Replies

They skirt the issue by glancing comments about recensions, but never, ever discuss the possible implications of thousands of texts from many authors and countries in many languages attesting to the preservation of the Received Text.

Received Text. Ha ha ha. Get ready for the "If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me" crowd who will splutter about the "authorized version" or the "textus receptus." It doesn't seem to make any difference to these people that the term "textus receptus" or "Received Text" was an advertising blurb for a version of the Greek New Testament that at the time and ever since was known to be defective--late manuscripts, minuscule manuscripts, Latin interpolations, invented words.

Another post back in 2000 claimed this:

USE THE BIBLE GOD USES
King James A.V. 1611

I can't believe that there are people with so little understanding of Biblical literature and language in general that they could say the above and not experience shame. They may as well be Jehovah's Witnesses for what they do to Scripture.

I once had a college president of a very conservative Christian college in Clearwater, Florida, tell me that he had received complaints following my talk at a particular church on a choir tour. I had read the verse (I Corinthians 1:18): "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." He said, "We are not being saved, we have been saved." I told him that the Greek was a present plural passive participle. He couldn't pull that doctrine out of this verse. He said, well, he'd have to check that out. Okay, I said and brought my Greek New Testament back up to the front of the bus and showed him. "Well...." he said. "Still, you should stick to the KJV." I asked him what he had against translations into the modern English. He said, "They don't promote study of The Word."* The same things were being said by the Vulgate is God's Bible crowd who resisted its translation into the vernacular.

I gave up on him. No, it's not that modern English versions don't promote study of The Word. People just don't have to struggle to understand 389 year old English and then believe they've had some big breakthrough on Biblical understanding when they finally realize (under the best of circumstances) or believe they realize what the ancient English is actually saying. Never mind that the state of Greek scholarship then was inferior to what is available today. The same is true for the number and quality of manuscripts available then versus now.

But even in this school (a close friend of Bob Jones University), they were careful to say that the doctrine of plenary inspiration applied only to the original manuscripts and not to copies and certainly not to translations. What people are doing to the Textus Receptus and the KJV is nothing short of bibliolatry.

*And he also didn't like footnotes showing variant readings from different manuscripts or the probable reading depending upon different ideas of how the word was to be translated or that the meaning of a word in Hebrew was unknown and was being supplied by the Septuagint or that the oldest and best manuscripts left out certain portions (such as the end of Mark). To be opposed to such on the basis that such footnotes could "hurt people's faith" is to be intellectually dishonest and to show a very low opinion about the grace of God.

Why don't you ask the Orthodox posters on FR what Greek New Testamant Text that they have read in their churches for 2000 years?. Is it the text closer to the Received Text that underlies the King James Version? or the Latin Text that underlies the Douay-Rheims? or the Vaticanus B manuscript that underlies the Westcott and Hort Text?

I told him that the Greek was a present plural passive participle

So what?

The Greek participle can be translated in many different ways.

No one is perishing, they are already dead in their sins when they are born.

No one is 'being saved' they are saved when they are born again.

The modern translations are wrong and the King James is right.