Christian Publishing House Blog
Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity
Agnostic New Testament textual and early Christianity scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states, God “didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.” The KJVO/TRO argues, “Because the Scriptures are forever relevant, they have been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence.”
The Christian, on the other hand, but notably the Christian, have persistently sought to make their Bible speak all languages at all times. It is a curious fact that a Book written in one tongue should have come to its largest power in other languages than its own.
The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Wescott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which has now been restored to its original form by removing spurious interpolations? Who is correct?
Some Bible critics seem, to begin with, the belief that if the originals were inspired by God and fully inerrant, the subsequent copies must continue to be inerrant in order for the inerrancy of the originals to have value. They seem to be asking, “If only the originals were inspired, and the copies were not inspired, and we do not have the originals, how are we to be certain of any passage in Scripture?” In other words, God would never allow the inspired, inerrant Word to suffer copying errors. Why would he perform the miracle of inspiring the message to be fully inerrant and not continue with the miracle of inspiring the copyists throughout the centuries to keep it inerrant?
It is often argued by the Textus Receptus Onlyists and the King James Version Onlyists that there are thousands of differences between Codex Vatican and Codex Sinaiticus. John Miller on Social media makes a typical comment: "You think the TR is corrupt? What about the ~3500 differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just in the gospels... Continue Reading →
The papyri are documents written on papyrus, material prepared in ancient Egypt from the pithy stem of a water plant, used in sheets throughout the ancient Mediterranean world for writing. The early papyri of about 100+ manuscripts that date from 110-390 C.E. are said to be of the most important for establishing the original. Are... Continue Reading →
THERE are three great Book-religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other religions have their sacred writings, but they do not hold them in the same regard as do these three. Buddhism and Confucianism count their books rather records of their faith than rules for it, history rather than authoritative sources of belief. The three great Book-religions yield... Continue Reading →
Below is the original essay prefixed to the King James Version in the edition of 1611, in which the translators defend their version against criticisms they expected to be brought against it.
THE DEMAND When James I. came to the throne of England he found the Established Church in a sadly divided state. There were Conformists, who were satisfied with things as then found, and were willing to conform to existing usages; and there were Puritans, who longed for a better state of things, and were determined... Continue Reading →
While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in 1881 who would put the nails in the coffin of the Textus Receptus. The 1881 British Revised Version (RV), also known as the English Revised Version (ERV) of the King James Version,... Continue Reading →