Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?
People who claim to be "Defenders of the Textus Receptus" (TR), and tell us that the King James Bible believers "are the worst kind of cultish people I've met" (actual words of a professing TR "defender") are actually putting the cart in front of the horse. And they have no "the TR" they actually defend as the inerrant words of God. There is no such animal as "the TR".
Let's look at what "the TR" King James Bible critics have to say.
Revelation 18:13 “SLAVES and souls of men.”
I recently got a letter from a Christian man who claims the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible is his final authority and not the King James Bible itself. He was telling me that this is also the position of the Trinitarian Bible Society, who takes offense at being labeled a “King James Bible only” organization. They say they are not KJB only, but Textus Receptus only.
The Trinitarian Bible Society has publicly stated:”The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language”.
“Indeed, unlike those in the King James Only movement, it is the firm belief of the Society that ‘The supernatural power involved in the process of inspiration, and in the result of inspiration, was exerted only in the original production of the sixty-six Canonical books of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16). Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original.”
“Translations made since New Testament times must use words chosen by uninspired men to translate God’s words. For this reason no translation of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive status. The final appeal must always be to the original languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts’.” (End of statement by TBS)
The TBS confession sounds nice but is ultimately meaningless. How could they possibly know for sure that “Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original.”? They don’t have any “the Original” to compare anything to, and they know it.
They then defend what they call the “traditional text” and what they mean by this is the particular variety of Textus Receptus that CAME FROM the King James Bible. Their 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR was a back-translation from the KJB into a Greek N.T. text. The Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza are about 99.9 % the same, but there definitely are some textual differences.
Usually the KJB translators went with Beza, but sometimes with either Erasmus or Stephanus. What Mr. Scrivener did was to find the particular Greek readings from these various Greek texts that the King James Bible followed, and he then made up his copy of what is now the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek Textus Receptus. Their TR did not give rise to the KJB but it was the KJB that gave rise to their printed copies of their Textus Receptus!
There are actually several varieties of what is referred to as "the" Textus Receptus
The Textus Receptus has had over 25 revisions, all varying from one another. No absolute definition of the TR actually exists...
A few of these revisions are:
1516 - Erasmus' first edition
1519 - Erasmus' second edition - More than 400 changes from the first edition
1522 - Erasmus' third edition - More than 100 changes from his second edition
1527 - Erasmus' fourth edition - More than 100 alterations of the third edition, 90 of them in Revelation
1546 - Stephanus's first edition
1549 - Stephanus's second edition - more than 60 changes from the Stephanus's first edition
1550 - Stephanus's third edition - Includes varient readings in the margins
1551 - Stephanus's fourth edition - The first time the text is divided into numbered verses
1565-1604 - Beza's eleven editions - Minor changes in Stephanus's text. All of Beza's editions vary somewhat from Stephanus's and from each other
1624 Elziver edition - You can see it online here - https://www.bible.com/bible/182/mat.1.tr1624
1633 - Elziver's second edition - First called the Textus Receptus (22 years after the publication of the KJV)
1650 - Elziver's third edition - Differs from the second edition in about 287 places
In addition, the TR that is used today (published by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not identical to any of the references above, but is an "eclectic" text that draws its readings from different sources. The modern day TR that underlies the King James Bible can be called “a variety of the Textus Receptus”
I believe the position of the Trinitarian Bible Society and of this man is much closer to the truth than the Bible of the Month Club multi-versionists of today who have no settled text and who usually reject or call into question some 40 entire verses from the New Testament text, plus another 1500 - 2000 words from the traditional N.T. text. But I believe their textual position of “TR only” is inconsistent and illogical.
Their position still leaves each of them as their own Final Authority for determining HOW the Bible should be translated and read. Each one is free to translate the meaning of each word and verb tense as he sees fit, and his own translation will differ from that of everybody else.
I have found over 30 examples of false doctrines in the modern versions and most of them have nothing to do with variant readings. The have to do with HOW THEY TRANSLATED the same underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.
You can see these examples in my article "Fake Bible Versions DO Teach False Doctrines" here -
Here are three specific examples of different bible versions that use the TR readings, but translate specific words in very different ways. It is the King James Bible ENGLISH text that got it right and many other versions did not.
Example #1. Titus 3:10 "heretic" or "a divisive person"?
