccessionary to all.
@bibleprotector So I suppose using your logic, I could say that there are many editions of the English bible in the reformation, and that the PCE KJV comes from all of them. You would say that is absurd, just as I conclude that just because almost all Greek NT editions of the reformation are named "TR" does not mean that the KJV translators used anything other than Beza's 1598. If you can show me where the 1598 and the KJV differ, I will believe it. Do you believe Scrivener or the facts?
@TextusReceptusBible There are plenty of examples where the KJB translators used other sources besides Beza's 1598 Edition. It is commonly known that the KJB men drew upon the varying sources of received truth in the Reformation, and judged between variations which existed at their time. Thus, they sometimes followed Stephanus against Beza, or the Latin against Beza, etc. And this is beside the fact that Beza differs between his own editions!
@TextusReceptusBible See my other comment dated about two hours before this one which begins "The KJB differs to Bezas 1598 in plenty of places, according to Scrivener's listings" and ends "There are may others".
@bibleprotector I just picked a random one.. John 8:6, you say (6 words) but just a quick google search, and a look at my Beza 1598, shows all the words there.. Gill said: 'as though he heard them not'; though this clause is not in many copies, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions, but is in five of Beza's copies, and in the Complutensian edition. So although many people say there are differences, the evidence ALWAYS proves that Scrivener was wrong.
@TextusReceptusBible I am quoting Scrivener when he says that massive listing are renderings not in the 1598 Beza. You picked one at random, but there are plenty of other examples listed there, besides the full lists in Scrivener's book.
As KJBO, we are sure the English Bible text is 100% correct. Beza's 1598 may be very close, but not perfect. Even Edward Hills wrote that the KJB is an independent variety of the TR, so he knew that there were variations between TR editions.
@bibleprotector Another point is that in the 1611 none of the words at all are in italics in John 8:6, but in the PCE they are. So the facts show that just one random verse you mentioned, the words ARE in all editions of Beza, the words match the KJV exactly, and yet the modern KJV versions put them in italics as I mentioned in another post. Show me ONE example of the 1598 and the KJV 1611 (not recent editions) being different, I will believe it, until then I must adere to facts not theories.
@TextusReceptusBible It is a false criteria to make the judgment between the KJB only in 1611 v. Beza, when the same KJB exists today (e.g. PCE), as well as 1611. Italics are no issue. We are talking about words absent, added or different in Beza as compared to the KJB 1611-PCE. The fact is that Scrivener is not always wrong. He gave a whole list of differences between the KJB and Beza's 1598, some of which must be accurate listings (though not all).
@bibleprotector You have no real grounds to say that the Textus Receptus of 1598 in in any way inferior to the KJV of 1611. You are claiming that there are differences and imperfections, but I am challenging you to prove just one to me. If this was the theory of evolution, and I asked you to show me one transitional fossil, your argument would fail. Please show me one example where Beza's 1598 and the KJV 1611 differ, besides things like the Typo in Rev 22 in Beza, or your theory fails.
@TextusReceptusBible The specific TR edited by Beza as printed in 1598 has variations which differ to the King James Bible ... (I am not talking about the critical apparatus, I am talking about what Beza selects as his main text). Now, it is obvious that there are differences, and it is the KJBO view that the English text is superior for its word/reading choices. Scrivener lists many, all the way to Revel. 10:7 (which is no typo, because that rendering is the same in Beza's last 3 editions).
@bibleprotector In my post I said Rev 22, not Rev 10:7. Beza left out "theos" in the Greek, but retained it in the latin, and in the footnotes, thus it was a typo. Again I ask if you can show me one place, I will believe you.
In a recent comment (which I have not approved), someone claimed that we hold that the KJB is the only preserved Word of God. This is, of course, a false accusation. If the KJB is the only preserved Word of God, where did it come from? Non-preservation?
@revdave61 Your accusations are very far off the mark.
1. I said that all copies are part of God's preservation. Therefore you are wrong to accuse me of believing that God took 1600 years.
2. You claim that I imply that God is prejudiced against non-English... perhaps you should consider that various Asians, Americans, Africans and islanders did not have Scripture for maybe 1800 years.
3. Your accusation about going outside Scripture is just your opinion, and wrong.
1) perfect translations prior to the KJV? ... None before or after.
2) did God only preserve his word in English? No, every copy is part of preservation.
3) does God say he would provide a perfect English translation ... the KJV? Not specifically, but He doesn't deny it either. There are indicators in Scripture for the KJB to be the right one.
4) God convincing lost people that Bibles in the book store are unreliable? That's Satan's plan by making bad Bibles. See 1 Cor. 14:10.
