Rev 1:6 and the Majority Text

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pastor Larry, Oct 19, 2002.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    In studying this passage, I found that the KJV does not follow the majority text here. The Majority text (Robinson Pierpont) reads with the Eclectic text that "he has made us a kingdom (basileian)." The TR reads "he has made us kings (basileis)." What it shows, for what its worth, is that the KJVOnly claim that the KJV has the vast weight of the Majority Text behind it is simply not true. This is one of over 1800 places (if my memory serves me correctly) where the TR contradicts the Majority Text. Just checking the Bible I have here, the NT is about 200 pages long (of course, that is text only, two columns, no references or explanatory notes). That means the KJV contradicts the majority text about 9 times per page ... That is a huge number when you are trying to find absolute perfection as testified to by the majority of the manuscripts.

    Of course, I could make an argument here that the KJV undermines the glorious doctrine of the of Christ as the only king by teaching that we are kings too. The MVs are much better because it teaches that we are the kingdom, the subjects of the king, rather than kings. I have heard similar arguments made against the MVs. Of course, I wouldn't make an argument like that :D

    [ October 19, 2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I will declare that the KJV does indeed affirm that we, as God's children, are, in fact, kings and priests.

    Not only in Rev 1:6, but also in Rev. 5:10 "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests : and we shall reign on the earth."

    1 Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood , an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

    "This idea is expressed here by saying that Christ had made us in fact kings and priests; that is, Christians are exalted to the dignity, and are invested with the office, implied in these words. The word "kings," as applied to them, refers to the exalted rank and dignity which they will have; to the fact that they, in common with their Saviour, will reign triumphant over all enemies; and that, having gained a victory over sin and death and hell, they may be represented as reigning together. The word "priests" refers to the fact that they are engaged in the holy service of God, or that they offer to him acceptable worship." Albert Barnes NT Commentary

    Rev. 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

    Are you sure the MV's teach this?
     
  3. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob, I think you're missing his point. His point is mainly that in Rev 1:6, the KJV deviates from the Majority Text. He is not arguing that we are not kings and priests.

    I understood his last comment about the MVs as being about the *faulty* arguments that could be made because of this difference in Rev 1:6 (just like the arguments that say "the NIV denies the blood of Christ!" because of Col 1:14), not that Pastor Larry was actually making this argument.
     
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    If that is indeed the case, my apologies Pastor Larry.
     
  5. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Pastor Larry,
    The Majority Text is the Textus Receptus. They are synonymous, one in the same. It is so called because there are more extant fragments and manuscripts of this text than of the other.

    It is also called the Byzantine Text, the Recieved Text, or the Traditional Text. You may referring to the "majority text" of Hodges and Farstad which does indeed depart from the TR.

    Pastor Larry, I do not wish to insult your intelligence. I realize that you know this bit of information. I posted this mainly for the benefit of others.

    When I refer to the "Majority text," I mean it to be synonymous with the Traditional Text.

    [ October 19, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  6. Japheth

    Japheth
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Also called "Das Reichstext."
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    To clarify a bit, the TR is a representative of the Byzantine text type, the majority text type. There are currently three versions that I know of: The Hodges Farstad, the Robinson Pierpont (which I referenced), and Scrivener's TR. None of them are identical to each other. All of them were arrived at by men considering the various variants and making decisions about what the original author actually wrote.

    My point was that the TR, at that point, deviated from the Majority text type and actually followed a minority reading.
     
  9. Zebedee

    Zebedee
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    The kjv departs fron the majority text more often in the Revelation than any of the other books. Its interesting to read the New King James b/c they will document where the kjv departs from the majority text.
     
  10. JesusIsLord

    JesusIsLord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is " Der Reichstext". :cool:
     
  11. Japheth

    Japheth
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Sorry, my German is a little rusty. [​IMG]

    [ October 20, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Japheth ]
     
  12. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how the TR and Majority are anywhere near the same:

    TR: Originally based on seven manuscripts of the Byzantine text type
    Majority: Based on all (about four thosand) manuscipts of the Byzantine text type.