Example #2. Acts 17:22 "too superstitious" or "very religious"?
Example #3. Matthew 12:40 "a whale" a "big fish" or "a sea monster"?
I believe the TR position is inconsistent in that the particular TR they choose to accept as their “final authority” is actually derived FROM the King James Bible, and not the King James Bible from their particular variety of Textus Receptus. If God led the King James Bible translators to the exact and precise underlying Greek texts to use in making up the greatest masterpiece the world has ever seen, then it is only logically consistent to believe that He also led them to the precise MEANING of these same words in the resultant English translation.
Why would God do the one and leave the other undone? It makes no sense.
The particular “error” this Christian brother brought to my attention is found in Revelation 18:13. Here we read concerning Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, that she had merchandise of: “...sheep, and horses, and chariots, and SLAVES, and souls of men.”
This brother writes telling me that the word translated as “slaves” should actually read “bodies”, and he points out that Tyndale did it this way. His exact words are - “In Rev. 18:13 the Greek word “soma” was translated correctly by Tyndale as “body” whereas the KJV mistranslated it as “slave”. Would you say that the KJV corrects the original Greek in these two instances or is the KJV in error and therefore not perfect?”
However, does this man accept Tyndale’s translation as his Final Written Authority over the King James Bible? Of course not. Tyndale did not always follow the same variety of Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible and he certainly did not always translate the Greek texts accurately.
For instance, Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”. Tyndale also followed the wrong text in Luke 2:22 where it speaks of “the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses.” Tyndale wrongly followed the texts that say “THEIR purification”, which would include the baby Jesus.
Tyndale 1525 as well as most English translations like Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587, did not translate John 1:3-4 very well.
In the King James Bible and in virtually every Bible translation made since the King James Bible, including the Douay-Rheims of 1582 before it, and the Anglo Saxon Gospels of 1000 A.D. before that, referring to the Word of God, the eternal Son of God, who was God and became flesh and dwelt among us, we read:
John 1:3-4 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by HIM; and without HIM was not anything made that was made. 1:4 In HIM was life; and the life was the light of men.”
However Tyndale, the Geneva bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible and the Bishops' bible, all read: “John 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
Joh 1:2 This same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by IT, and without IT was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In IT was life, and that life was the light of men.”
Coverdale 1535 is a little different, but still not right. It reads:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the begynnynge wt God.
Joh 1:3 All thinges were made by THE SAME, and without THE SAME was made nothinge that was made.
Joh 1:4 In HIM was the life, and the life was the light of men”
Tyndale also followed the wrong text when he omitted the phrase "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment..." Jesus Himself was angry as we see in Mark 3:5 "And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their heart..." This correct reading has massive textual and ancient version support and is found in the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the KJB, NKJV and an host of other Bible versions both in English and foreign languages. You can see a study on this verse here -
Matthew 6:33 KJB - But seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
Tyndale - “But rather seke ye fyrst the kyngdome of HEVEN and the rightwisnes therof and all these thynges shalbe ministred vnto you.”
For some strange reason Tyndale did not follow the Textus Receptus here and he omitted the words “OF GOD” and he put “of heaven” instead. There is no text that reads this way, not even Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which omit “of God”.
The words OF GOD (tou theou) in the phrase "the kingdom of God" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin 150 A.D., which predates by 200 years anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta 250 A.D., Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. These all read as does the King James Bible.
Bible versions that correctly read as the King James Bible - "Seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness" are: the Anglo Saxon Gospels 1000 A.D. - "Eornestlice secheð ærest GODES riche. & hys rihtwysnesse.", Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor seke ye first the kyngdom of God, and his riytfulnesse", the Great Bible 1540, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Murdock's 1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, the Holman Standard 2003, and the 2002 International Standard Version
Luke 2:33 "Joseph and his mother" vs. "his father and his mother"
Tyndale also followed the wrong texts in Luke 2:33 and 2:43. In the King James Bible we read - "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." and in Luke 2:43 "...and JOSEPH and his mother knew not of it."
But in Tyndale we have - "And HIS FATHER and mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." and in Luke 2:43 "...unknowing to HIS FATHER and mother." NO text reads this way, not even the Critical text versions which have "his PARENTS did not know of it."