No perfect Greek text, but there is a perfect English text? And how on earth can you make any rational claim to such perfection for the KJV? Is it perfect because the Bible Protector hath decreed that it shall be so? KJV Onlyism gets particularly bizarre when KJVOs harshly criticize less radical members of their own group. Ruckman would be proud of you, Lord Bible Protector.
@caspianrex There is no need to comment in a mocking tone.
1st, there is no single perfect correctly given EXTANT Greek NT text that we can look at. However, it happens that the work of gathering the text correctly was completed in an English Bible. That is not "strange" like you attempt to imply.
2nd, TROs are not KJBO, that's a fact. Now, TROs defend the KJB, but they do not say the English is final or accept its perfect translation.
3rd, it is deceptive to smear KJBOs as Ruckmanites.
@bibleprotector I do apologize for the mocking tone, BP. However, the claim that gathering the text perfectly was completed in English makes no linguistic or logical sense. Regarding the TRO/KJBO debate, part of my bewilderment over your position is that you are taking the faulty argument of the TROs so much farther than the TRO proponents do. I can almost understand someone being devoted to the TR (almost), but your PCE Only position makes no sense to me.
@caspianrex Okay. The KJB is like that textual critical gathering process that got it right ... in a translation.
As for the KJB v. TRO debate, the point is simply to show that not only is the KJB an independent variety of the TR, but that since all TR editions disagree in the details, only one exemplar can be right. The KJBO view is that the KJB is the final form of the Received Text.
I am KJBO. PCE is an edition of the KJB, so to say "PCE only" in this context is incorrect.
Your facts are wrong.. Rev 16:5 says in Scriveners 1894/1902 that Moorman had, and I have on my lap now, says εσομενος as the KJV translated as "shalt be" and not "ο οσιος̣" holy one, just as Beza's 1598 says. Phil 2:21 KJV "things which are Jesus Christ's" and "not the things of Jesus Christ" are the same English meaning. Of denoting ownership. There is no problem with the TR here. Moorman should have just had the 1598 not te TR of Scrivener.
@TextusReceptusBible If you check Scrivener's actual Greek, which is called "Novum Testamentum Textus Stephanici curante Scrivener 1887", you will see that the readings, wording and lettering does not match completely exactly with the KJB, incl. Reve. 16:5. The problem is not going solved by saying that any particular edition or Beza, Stephanus or Erasmus are perfect either. One can only take all TR eds in concert, but even then we need the independent final perfect text of the KJB as standard.
@bibleprotector The 1887 is clealy an edition of the 1550 of Stephanus, not to be confused with the 1881 of Scrivener which was printed in 1894 & 1902 in Cambridge. He also collated Sinaiticus, Bezae, and others, but the TBS volume is almost akin to the 1598 of Beza, except in som very minute detail which offeres no tranlational substance. Some typos (eg Beza is missing Theos in Rev 22:18 for example - but his Latin has Deus and it is in all his former editions). KJV is simply the TR in English.
@TextusReceptusBible Yes, I looked up the 1881 Scrivener Greek and it differed to Scrivener's 1887 TR. So, all we need to ask is, since even Greek texts edited by Scrivener differ, which one is perfect? The answer is: None. The fact is that as close as it is, there are admitted differences between the TBS TR and the KJB. The KJB is the TR in English, but the English matches no single Greek TR edition. The English is perfect, the final form of the Received Text.
@bibleprotector That is like me saying, well the CPE is called a KJV and so it the 1611, 1613, 1639, 1762, 1769, 1850, therefore because they are all "called" the KJV the CPE must be tainted with the same disrepute as the "wicked" bible etc etc.. It is a flawed argument though, because we know that within the manifold editions of the KJV there is the true there all along. Because many books (and mss) are under the TR 'banner' doesn't mean that you can judge each as a family.
@TextusReceptusBible It is a flawed argument to defend the Greek Textus Receptus as "perfect" when there is no perfect edition anywhere. The fact is that the correct truth has been gathered from the various TR editions into one principal true Bible, the KJB. While there are different editions of the King James Bible, we have a perfect edition.
Let us not confuse the TEXTUAL/VERSION/READING differences of TR editions with the mere typographical variations of KJB editions.
@bibleprotector You are trying to force an opinion upon me that I do not uphold. I view the text of Erasmus, Computensian, Stephanus, etc just as you would see early English bibles. If I said to you - the KJV is not correct because Coverdale said 'such and such' in 1535 you would say I have missed your point. I say that Beza's is the correct text - Elzevers and Scriveners follow it, but there are very minor variations. The differences are just as minor as differences in KJV editions.
