More of Muz's Baloney
More of Muz's Baloney
What I mean is that there are 13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion as to the correct reading.
That just means that the KJV has a lot of extra stuff that scribes have added over the years. That's the major fault of the Byzantine Text Type.
Muz
Muz, could you list these 13 places for us? And according to WHICH text crit scholars? Those behind the NASB or the ones behind the NKJV. James White (like you) says one thing (and not even he would claim something so ridiculous as your "13 places"), and the NKJV guys who have been to the same seminaries and have access to the same information say the exact opposite.
"Little White Lies"
In his book, The KJV Only Controversy, on page 152-153 Mr. James White actually says: "Every one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representative of the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine text type" and "The early Fathers who wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type" and "the early translations of the New Testament reveals that they were done on the basis of the Alexandrian type manuscripts, not the Byzantine text-type" and "the early church fathers who wrote during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a familiarity with the Byzantine text-type".
These are such huge whoppers I could not believe he actually wrote this totally false information in his book. There is tons of evidence that even the early papyrus manuscripts, all of which came from Alexandria Egypt, were a mixed bag and there are many Byzantine readings found in them where they agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott- Hort Alexandrian copies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Furthermore, concerning the church Fathers, Dean John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus Receptus exist but it predominated.
The early versions like the Old Latin contain many Traditional Text readings not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as does the Syriac Peshitta. And both of these predate Sinaiticus Vaticanus by 150 years.
Even Dr. Hort of the famed Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).
Dean Burgon immediately comments: "We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, ---the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short--is, according to Dr. Hort, `BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.'
In other words, at the very time Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned, the Byzantine texts were already the predominate texts of the Christian church!
What do other equally trained and "competent scholars" have to say regarding the papyrus manuscripts, the early translations and the church fathers? The NKJV editors (which, by the way, Mr. White recommends as a "reliable translation") tell us THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what Mr. White so boldly and confidently states.
The following quotes are found in the 1982 edition of the NKJV. Keep in mind that these men are not King James Bible onlyists.
In the preface of the NKJV, which was translated by some of the same men who translated the NIV, it says on page vii "The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.
However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.
On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament.
Then on page 1231 the NKJV editors say: "The Byzantine Text. This text was largely preserved in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. OVER EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type. Also, from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there is greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text type. The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type Greek text."
So Muz. Would you care to seriously discuss your alleged 13 examples?
Will K