For further study on these two verses see -
Another place where Tyndale gave us a very inaccurate translation is found in 2 Peter 2:5 where we read of God who "spared not the old world, but saved Noah THE EIGHTH person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." ALL Greek texts say "the eighth" (ogdoon) here. Many modern versions also poorly translate this passage by completely paraphrasing and adding words not found in any Greek text. For instance the ESV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ASV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible, and the New Jerusalem bibles all omit the literal Greek and add words paraphrasing 2 Peter 2:5. ALL Greek texts say "Noah THE EIGHTH person" (Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, King James Bible) and change it to "Noah AND SEVEN OTHERS".
Eight is the number of a new beginning. Circumcision was to be done on the eighth day. (Gen. 17:12, Luke 1:59, Phil. 3:5). The new crop was to be sown in the eighth year (Lev. 25:22). We have a seven day week and then the eighth day is a new beginning of the next week and Christ was raised on this day to give us a new beginning, and new life and a new covenant. But Tyndale also did a very poor job of translating this passage. His translation says: "but saved Noah the RIGHT preacher of righteousness, and brought in the flood upon the world of the ungodly". He completely omits the word "the eighth" and instead has the word "right".
Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. “
He also omitted the phrase in Mark 15:3 “but he answered nothing.”
Tyndale omitted the words “being convicted by their own conscience” and “even unto the last” in John 8:9.
In John 19:38 Tyndale omitted the words: “He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus” from his text.
In Luke 2:22 the King James Bible correctly states: "And when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." However Tyndale did not follow the same Greek text the King James Bible would follow and it says "THEIR purification". According to the law of Moses as recorded in Leviticus 12:2-6 it was ONLY the woman who was to be purified. See more here -
Amazingly, Tyndale’s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - “Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”
In 1 John 2:23 Tyndale omits the words: - “but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
Tyndale also followed different Greek textual readings in places like Revelation 16:5 (and shalt be vs and holy); 17:8 (and yet is vs. omit); 1 Peter 5:10 (us vs. you), 1 John 1:4 (your vs. our), and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (he vs. ye). In Romans 12:11 instead of “fervent in spirit, SERVING THE LORD”, Tyndale followed different Greek texts which read: “fervent in the spirit. APPLY YOURSELVES TO THE TIME.”
In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee” from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”!!
Revelation 6:8 KJB - “And I looked, and behold A PALE horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him...”
Tyndale - “behold, a GREEN horse”
John 8:59 KJB - "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, GOING THROUGH THE MIDST OF THEM, AND SO PASSED BY."
Tyndale - “Then toke they vp stones to caste at him. But Iesus hid him selfe and went out of ye temple.”
See the whole study on this important verse here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/john859sopassedby.htm
Most of Tyndale’s translations were quite good but some were absolutely horrible. For instance instead of “Not a NOVICE lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the DEVIL" (1 Timothy 3:6) Tyndale reads: "not a YOUNG SCHOLAR lest he swell and fall into the judgment of THE EVIL SPEAKER."
In John 21:5 "Then Jesus saith unto them, CHILDREN (paidia) have ye any meat?, in Tyndale was "Jesus said unto them, SIRS, have ye any meat?
In 2 Corinthians 5:21 we read: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him", but Tyndale read: "that we by his means should be that righteousness WHICH BEFORE GOD IS ALOVED." (What?)
In Galatians 4:24 the KJB has: "Which things ARE AN ALLEGORY; for THESE are the two covenants", whereas Tyndale had "which things BETOKEN MYSTERY. For THESE WOMEN are the two covenants."
In Philippians 3:2 Paul warns of the Judaisers who would put them under the law, saying: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of THE CONCISION."
But Tyndale translated this as: "...beware of evil workers. Beware OF DISSENSION."
In Hebrews 2:1 instead of "we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time WE SHOULD LET THEM SLIP", Tyndale has "LEST WE PERISH".
In In Hebrews 6:1 instead of “leaving the principles of the doctrine OF CHRIST”, Tyndale has “the doctrine pertaining to the beginning OF A CHRISTIAN MAN.”
In Hebrew 9:1 instead of "WORLDLY SANCTUARY" Tyndale has "worldly HOLINESS" and in Hebrews 9:10 the “CARNAL ORDINANCES” becomes “JUSTIFYINGS OF THE FLESH”.