To uphold Beza's 1598 is a weaker position than upholding Scrivener's TR. There are various issues with Beza's TR as when compared with the KJB, and numerous places where Beza's 1598 differs to the KJB.
The differences between TRs are not "minor" like differences between KJB editions. Differences in TRs include WHOLE verses added/missing.
@bibleprotector That like me saying which "reformation bible" do you uphold. I have said the 1598 of Beza. Again you name ALL TR editions in your sweeping statement "The differences between TRs are not "minor"" I am speaking about the 1598, and then comparing the 1633 and 1894 to it. I will call it the 1598 Novum Testamentum to drop your obvious dislike of the "TR" label. Please show me the differences between the 1598 and the KJV. The KJV translators esteemed the 1598, why don't you?
The TR, and whatever edition one might point to, was good. But no Greek edition is perfect.
Obviously, I uphold ONE Reformation Bible. That's not saying that many Bibles were bad, just that one is better than all the good ones... which is exactly what the KJB translators themselves said.
And it is a fact that all the TR editions differ to each other... whatever you call them "Novum Testamentum" or whatever.
@bibleprotector you seem to think I use the 1550 or the 1516 etc. I use them only as you would Coverdale or Tyndale. I have said repeatedly that I adhere to the 1598. Then I mentioned that the 1894 is basically the same with Elzivers following. Just as if you would say the PCE is what you follow, and other KJV editions are basically the same but have minor variations. That doesn't mean you agree with other editions, but that you acknowledge that they are basically the same bar a few places.
@TextusReceptusBible You said you use Beza. That's Greek, not English. With English, we have a standard Bible, the KJB. With Beza, there are numerous differences between it and every other TR edition, and there is no reason why anyone should think that the 1598 (or any other Greek TR ed.) is better than any other edition.
The whole point of the Reformation was to have the Bible in the common tongue. There is no reason historical or spiritual why/how Beza's 1598 is perfect or the standard.
I have no problem with the "TR" label. But the fact is that the Received Text today is in English, not Greek. Thus, there is no "TR" today that can be used as the Bible/NT for the world, because most people don't know Greek, and most Greek speakers could not translate well, and all TR editions differ to each other anyway, which are questions on reading variations.
As much as the KJB translators may have used the Beza, they still differed to it.
@bibleprotector My site is called Textus Receptus, but I support the KJV, because it is the TR in English. The KJV is faithful to Beza. But historically one MUST acknowledge that the translators used the 1598 and saw it as THE word of God.
@TextusReceptusBible The KJB men did not look narrowly only at Beza's 1598, but at various TR editions also. And there are various differences between the 1598 and the KJB. Which is perfect? I say the KJB. You seem to say the Beza.
The KJB translators called their own work the Word of God. The argued for the Word of God being given in English. Beza's 1598 cannot be the standard of the Word of God, because the KJB is the final gathered form of the TR. The KJB is superior to Beza's 1598.
The differences between the KJB and Bezas 1598 are not only because one is Greek and one is English, but also because the KJB differs to the Beza readings at various places. There are lots. Just read "APPENDIX E" of Scrivener's book "The Authorized Edition ..."
Just take the spaces out of this web address:
h t t p : / / w w w . archive. org/stream/cu31924029268708#page/n253/mode/2up
@bibleprotector I will go through each of these "differences" and comment on them. You must also acknowledge that the 1769 (and thus the PCE) has the italics of the 1550 TR of Scrivener, which does not agree with the 1611 translation. If you go through the 1611 and compare the PCE you will see many extra sections in italics made to adhere to the Editio Regia and not Beza.
@TextusReceptusBible There are a lot of TR/KJB variations listed by Scrivener in Appendix E.
Your comment about italics is irrelevant. The editorial work in italics does not change the Word of God. You seem to misunderstand italics. Italics are not merely conformed to one TR edition, and they do not follow anything edited by Scrivener: 1769 is long before the 1880s.
The italics editing that occurred in 1769 is nothing like the actual textual (i.e. word & verse) variations in TR editions.
Complutensian has εἶδον and invenerunt (Latin) Erasmus 1516 has εὗρον and repererunt *they found* The 1522 Erasmus has εὗρον "invenerunt" as also does the the 1565 and 1598 of Beza. The 1565, Beza has the footnote (In all things, εὗρον. In copies of the ancient codices it was written, εἶδον see it.) Notice he doesn't say it is error. Although Scrienver changes the "εὗρον" to "εἶδον" it is of no significance because both mean "invenerunt" in Latin thus were considered synonymous.
@TextusReceptusBible I'm sorry, but that seems like blather. I don't mean that facts are blather, but that the correctness of the KJB is being contrasted by blather of differences, irregularities, blemishes and spots in other places.
