Reading “Kept Pure in all ages” by Jeffrey Khoo was interesting.
I’ve got to say, there’s huge amounts of lying on the Bible issue, and it’s not on the King James side.
Khoo did the research on the issue, and in far more detail than I’ve done, including consulting copies of the ancient manuscripts.
We here that there are 5280 manuscripts. The anti-King James groups say there isn’t that many. Well… you’re lying or misled. There’s 5280 Greek Manuscripts. Scrolls, lectionaries, uncials, miniscules.
The anti-king james groups claim that the modern versions are the best renderings of the Old Testament… but a Rabbi was interviewed on the subject, and he said that the King James version was the most faithful rendering of the Hebrew. Funny, that issue is never brought up by James White or Doug Kutilek or Bruce Metzger.
We are told the last verses of Mark are not in the majority of manuscripts. Actually, it is. It’s just not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.
The anti-King James crowd tells us that Erasmus claimed he would put 1 John 5:7 in the manuscripts if it could be found in just one Greek manuscript – and that finally one was found or created. Khoo looked for that quote, and can find it only in the claims of the anti-King James groups. In other words, they’re lying.
Another reason they’re lying is because – 1 Jhn 5:7 can be found in 8 Greek manuscripts, and in many of the Latin. So… if Erasmus was looking for it, he wouldn’t have had to look long to find it.
The Pericope (the woman taken in adultery, John 7:52-8:11) can be found in almost every one of the Codexes, Miniscules, scrolls, papyri and lectionaries… and is missing in TWO of the Majescules. Guess which ones? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The Anti-King James crowd tells us that the Wescott-Hort Greek text was not used for the NIV – and yet, the Nestle-Aland was. The N/A (good name for it) is actually a revision of the Wescott-Hort, differing in only a few words. As is the UBS synthetic Greek text.
This brings up a good question… why are we using synthetic texts lately to mis-translate the Bible??? Why do we not simply use the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that Christians have used for thousands of years? Literally, there has been one Greek text that we have used since 38 AD, when Matthew wrote the first Gospel. The discovery of “so many” new Greek texts (just under 50) should not put aside the majority of texts that the churches have been using (5280). The facts are, those texts were put aside and not studied for a reason. Dean John Burgon claimed that they were written by the followers of the heretic Marcion. Certainly Eusebius and Origen had their hands in it – and these men did not literally believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture.
The case is made that these men deliberately chose words they did not want in the Bible, because it did not match their beliefs.
I think Khoo is correct in that. I couldn’t find anything about it I had problems with.
Here’s the facts… and they should get the anti-King James crowd of Kutilek, White, and the rest all riled up (because its true and they can’t refute it)
- Sinaiticus is either a forgery dating from early in the 19th century by Constantinus Simonides, or it’s a unused butchered manuscript written by a Arianist heretic – your choice
- Vaticanus is completely unreliable, and the 42 hours of study under difficult conditions that Tischendorf did on the original was completely insufficient. That kind of study required six months, not six days.
- Both manuscripts disagree with each other in more places than they agree
- Both manuscripts show large amounts of editing and redacting, some by as many as ten men. If Sinaiticus was a forgery, then Simonides either was trying to correct mistkaes, changing his mind, or else the monks at the monastary he left it at were trying to fix it, and gave up, deciding to burn it instead.
- If ANY manuscript of the TR showed as much editing and redacting as does Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then the Textual Critic crowd would be dancing and singing in the streets! Realizing this, they are silent on the vast inaccuracies, tamperings, redactings, crossed out words and lines, pumiced sections, etc.
- There is absolutely zero proof for Textual criticism. It is based wholly upon theory, conjecture, and “I just think so”. If anyone in the King James Only crowd were to offer theories as facts with the same proof or methodology, James White would be ripping us apart in his radio show.
- What Textual Criticism and the King James issue is boils down to is – the King James crowd believes that the Bible is inerrant, and the Textual criticism crowd does not. And it may well boil down to a litmus text of, “saved (King James Only) vs. Not Saved (textual Criticism crowd)”. How can I say that? Simple. If you do not believe the Bible is without error, I kind of worry about your eternal salvation more than a little bit. If you do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, I worry about your salvation more than a little bit. If you think men are smarter than God, I worry about you a LOT.
Khoo brings up the question of, “Who was smarter? The monks who wanted to burn Sinaiticus, or Count Tischendorf, who frantically rescued it three days before his grant money ran out in his search for a theoretical original Bible manuscript?”
Khoo insinuates that the monks were smarter. I agree.