In 1 Thes. 4:6 the KJB's "That no man go beyond and defraud his brother IN ANY MATTER", Tyndale had rendered as "that no man go too far and defraud his brother IN BARGAINING."
In James 3:4 “whithersoever the governor listeth” was rendered in Tyndale as “whithersoever THE VIOLENCE of the governor will.”
And in James 5:17 Elias is described as a “man SUBJECT TO LIKE PASSIONS as we are”, but Tyndale rendered this as “Elias was a man MORTAL even as we are.”
In Romans 3:19 we read concerning the condemnation of the law - “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may BECOME GUILTY BEFORE God”, but in Tyndale this is rendered this as: “all mouths may be stopped and all the world BE SUBDUED TO God.”
2 Timothy 2:16 in the KJB reads: "But shun PROFANE and vain babblings." But Tyndale reads: "UNGHOSTLY and vain voices pass over."
And in Revelation 7:14 we read: "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and HAVE WASHED their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
But Tyndale translated this as: "...made THEIR GARMENTS LARGE and made them white in the blood of the lamb."
There are numerous examples of very poor translational work in Tyndale’s New Testament; these are just a small sampling.
As the King James Bible translators said: “Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES, ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, THAT OUR MARK.” Well, praise God, He used them to accomplish just that and we can be thankful for it.
Now, back to word “slaves” in Revelation 18:13. Admittedly, the word “soma” is normally translated as “body” in the KJB and in most other versions too, but it is a well know fact that a single word can have various and sometimes very different meanings in different contexts.
For example, the Hebrew word neh-phesh #5315 is variously translated as “soul, life, body, person, creature, the dead, the mind, heart, beast, yourselves, herself, breath, fish, the will, ghost, and pleasure.”
Greek Lexicons - What do they say?
Though I obviously do not accept Greek lexicons as my final authority, they do often reveal things about the nature and use of both Greek and Hebrew words.
Liddell and Scott, Oxford Press 1968 tells us on page 1749 that the Greek word ‘soma’ can mean various things in different contexts, including “body, dead body, a living body, an animal body, a person, a human being, and “it is used abstractly for SLAVES in Revelation 18:13.”
Thayers Greek lexicon, 1978 on page 611 tells us: “Since according to ancient law in the case of slaves the body was the chief thing taken into account, it is a usage of later Greek to call slaves simply somata (bodies); once so in the N.T. in Rev. 18:13.”
Thayer then goes on to show an example from the Greek text of the LXX where Genesis 36:6 tells us of Esau taking his whole family plus his household servants and cattle and moving to a different place. Here the text says: “And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all THE PERSONS of his house, and his cattle...”. The Greek renders this phrase as “panta TA SOMATA tou oikou autou”.
Likewise the lexicon of Baer, Arndt and Gingrich 1952 tells us on page 807 that the Greek word can legitimately be translated as “slaves” and again lists the example of Gen. 36:6 from the LXX and Josephus from Antiquities 14,321 and Revelation 18:13.
Let’s take a look at how other Bible translators have rendered the word “somaton” in this context here in Revelation 18:13.
Some few go along with the old Tyndale rendering of “BODIES, and souls of men.” Among these are the NKJV, NIV and the Holman Standard which reads “human bodies and souls”.
However, agreeing with the King James Bible’s “SLAVES” are the following bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Beza N.T. 1599 - "servants", the Bill Bible 1671 - "SLAVES", Whiston's N.T. 1745, Worsley Version 1770, he Living Oracles 1835, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1885, American Bible Union N.T. 1865, American Standard Version 1901, Worrell N.T. 1904, Weymouth N.T. 1912, Goodspeed N.T. 1923, the RSV 1954, NRSV 1989, the 2011 ESV, the NASB 1963-1995, the Douay 1950, Bible in Basic English 1961, the 1970 New English Bible, the New Life Version 1969, Living Bible 1971, Contemporary English Version 1995, God's Word Translation 1995, the Message 2002, New Century Version 2005, Daniel Wallace’s NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2009, New American Bible 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The Mounce Interlinear N.T. 2011, the Names of God Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, International Standard Version 2014, Hebrew Names Bible 2014, the New International Readers Version 2014.
Also reading "SLAVES" are The Word of Yah 1993, the Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 "SLAVES" (Larry Pierce), The Last Days Bbile 1999, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Tomson N.T. 2002 - "SERVANTS", The Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T 2005, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Expanded Bible 2011, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bbile 2011, Far Above All Translation 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek 2012 - "SERVANTS" (Mebust), and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and SLAVES and souls of men."