It is not our problem whether something is in a Beza footnote or in a main reading. The fact is that Beza's 1598 is not perfect, and that it differs to the KJB. The KJB has one set of perfect readings in a perfect translation. Everything else could be as blather.
@bibleprotector The Complutensian Polyglot, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza ALL translated εὗρον as invenerunt which shows they are synonyms meaning to be to find/uncover or to see. You are saying there are spots and blemishes, I have just pointed out 4 Greek/Latin bibles that agree 100% with the KJV and demonstrates that they did use the 1598 of Beza. Even Thayers has for 2a) to see, learn, discover, understand. You dodged the point on italics, why do they completely differ from 1611-now?
@TextusReceptusBible Of course the KJB translators used Beza, but they did not use it solely. The point is that the KJB does not agree at every single place with Beza's 1598 main text.
As for italics, they are not "completely different" now. They have been greatly expanded. But that is nothing to do with changing the actual wording of the KJB. Italics constitutes no change in the text or translation of the KJB.
There are differences between Beza’s 1598 & the KJB, so only 1 is perfect.
Great video, and so true. The debate was a total waste of time for any of us that actually believe the AV. I'd like to see Jimmy debate a person that actually believes the Book.
There is no TR text that matches perfectly the KJB. The KJB is a TR edition, the perfect TR edition in English. For details on differences in the various TR editions and the KJB see Riplinger's work, Hazardous Materials.
@Antheror Those Bibles are good, but they are not a perfect text or translation. Only the KJB is. Since we know English, and we can show that one English Bible is right, then it follows that we should promote it.
Luther's Deutch cannot be perfect since it does not match with the KJB. (Also, it is in middle High German).
bibleprotector 5 months ago
Did you even understand what Dr. White was getting at when he brought up the 1769 version?
From your video comments; it appears not.
If you did understand it...I'm sure that you can summarize in one sentence what he was getting at by bringing it up......
Please do so....
rpavich 6 months ago
@rpavich Your comment is completely misguided. There was no different "version" of the KJB in 1769. As for understanding the 1769 Edition, just look at my Youtube channel, I have a video about the 1769, and mention it many times on my Bible Protector website. Clearly, I do understand about the 1769 Edition.
bibleprotector 6 months ago
Here' is all you need to know about Jim White: White is a great debater (lawyer) but an awful theologian. If you stop him from pre-defining the debate with his flawed presuppositions from the start then he's got nothing. His only tactic to winning is molding the debates parameters to his position.
I've heard him debate TULIP two dozen times and he always wins the debate by pigeon holing the topics and his opponents don't understand the trap he's laid.
PanoramaOfScripture 9 months ago
Could u tell me what the Beza 1598 is, and why people are asking about it? Never heard of it before.
ROMANSthruPHILEMON 1 year ago
@ROMANSthruPHILEMON There are many editions of the Textus Receptus (i.e. the New Testament printed in Greek from the Reformation time), there are several by Erasmus, several by Stephanus, and several by Beza. There are others as well. All these editions differ slightly, so there is no actual perfect "textus receptus". The solution to this is to have a perfect Received Text which gathers from all these sources. The point is that it isn't in Greek, it is in a translation ... the King James Bible.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector Ahh, I see, why are there many editions of the Textus Receptus? You are talking about greek Textus Receptus editions, right?
ROMANSthruPHILEMON 1 year ago
@ROMANSthruPHILEMON Yes. There are many editions because Erasmus made mistakes, printers made mistakes, and people continued to refine their work. So there are different Greek Textus Receptus editions.
What I stand for is:
1. The KJB translators made a Received Text in English.
2. There are no mistakes in the KJB text (which verses belong) and translation (meanings).
3. The KJB is the final form and standard of all TR editions (despite being in a different language).
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector The KJV translators used the 1598 of Beza. Just because other Greek New Testament editions were later all named Textus Receptus, doesn't conclude that because te KJV used the TR, that they used those editions. Also you mentioned below: "1. The KJB translators made a Received Text in English." So doesn't it also conclude that if we translate from the Greek TR into French, German, Russian, etc, as they did, that we will produce TRs in those languages? Seems rather simple to me.
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible The KJB translators did not restrict themselves to Beza's 1598, but used Stephanus' editions, and other sources too. The KJB is an eclectic TR, because it draws on various TR editions. Translating into other languages might form Received Texts in other languages, but the KJB is superior to all TR editions and superior to all other translations. That is why it can rightly be called the standard, final form of the received text because it is supersuccessionary to all.
