Why I'm Not King James Only
neptune posted a comment · Aug 17, 2020
OK, thanks for the helpful info, Steve. :)
SteveW posted a comment · Aug 10, 2020
Neptune: Thanks a lot for the link. I am aware of these alternative views that point to potential issues with the Textus Receptus (TR). However, these pale into insignificance compared with the myriad of omissions by the Nestle-Aland (NA) text used in most modern Bibles. Most of these omissions also have great doctrinal import and so cannot be dismissed as "scribal errors". Here are a few more examples: (1) Col 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"; "through his blood" is omitted from NA. (2) Luke 9:56 "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them"; the whole of this verse is omitted in NA. (3) Mat 19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The whole of this verse is omitted from NA. There are plenty more of these types of examples. There is no substitute for doing your own research so I suggest you do an in-depth comparison yourself rather than take my word on this (if you search on the net you can find comparisons, so the hard work is done for you, and you can then check out the comparisons yourself). Steve.
neptune posted a comment · Aug 07, 2020
SteveW: Interesting comment. I hadn't heard of the Textus Receptus before, so I did a bit of searching on the Web. Here's an interesting article that offers an opposing view: https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Textus%20Receptus%20and%20Modern%20Bible%20Translations.pdf
SteveW posted a comment · Aug 06, 2020
Hi Michael - Yes, you are correct that the KJV is an imperfect translation and the language should indeed be updated. But what you have not addressed is the fact that the KJV is translated from a different Greek text, the Textus Receptus, to most modern bibles such as the NIV, ESV, etc, which are based on corrupted Gnostic texts, the Hort/Westcott text (which in turn use the corrupted Vaticanus & Sinaiticus). It is obvious that the latter is corrupted if you just compare the two - the omission of 1 John 5:7 is one of many, many, shocking examples. So, using translations based on modern English is fine, but it MUST be based on the Textus Receptus. Could you cover this in one of your podcasts? God Bless. Steve.