The NIV 2011 paraphrases it as "horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves."
and The Voice 2012 likewise paraphrases as: "cattle, sheep, horses, chariots, and human cargo (the trafficked souls of humanity).
Among foreign language versions I know about that read “slaves” (esclavos) are the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995, the Italian Diodati, the NIV Spanish edition (Nueva Versión Internacional) 1999, and the Portuguese O Livro and the de Almeida versions.
It should be noted that there is a big difference between a translational CHOICE and a translational ERROR. Other Bible commentators have no problem with the KJB translation of “slaves”.
Adam Clarke notes: “The bodies of men; probably distinguished here from, souls of men, to express BONDMEN and freemen.”
Barne’s Notes on the New Testament says: “The word properly denotes body--an animal body--whether of the human body, living or dead, or the body of a beast; and then the external man --the person, the individual. In later usage, it comes to denote A SLAVE, (see Rob. Lex.,) AND IN THIS SENSE IT IS USED HERE. The traffic in slaves was common in ancient times, as it is now.”
The People’s N.T. Commentary says: “The first seems to refer to the traffic in SLAVES, a common traffic until modern times and sanctioned by the Papacy. The latter expression seems to me to refer to a spiritual traffic.”
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the N.T. says: “This use of swma for slave occurs in Genesis 34:29; Tob 10:11 (swmata kai kthnh, slaves and cattle); II Macc. 8:11.”
And John Wesley tersely comments: “And of bodies - A common term for slaves.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong or erroneous with the way the King James Bible translators have rendered this word into English. To correct or criticize anything in the King James Bible is to end up placing your own mind and understanding as the final written authority, and you end up with no complete, inspired and inerrant Bible at all. This is ultimately the position taken by all those who tell us they are “TR men” and not King James Bible onlyist. Every man ends up doing what is right in his own eyes and takes a textual position that contradicts itself. If God chose the KJB translators to give us His pure and complete Greek text, then He logically and consistently also gave them spiritual insight and divine direction on HOW these same texts were to be translated into the English tongue.
I like the thought expressed recently by brother Tom Lamb who wrote: "However, at the end of the day, if we are going to these places just to prove God's word wrong ... then we are a Bible corrector! If we happen to be going to aids just to confirm the word ... then we are a Bible believer! "
The King James Bible is always right.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Notes from the Internet -
This interchange took place in July of 2012 at our Facebook club called the King James Bible Debate. I was responding to a man who was criticizing several translations in the King James Bible and who finally told us that he does his own translating work and he holds the Greek text of Scrivener as his final authority.
Hi Bob. You finally "sort of" answered the question about what is "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek text you think is inspired. You told us it is Scrivener's Textus Receptus Greek Text. Now, here is where your whole theory totally breaks down. It really isn't a particular text, since as we have seen it is YOUR understanding of HOW to translate certain texts that is your "final authority". You apparently are the only one out there that thinks Genesis 1:2 should be translated as "the earth BECAME without form and void."
Your position that "the" Greek is Scrivener's Textus Receptus Greek Text really falls apart. This text didn't even appear anywhere in print until 1894 and it is a back translation that comes from the King James Bible. You are putting the cart in front of the horse. If God guided the KJB translators to the right Greek text, then He also guided them to the correct way to translate it into the English language. The English text preceded your "the" Greek text by almost 300 years!
What you have done, Bob, is to make yourself your own final authority because it is YOU who determines for yourself how a passage or an individual word should be translated. When you talk or write to others you do not speak or write to them in Hebrew and Greek; you do it in English. So you are still basically making up your own translation as you go and we have already seen that your peculiar and special translation is very different than almost everybody else's. You are your own final authority.
This is the big problem I see with the Textus Receptus guys like you. You have put the cart before the horse. You ignore and dismiss the Providence of God in giving us this specific text in English - the end times universal language - (it certainly is not Greek) and you end up making yourselves the people to whom the average Christian must come to in order to find out what God "really" said.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
More Notes From the Internet -
KJV Onlyism? James White vs Kent Hovind. Who's right?
5 minute video put up by some “the” Textus Receptus guy who thinks the King James Bible is too hard to understand.