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector So I suppose using your logic, I could say that there are many editions of the English bible in the reformation, and that the PCE KJV comes from all of them. You would say that is absurd, just as I conclude that just because almost all Greek NT editions of the reformation are named "TR" does not mean that the KJV translators used anything other than Beza's 1598. If you can show me where the 1598 and the KJV differ, I will believe it. Do you believe Scrivener or the facts?
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible There are plenty of examples where the KJB translators used other sources besides Beza's 1598 Edition. It is commonly known that the KJB men drew upon the varying sources of received truth in the Reformation, and judged between variations which existed at their time. Thus, they sometimes followed Stephanus against Beza, or the Latin against Beza, etc. And this is beside the fact that Beza differs between his own editions!
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector It is easy to say those things, but one simple example will suffice. Chapter, Verse and issue..
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible See my other comment dated about two hours before this one which begins "The KJB differs to Bezas 1598 in plenty of places, according to Scrivener's listings" and ends "There are may others".
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector So where exactly does the KJV and the 1598 disagree?
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible The KJB differs to Bezas 1598 in plenty of places, according to Scrivener's listings, eg., Matt. 2:11, 9:18, 10:10, 10:25, 11:21, 13:24; Mark 4:18, 5:38, 6:45, 53, 9:42, 13:9, 15:3; Luke 3:30, 6:37, 8:37, 12:56, 17:35, 20:31, 22:42; John 8:6 (6 words!), 42, 18:1, 15, 19:31, etc.
He has another list, including Matt. 1:23, 20:15; Mark 1:21, 16:14, 20; Luke 7:12, 45, 8:5, 9:15, 12:1; John 4:5, 9:10, 12:17, 18:20, 21:12 which has "Christ" for "Lord".
There are may others.
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector I just picked a random one.. John 8:6, you say (6 words) but just a quick google search, and a look at my Beza 1598, shows all the words there.. Gill said: 'as though he heard them not'; though this clause is not in many copies, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions, but is in five of Beza's copies, and in the Complutensian edition. So although many people say there are differences, the evidence ALWAYS proves that Scrivener was wrong.
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible I am quoting Scrivener when he says that massive listing are renderings not in the 1598 Beza. You picked one at random, but there are plenty of other examples listed there, besides the full lists in Scrivener's book.
As KJBO, we are sure the English Bible text is 100% correct. Beza's 1598 may be very close, but not perfect. Even Edward Hills wrote that the KJB is an independent variety of the TR, so he knew that there were variations between TR editions.
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector Another point is that in the 1611 none of the words at all are in italics in John 8:6, but in the PCE they are. So the facts show that just one random verse you mentioned, the words ARE in all editions of Beza, the words match the KJV exactly, and yet the modern KJV versions put them in italics as I mentioned in another post. Show me ONE example of the 1598 and the KJV 1611 (not recent editions) being different, I will believe it, until then I must adere to facts not theories.
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible It is a false criteria to make the judgment between the KJB only in 1611 v. Beza, when the same KJB exists today (e.g. PCE), as well as 1611. Italics are no issue. We are talking about words absent, added or different in Beza as compared to the KJB 1611-PCE. The fact is that Scrivener is not always wrong. He gave a whole list of differences between the KJB and Beza's 1598, some of which must be accurate listings (though not all).
Only the English TR (KJB) is perfect.
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector You have no real grounds to say that the Textus Receptus of 1598 in in any way inferior to the KJV of 1611. You are claiming that there are differences and imperfections, but I am challenging you to prove just one to me. If this was the theory of evolution, and I asked you to show me one transitional fossil, your argument would fail. Please show me one example where Beza's 1598 and the KJV 1611 differ, besides things like the Typo in Rev 22 in Beza, or your theory fails.
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible The specific TR edited by Beza as printed in 1598 has variations which differ to the King James Bible ... (I am not talking about the critical apparatus, I am talking about what Beza selects as his main text). Now, it is obvious that there are differences, and it is the KJBO view that the English text is superior for its word/reading choices. Scrivener lists many, all the way to Revel. 10:7 (which is no typo, because that rendering is the same in Beza's last 3 editions).
bibleprotector 10 months ago
@bibleprotector In my post I said Rev 22, not Rev 10:7. Beza left out "theos" in the Greek, but retained it in the latin, and in the footnotes, thus it was a typo. Again I ask if you can show me one place, I will believe you.
