so far we have examined:
- Psalm 12:6-7 is correctly translated in the King James, but became increasingly incorrectly translated after Youngs “literal” version
- The Bible is inspired and preserved letter for letter by God.
- Many statements of faith for ministries and churches are deliberately worded to conceal that the Christian involved does not believe the Bible is inerrant and inspired by God.
- While a few manuscripts may have copyists errors, but by examining large numbers of them we can determine the overall correct reading
- This was done previously and forms the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus
- Modern Bibles are translated entirely from “The oldest and best manuscripts”
- The “oldest and best manuscripts” actually date from 1881, and are the work of Wescott and Hort, men who denied most of the fundamentals of the faith and did not believe in the Bible as inspired.
- Wescott and Hort used mostly Codex Vaticanus, and where Vaticanus was “unsure” (or quite simply, didn’t have the book, verse or chapter – which often is the case) they had to resort to Codex Sinaiicus
- Codex Sinaiticus was found in St. Catherine’s Monastary by Count Tischendorf, who was desperately searching for an old manuscript – ANY old manuscript – which differed from the Textus Receptus
- A Bible artifact forger (Constantinus Simonides) stepped forward and admitted to forging Sinaiticus early on in his manuscript career, and described it as “clumsy”. While his confesion was ignored, it ended up costing him a great deal of money as from then on nobody would buy any more artifacts from him. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose with his confession.
First probing question we have asked: Why would you oppose the preservation and inspiration of the Bible?
Let’s backtrack a bit, and talk about the collecting and analyzing of Bible manuscripts. This actually was done separate of the churches using Biblical Manuscripts. The non-Catholic churches all relied upon the family of texts known as the Syrian texts. These texts, I might add, originate from Antioch. This was the place that followers of Christ were first called “Christians.” So, this family is known by SEVERAL names. The Recieved text, the Majority Text (because, numerically, they are in the vast majority – 98% of all manuscripts come from this family), The Antiochan family. There are 5,240 of these manuscripts. They form approximately 98-99% of the Greek texts we have.
Please note the title the Majority text. Modern Bible “scholars” have stolen this name for the texts which are in the minority, hoping to waylay all those historical endorsements about the Manority text by calling the Alexandrian manuscripts the “Majority” text – when it is in the minority!
The other family of manuscripts came from Egypt, from Alexandria. This is known for some confusing reason as the Alexandrian manuscripts. Ok, I jest. It’s completely understandable. There actually is 47 of these. Codex Sinaiticus, possibly a forgery, and Codex Vaticanus come from these lines.
The Roman Catholic Church uses the Latin Vulgate, written by Jerome.
These facts are important. We’ll be referring to them throughout this series, because it’s very important. Multiple Version Only’ists and Anti-King James proponents downplay this. AS a matter of fact, they don’t try to refute these facts – because they CAN’T. These are facts.
Anti-King James people (I’ll use this term sometimes, as by their actions several people have shown they are VERY opposed to the King James Bible, such as John Ankerberg and James White) will instead use a debate tactic I find VERY irritating. I can cite these facts, talk for ten minutes on origins, intentions, the people involved, numbers and dates – and all they do is respond with, “They are the Bible! You CAN trust the modern translations!”
They don’t answer the FACTS – they just drop denials and go on from there. If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you’ll note that it was a common tactic of some Atheists. Don’t answer the facts or charges, just drop a denial and run.
Another tactic of Anti-King James and MVO’s is to repeat the argument as if I hadn’t just torn it down.
But we’ll get to all this soon!
Here’s the explanation of where these manuscripts all came from. I do recommend the booklet “The trail of Blood” which shows the historical legacy of Baptists from the Apostles until today. I caution that the author apparently believed in Church Successionism, which I do not.
The Baptist churches of those days could not simply walk down to Family Christian Bookstore or Lifeway and buy a Bible. They had to be copied diligently from other copies. As the churches were being persecuted first by Rome, and then by… Rome, they often had periods of hiding. during these periods of hiding, they had to continually hand copy these Bibles.
Consider how long a Bible lasts today. You buy it, use it (hopefully), and after 10-15 years, the pages are ripped and falling out. Show me a Bible that’s falling apart and i’ll show you a Bible reader that isn’t.
After 20 years of careful use, it’s pretty much toast. Bibles should be read in a way that regular books are not. Something used every day falls apart much quicker than something that’s never used. Make a mental note of this. This thought will get important soon.
After the times of persecution were done, several men independently of one another began examining these manuscripts to determine which ones were complete. It was an exhaustive process, done by Theodore Beza, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus and by the Elzivir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.
I repeat that this process was done independently. Master manuscripts were done, to show the correct readings. Now, I’d like to emphasize a point here. Bibles copied by hand should have MASSIVE contradictions, MASSIVE amounts of copyist errors logically, when done over 1400 years, all across the world.
Instead, there were remarkably few omissions, misspellings and copyist errors. Remarkably is too short a word. The correct word is “Miraculously”.
I’m not Will Kinney. He can talk knowledgeably for HOURS about Manuscripts. He knows about many of the different ones in the Chester Beatty manuscripts, etc. I’m not trying to specialize like he does. Will Kinney is a very knowledgeable man. I just know his results. And he has complete confidence in the work of Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus.
The works of Beza, Erasmus, Elzevir, and Stephanus give us what’s called the Textus Receptus.
Yes, James White is correct when he tells us the Textus Receptus was called that AFTER the KIng James Bible was transalted. However, he is either incorrect or lying when he says it is translated from a few late manuscripts. He forgets that it wasn’t just Stephanus who compiled the Textus Receptus. There were several men who did the work, all with similar results. He implies he has a problem with this, but he’s very inconsistant – how many versions of the United Bible Society’s text has there been? How many editions of the Nestle-Aland text? The Nestle-Aland is on its 27th edition. Stephanus compiled 4. Abraham and Bonaventure Elziver to my knowledge compiled one, and Erasmus compiled another. The texts were similar.
The translators of the King James Bible sat down with handwritten Bibles in French, German, Dutch, Latin, and Aramaic. They used the Masoretic Ben Chayyim text, and many manuscripts of the Greek, including Codexes, Uncials, and Lectionaries. Any thought that they were sitting in a room full of computers and Logos 5 on them is silly. As a matter of fact, the translators all were meeting in different areas, working independently, and sending their manuscripts to each other for review.
There’s a HUGE difference between the work of Wescott and Hort as we talked about yesterday, and the work of the men who compiled the Textus Receptus, and the men who compiled the King James Bible.
The difference is integrity. We’ll talk more about that tomorrow.