My Response to him -
Hi Cameron James Klesser. Are these your thoughts on the matter? If so, they are seriously flawed for several reasons. First of all, there is no such thing as "the" Textus Receptus. There are about 20 different varieties of "the" TR and they all differ textually from each other.
So exactly which of these 20 or so "the" TRs are you going to go with as your "inerrant" New Testament? Please tell us. Don't dodge the question.
Secondly, you tell us that the language of the King James Bible needs to be "updated" because you think it is too hard to understand, and yet you turn around and tell us that instead of this "hard to understand" English Bible, we all somehow need to learn the whole new, archaic language of Greek!
And what do we need for the entire Old Testament you just ignored? We all need to learn an archaic form of Hebrew too?
The type of Greek that is found in the various TR manuscripts is NOT modern Greek at all. It is a very archaic form that is not spoken anywhere in the world today. Same thing applies to the Hebrew texts.
And though others may be fooled by your pious sounding rhetoric, not even YOU believe there was "the" TR that existed before the KJB or any translation made from them, that you honestly believe was the complete and inerrant words of God.
You will never tell us the specific name of any Bible in any language that you really believe is the infallible, 100% true and correctly translated words of God. Because if you did, then your whole "the Greek TR" position would blow up in your face.
Do you seriously think that learning these completely foreign and archaic languages is going to be much easier than becoming familiar with any of the handful of English words we may find in the King James Bible that you find "hard to understand"?
Hellooooooooooo? Is anybody home?
Here's a novel thought. How about just looking up a few unfamiliar English words in a dictionary and learn something about the richness of our own English language? Much easier than learning two entirely new languages that have thousands of variant readings in them.
And on top of all this, I guess it is YOU and people like you who get to be the ones who translate this unidentified "the" TR you think we should be using. Guess who ends up being the "final authority", Cameron? Why....it's you of course.
The only ones who are wrong here in this video are James White and YOU, sir.
Answering a Question About Foreign Language Bibles and the TR.
A fellow King James Bible believer writes: “Brother Kinney, I always appreciate your great defense of God's Book. I have a question that got lobbied at me, and, while I understand it is a mere excuse, it has been coming up more and more lately, and if you could address it on your own time, I'd appreciate. The question is simple and has been presented, in various forms, in many ways, but generally the question/argument is something like this:
If the KJV is perfect and pure as a result of its' source, (Received Text versus the Alexandrian), then wouldn't it be true by that logic, that, IF a set of worthy scholars without theological leanings, just translated the TR today, that would ALSO be the perfect words of God in English? (Basically, the why not translate the TR today argument?)
I'd appreciate any comment you care to make. Thank you sir!”
My Response -
Hi Adam. This is a very good question and I have had people ask me the same thing several times. First, there is no such thing as 'the" TR (Textus Receptus, or Received Text). There are about 25 varieties of what are referred to as "the TR. They all differ in various ways from each other.
Second, I am not a TR guy. There are several good reasons for this.
I think this article will help explain a lot of these points. "Tyndale, the TR or the King James Bible?"
People who are "the TR" have put the cart in front of the horse. iF God guided the KJB translators to the right textual readings in Greek and Hebrew (and I fully believe He did) then He also guided them to give us the best English translation of those texts.
Individual Hebrew and Greek words can have multiple meanings. Most of them do. So when a guy says he is "the TR" what really happens is that he becomes his own authority of HOW these texts should be translated.
I have found that MOST of the theological errors in the fake bibles are translational in nature, and not textual. it all depends on HOW they translated the same underling texts.
I have almost 40 examples how the fake bibles DO corrupt sound doctrines, and most of these have to do with how they translated the same underlying Greek or Hebrew text.
You can see them here so you get a better idea of what i am talking about.
Fake Bibles Do Teach False Doctrines
Since I fully believe the English text of the King James Bible IS the complete and inerrant words of God, then it is the Standard of written truth, and not "the TR" or the Hebrew.
So to the extent that a foreign language Bible is translated from the same underling Hebrew and Greek texts AND is translated in such a way as to have and carry THE SAME MEANING as that found in the KJB, then to that extent it is the complete and inerrant words of God.
That is what I believe. I am not my own authority; the King James Bible is because I believe God Himself was involved in bringing forth this masterpiece.
I hope these thoughts have been of some help to you.