TextusReceptusBible 10 months ago
@TextusReceptusBible Scrivener mentions Rev. 10:7 as one of the places where Beza's 1598 TR differs to the KJB & other TR editions. Scrivener lists plenty of others, including, Matt. 2:11, 9:18, 10:10, 10:25, 11:21, 13:24; Mark 4:18, 5:38, 6:45, 53, 9:42, 13:9, 15:3; Luke 3:30, 6:37, 8:37, 12:56, 17:35, 20:31, 22:42; John 8:42, 18:1, 15, 19:31, etc. And, Matt. 1:23, 20:15; Mark 1:21, 16:14, 20; Luke 7:12, 45, 8:5, 9:15, 12:1; John 4:5, 9:10, 12:17, 18:20, 21:12 which has "Christ" for "Lord".
bibleprotector 10 months ago
In a recent comment (which I have not approved), someone claimed that we hold that the KJB is the only preserved Word of God. This is, of course, a false accusation. If the KJB is the only preserved Word of God, where did it come from? Non-preservation?
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector - So what other Bible translations/manuscripts are also the authentic Word of God?
revdave61 1 year ago
@revdave61 There must have been Scriptures in the 1500s for the Reformation, or 200s for the Romans to burn.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@revdave61 continuing with exposing the errors...
4. The accusation that somehow we are implying God is deceptive is evil. Your attempted claim about 6000 ancient copies is nonsense.
I hope that my responses show how insignificant and misguided the charges are which are brought up against standing for the pure Word.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@revdave61 Your accusations are very far off the mark.
1. I said that all copies are part of God's preservation. Therefore you are wrong to accuse me of believing that God took 1600 years.
2. You claim that I imply that God is prejudiced against non-English... perhaps you should consider that various Asians, Americans, Africans and islanders did not have Scripture for maybe 1800 years.
3. Your accusation about going outside Scripture is just your opinion, and wrong.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Several questions for my KJV only friends:
1) Please name the perfect translations prior to the KJV.
2) Why did God only preserve his word in English?
3) Where in the Bible does God say he would provide a perfect English translation and that it would be the KJV?
4) Is it really God's plan to convince millions of lost people that the Bibles they see in the book store are unreliable?
5) When one day, 17th C English becomes incomprehensible, does God's word end?
revdave61 1 year ago
@revdave61
1) perfect translations prior to the KJV? ... None before or after.
2) did God only preserve his word in English? No, every copy is part of preservation.
3) does God say he would provide a perfect English translation ... the KJV? Not specifically, but He doesn't deny it either. There are indicators in Scripture for the KJB to be the right one.
4) God convincing lost people that Bibles in the book store are unreliable? That's Satan's plan by making bad Bibles. See 1 Cor. 14:10.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@revdave61
5) When 17th C English becomes incomprehensible, does God's word end?
First, the KJB is not "17th C. English" but Biblical English.
Second, it will not come incomprehensible.
Third, God's Word won't end. The KJB won't end.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
No perfect Greek text, but there is a perfect English text? And how on earth can you make any rational claim to such perfection for the KJV? Is it perfect because the Bible Protector hath decreed that it shall be so? KJV Onlyism gets particularly bizarre when KJVOs harshly criticize less radical members of their own group. Ruckman would be proud of you, Lord Bible Protector.
caspianrex 1 year ago
@caspianrex There is no need to comment in a mocking tone.
1st, there is no single perfect correctly given EXTANT Greek NT text that we can look at. However, it happens that the work of gathering the text correctly was completed in an English Bible. That is not "strange" like you attempt to imply.
2nd, TROs are not KJBO, that's a fact. Now, TROs defend the KJB, but they do not say the English is final or accept its perfect translation.
3rd, it is deceptive to smear KJBOs as Ruckmanites.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector I do apologize for the mocking tone, BP. However, the claim that gathering the text perfectly was completed in English makes no linguistic or logical sense. Regarding the TRO/KJBO debate, part of my bewilderment over your position is that you are taking the faulty argument of the TROs so much farther than the TRO proponents do. I can almost understand someone being devoted to the TR (almost), but your PCE Only position makes no sense to me.
caspianrex 1 year ago
@caspianrex Okay. The KJB is like that textual critical gathering process that got it right ... in a translation.
As for the KJB v. TRO debate, the point is simply to show that not only is the KJB an independent variety of the TR, but that since all TR editions disagree in the details, only one exemplar can be right. The KJBO view is that the KJB is the final form of the Received Text.
