15. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small
manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? “Word of God?”
Answer:
But much has been corroborated by earlier manuscripts found since then, demonstrating God's unique methods of
preservation. What do you mean "small" manuscripts? That has to be a classic statement? Do you subscribe to the
theory that an earlier corruption is better than a later authenticity? Are you suggesting that several centuries of
Christians had to wait for the real word of God to be found? Odd that over 5200 manuscripts support the readings in
the KJB (mostly majority text), while less than 50 support the readings in other bibles (mostly minority text).
Now, if a person believes that God superintends the preservation of His word, he is comfortable with such history.
But if a person believes it takes man to decide what is preserved and what is not, I can see where he would have a
problem trusting God. For you, who trust in men, Erasmus, an expert in his field, was well traveled and well versed
in variant disputes from reading early church disputes as is reflected in his notes. If he chose a handful of late
manuscripts, he evidently had good reason to do so. The principle of judging bibles by their fruit is the
scriptural method. Which bible do you think fares the best under that sort of a scrutiny? --
Evans
. . .So shall my WORD be that goeth forth out of my mouth . . . it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, and it
shall PROSPER . . .
-- Isa 55:11
16. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the
TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a
translation of a translation?
Answer:
NO, I did not KNOW that. And be prepared for a shock, you don't KNOW that either. You have merely parroted an
opinion of some scholar that believes that. While it is true that the last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev 22:16-21),
which Erasmus used, were missing, your parroted theory has been disputed by HOSKIER, on the evidence of manuscript
141*. You can't seem to make up your mind whether to attack the KJB or attack the TR; Can you? Who says the TR is
an error free Text? Can you prove it? In his 4th translation of his Greek New Testament (1527). Erasmus supposedly
corrected much of this text which was thought to be a translation based on a comparison with the Compluensian
Polyglot Bible. Other manuscripts, 296, 2049, and the margin of 2067 may also be included in this evidence. The
Book of life versus the tree of life dispute may also be supported by the Old Boharic version, the writings of
Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century). There is internal
evidence also, for instance, the way that "David" is spelled in Erasmus' translation was the same as Koine Greek,
something Erasmus would not have done if he were translating from the Latin. The spelling of "David" in the
critical text is in classical Greek and differs. So much for the rest of the story! --
Evans
(*The Text of the Apocalypse, by H.C. Hoskier, London: Quaritch, 1929,vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,
635)
. . . the word of our God shall stand FOR EVER . . .
-- Isa. 40:8
Holding fast the FAITHFUL word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by SOUND doctrine both to exhort and to
convince the gainsayers.
-- Titus 1:9
17. Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original
Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic
English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey?
(Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the
demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and
"PHILEO" love words.)
Answer:
Now this is a real "gasser."
The first time, Jesus says "lovest (AGAPAO) thou me . . .
The second time, Jesus says, "lovest (AGAPAO) thou me . . .
The third time, Jesus says, "lovest (PHILEO) thou me . . .
The narrative says: "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the THIRD TIME, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me . . . --
John 21:15-17
Now, poor ignorant King James Onlies are just dumb enough to believe that the first and second time were the same
as the third time. Either the Greek matching words are in error or it does not matter, which word is used. It
surely does not matter in English. So, yes, throw out your Greek dictionary and buy a 10-cent English paper back
that tells you what love means. Besides, the Hebrew and Greek is far more archaic than the English and much less
clear, so throw `em out. As for your demon goose with pimples (you have a vivid imagination), Webster gives one of
the meanings of "tremble" as "shiver." HO HUM! --
Evans
. . . comparing spiritual things with spiritual . . .
-- 1 Cor. 2:13
| 
