Christian Publishing House Blog
Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity
In the earliest days of the Christian church, after an apostolic letter was sent to a congregation or an individual, or after a gospel was written to meet the needs of a particular reading public, copies would be made in order to extend its influence and to enable others to profit from it as well. It was inevitable that such handwritten copies would contain a greater or lesser number of differences in wording from the original.
Are you a member of the King James Version Onlyist (KJVO) Cult or affiliated with it? What are the signs that the KJVOists are a cult? What is the true transmission of the Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus? Let’s begin by saying the King James Version Onlyist (KJVO) is no different from the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons. They blindly accept information that is blatantly wrong that it leaves the rational mind bewildered. Some warning signs that the KJVO are a cult-minded group. If you are not willing to objectively read a book or article that counters your narrative, not even able to acknowledge basic truths; then, you are in the KJVOist Cult.
Lucian of Antioch (c. 240 – January 7, 312), known as Lucian the Martyr, was a Christian presbyter, theologian, and martyr. He was noted for both his scholarship and ascetic piety. Was Lucian of Antioch the Path to the corrupt Byzantine Text, which led to the even more corrupt Textus Receptus, which lies as the foundation to the King James Version NT?
Robert Estienne was a 16th-century printer and classical scholar in Paris. His 1550 version of Erasmus' Greek Text became known as the Textus Receptus, the standard text for many generations.
The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, Royal MS 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02, Soden δ 4) is a fifth-century Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. It is one of the four Great uncial codices.
"The scribes of the Byzantine text were guilty of taking liberties with the text in both adding to and taking away from." Andrews
"It was the corrupt Byzantine form of text that provided the basis for almost all translations of the New Testament into modern languages down to the nineteenth century." - Metzger
MODERN textual scholars do not hesitate to omit from the Bible the spurious passage found at 1 John 5:7-8. It is omitted by the translations ERV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, LEB, CSB, UASV, etc.) Commenting on these words, the greatest textual scholar of the 20th century Bruce M. Metzger said, "these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain ..." - Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), 647.
The reason that this text is considered difficult is that one is compelled to think contrary to the leading internal textual principle: Which reading is it that the other reading(s) most likely came from? It is easy to see how “moved with anger” would have been changed to “moved with pity.” In that case, the scribe would have been softening the reading. It is very difficult to understand why a scribe would be tempted to change “moved with pity” to “moved with anger.”
Be honest in all things
Follow the truth regardless
Obey God not man
If textual scholars and translators obey all three of those principles; then, if the text, translation, or interpretation supports our specific doctrinal view, fine, if it does not, fine. A so-called major doctrine does not hang in the balance based on one Bible verse.
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 Westcott & 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 have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations. Who is correct?