I am KJBO. PCE is an edition of the KJB, so to say "PCE only" in this context is incorrect.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Your facts are wrong.. Rev 16:5 says in Scriveners 1894/1902 that Moorman had, and I have on my lap now, says εσομενος as the KJV translated as "shalt be" and not "ο οσιος̣" holy one, just as Beza's 1598 says. Phil 2:21 KJV "things which are Jesus Christ's" and "not the things of Jesus Christ" are the same English meaning. Of denoting ownership. There is no problem with the TR here. Moorman should have just had the 1598 not te TR of Scrivener.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible If you check Scrivener's actual Greek, which is called "Novum Testamentum Textus Stephanici curante Scrivener 1887", you will see that the readings, wording and lettering does not match completely exactly with the KJB, incl. Reve. 16:5. The problem is not going solved by saying that any particular edition or Beza, Stephanus or Erasmus are perfect either. One can only take all TR eds in concert, but even then we need the independent final perfect text of the KJB as standard.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector The 1887 is clealy an edition of the 1550 of Stephanus, not to be confused with the 1881 of Scrivener which was printed in 1894 & 1902 in Cambridge. He also collated Sinaiticus, Bezae, and others, but the TBS volume is almost akin to the 1598 of Beza, except in som very minute detail which offeres no tranlational substance. Some typos (eg Beza is missing Theos in Rev 22:18 for example - but his Latin has Deus and it is in all his former editions). KJV is simply the TR in English.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible Yes, I looked up the 1881 Scrivener Greek and it differed to Scrivener's 1887 TR. So, all we need to ask is, since even Greek texts edited by Scrivener differ, which one is perfect? The answer is: None. The fact is that as close as it is, there are admitted differences between the TBS TR and the KJB. The KJB is the TR in English, but the English matches no single Greek TR edition. The English is perfect, the final form of the Received Text.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector That is like me saying, well the CPE is called a KJV and so it the 1611, 1613, 1639, 1762, 1769, 1850, therefore because they are all "called" the KJV the CPE must be tainted with the same disrepute as the "wicked" bible etc etc.. It is a flawed argument though, because we know that within the manifold editions of the KJV there is the true there all along. Because many books (and mss) are under the TR 'banner' doesn't mean that you can judge each as a family.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible It is a flawed argument to defend the Greek Textus Receptus as "perfect" when there is no perfect edition anywhere. The fact is that the correct truth has been gathered from the various TR editions into one principal true Bible, the KJB. While there are different editions of the King James Bible, we have a perfect edition.
Let us not confuse the TEXTUAL/VERSION/READING differences of TR editions with the mere typographical variations of KJB editions.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Comment removed
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible I don't know why, but your latest comments have been flagged as spam. I have "unspammed" them.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector You are trying to force an opinion upon me that I do not uphold. I view the text of Erasmus, Computensian, Stephanus, etc just as you would see early English bibles. If I said to you - the KJV is not correct because Coverdale said 'such and such' in 1535 you would say I have missed your point. I say that Beza's is the correct text - Elzevers and Scriveners follow it, but there are very minor variations. The differences are just as minor as differences in KJV editions.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible Which Beza TR, of the many Beza editions, do you uphold?
To uphold Beza's 1598 is a weaker position than upholding Scrivener's TR. There are various issues with Beza's TR as when compared with the KJB, and numerous places where Beza's 1598 differs to the KJB.
The differences between TRs are not "minor" like differences between KJB editions. Differences in TRs include WHOLE verses added/missing.
The KJB is 100% correct, unlike Beza's 1598.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector That like me saying which "reformation bible" do you uphold. I have said the 1598 of Beza. Again you name ALL TR editions in your sweeping statement "The differences between TRs are not "minor"" I am speaking about the 1598, and then comparing the 1633 and 1894 to it. I will call it the 1598 Novum Testamentum to drop your obvious dislike of the "TR" label. Please show me the differences between the 1598 and the KJV. The KJV translators esteemed the 1598, why don't you?
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible
PART 1
You seem to be misunderstanding the case.
The TR, and whatever edition one might point to, was good. But no Greek edition is perfect.
Obviously, I uphold ONE Reformation Bible. That's not saying that many Bibles were bad, just that one is better than all the good ones... which is exactly what the KJB translators themselves said.
And it is a fact that all the TR editions differ to each other... whatever you call them "Novum Testamentum" or whatever.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector you seem to think I use the 1550 or the 1516 etc. I use them only as you would Coverdale or Tyndale. I have said repeatedly that I adhere to the 1598. Then I mentioned that the 1894 is basically the same with Elzivers following. Just as if you would say the PCE is what you follow, and other KJV editions are basically the same but have minor variations. That doesn't mean you agree with other editions, but that you acknowledge that they are basically the same bar a few places.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible You said you use Beza. That's Greek, not English. With English, we have a standard Bible, the KJB. With Beza, there are numerous differences between it and every other TR edition, and there is no reason why anyone should think that the 1598 (or any other Greek TR ed.) is better than any other edition.
The whole point of the Reformation was to have the Bible in the common tongue. There is no reason historical or spiritual why/how Beza's 1598 is perfect or the standard.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible
PART 2
I have no problem with the "TR" label. But the fact is that the Received Text today is in English, not Greek. Thus, there is no "TR" today that can be used as the Bible/NT for the world, because most people don't know Greek, and most Greek speakers could not translate well, and all TR editions differ to each other anyway, which are questions on reading variations.
As much as the KJB translators may have used the Beza, they still differed to it.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector My site is called Textus Receptus, but I support the KJV, because it is the TR in English. The KJV is faithful to Beza. But historically one MUST acknowledge that the translators used the 1598 and saw it as THE word of God.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible The KJB men did not look narrowly only at Beza's 1598, but at various TR editions also. And there are various differences between the 1598 and the KJB. Which is perfect? I say the KJB. You seem to say the Beza.
The KJB translators called their own work the Word of God. The argued for the Word of God being given in English. Beza's 1598 cannot be the standard of the Word of God, because the KJB is the final gathered form of the TR. The KJB is superior to Beza's 1598.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible
PART 3
The differences between the KJB and Bezas 1598 are not only because one is Greek and one is English, but also because the KJB differs to the Beza readings at various places. There are lots. Just read "APPENDIX E" of Scrivener's book "The Authorized Edition ..."
Just take the spaces out of this web address:
h t t p : / / w w w . archive. org/stream/cu31924029268708#page/n253/mode/2up
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector I will go through each of these "differences" and comment on them. You must also acknowledge that the 1769 (and thus the PCE) has the italics of the 1550 TR of Scrivener, which does not agree with the 1611 translation. If you go through the 1611 and compare the PCE you will see many extra sections in italics made to adhere to the Editio Regia and not Beza.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible There are a lot of TR/KJB variations listed by Scrivener in Appendix E.
Your comment about italics is irrelevant. The editorial work in italics does not change the Word of God. You seem to misunderstand italics. Italics are not merely conformed to one TR edition, and they do not follow anything edited by Scrivener: 1769 is long before the 1880s.
The italics editing that occurred in 1769 is nothing like the actual textual (i.e. word & verse) variations in TR editions.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Complutensian has εἶδον and invenerunt (Latin) Erasmus 1516 has εὗρον and repererunt *they found* The 1522 Erasmus has εὗρον "invenerunt" as also does the the 1565 and 1598 of Beza. The 1565, Beza has the footnote (In all things, εὗρον. In copies of the ancient codices it was written, εἶδον see it.) Notice he doesn't say it is error. Although Scrienver changes the "εὗρον" to "εἶδον" it is of no significance because both mean "invenerunt" in Latin thus were considered synonymous.
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible I'm sorry, but that seems like blather. I don't mean that facts are blather, but that the correctness of the KJB is being contrasted by blather of differences, irregularities, blemishes and spots in other places.
It is not our problem whether something is in a Beza footnote or in a main reading. The fact is that Beza's 1598 is not perfect, and that it differs to the KJB. The KJB has one set of perfect readings in a perfect translation. Everything else could be as blather.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector The Complutensian Polyglot, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza ALL translated εὗρον as invenerunt which shows they are synonyms meaning to be to find/uncover or to see. You are saying there are spots and blemishes, I have just pointed out 4 Greek/Latin bibles that agree 100% with the KJV and demonstrates that they did use the 1598 of Beza. Even Thayers has for 2a) to see, learn, discover, understand. You dodged the point on italics, why do they completely differ from 1611-now?
TextusReceptusBible 1 year ago
@TextusReceptusBible Of course the KJB translators used Beza, but they did not use it solely. The point is that the KJB does not agree at every single place with Beza's 1598 main text.
As for italics, they are not "completely different" now. They have been greatly expanded. But that is nothing to do with changing the actual wording of the KJB. Italics constitutes no change in the text or translation of the KJB.
There are differences between Beza’s 1598 & the KJB, so only 1 is perfect.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Great video, and so true. The debate was a total waste of time for any of us that actually believe the AV. I'd like to see Jimmy debate a person that actually believes the Book.
tonyb408 1 year ago
Thanks for posting.
brandopt 1 year ago
wow, just wow.
reformedman 1 year ago
There is no TR text that matches perfectly the KJB. The KJB is a TR edition, the perfect TR edition in English. For details on differences in the various TR editions and the KJB see Riplinger's work, Hazardous Materials.
edwardpf123 1 year ago
that's pretty pathetic the best they could find was jack Moorman. The "deck is stacked" so to speak. Clearly neither one is a real Bible Believer.
talkingfortruth 1 year ago