    TR: Earliest manuscript---eleventh century.
    Majority: Earliest manuscript--fourth century.

    TR: Contains the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8
    Majority: Does not contain trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8

    TR: Contains Acts 8:37; Luke 17:36
    Majority: Does not contain Acts 8:37; Luke 17:36

    TR: Contains a large portion of Acts 9:6 and a phrase in 9:5
    Majority: Does not contain a large portion of Acts 9:6 and a phrase in 9:5

    TR: Contains the questionable section in Acts 24:6b-8a
    Majority: Does NOT contain the questionable section in Acts 24:6b-8a

    TR: Contains Acts 15:34
    Majority: Does not contain Acts 15:34

    TR: Rev. 22:19 "the book of life'
    Majority: Rev. 22:19 "tree of life'

    Remember, Different is not the same... [​IMG]
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    The Majority Text is the Textus Receptus. They are synonymous, one in the same. It is so called because there are more extant fragments and manuscripts of this text than of the other.</font>[/QUOTE]
    It is very surprising that you would not know that this assertion is false Pastor Bob. The TR is an example or a representative text from the Majority/Byzantine text family but they are not synonymous. When Pastor Larry says 1800 variants, he means there are 1800 places where the majority of mss agree with each other in saying something other than what the TR says.

    Yes.
    No.
    Yes.
    This text is also representative of the BT/MT tradition... probably a better one.

    ... and when you do so, you perpetuate error and mislead people who trust you.
     
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Scott J,

    Apparently you and I have much different sources. Of the seven books on my shelf dealing with this issue, all seven use the terms I mentioned interchangably.

     
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry posts: "In studying this passage, I found that the KJV does not follow the majority text here. The Majority text (Robinson Pierpont) reads with the Eclectic text that "he has made us a kingdom (basileian)." The TR reads "he has made us kings (basileis)." What it shows, for what its worth, is that the KJVOnly claim that the KJV has the vast weight of the Majority Text behind it is simply not true. This is one of over 1800 places (if my memory serves me correctly) where the TR contradicts the Majority Text. "

    Larry, you don't really care at all what the "majority" text reads now do you? You are a modern version proponent (NASB I think), right?

    For every minority reading found in the KJB there are a hundred minority readings in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV etc.

    If you look at Hodges-Farstaad it shows that the KJB reading of "made of kings and priests" is found in some of the so called majority texts. They are broken up into 5 sections called a,b, c, d and e. The KJB reading is found in both sections of d and e.

    Robertson, another bible corrector like yourself, notes that the KJB reading is found in "P, 1, 28, 36 ETC." Notice the "etc.". Though he disagrees with the reading, he at least shows that it is found in several manuscripts. The Modern Greek translation is the same as the KJB

    Your beloved Sinaiticus reads very differently from the "majority" texts in many verses in Revelation. Vaticanus does not have Revelation at all. Yet your NASB, NIV go back and forth between these two, even when they disagree with each other, which is often.

    You have no final authority but your own mind or favorite scholar-priest. I am a King James Bible believer, not a TR or Majority or eclectic, critical text bible doubter [personal attack edited].

    For those who wish to know a little more about the "oldest and best" manuscripts the NASB, NIV, RSV etc. are based on, here is an article I put together showing some of what they really say.

    The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-

    Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

    Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

    Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

    On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

    The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

    SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

    VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

    In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

    Matthew 6:13 What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and the NIV omits them while the NASB puts them in brackets.

    Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

    However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense.

    Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This reading of both Aleph and B has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.

    This reading also has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

    It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".

    Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.

    Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

    Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

    In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

    Mark 6:22 "And when the daughter of Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod..." both Aleph and B read, "And when HIS daugher Herodias came in and danced", thus making Herodias the daughter of Herod.

    Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea.

    Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face." Here, B reads 72 sent and so does the NIV, but Aleph reads 70, and so does the NASB.

    John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Sinaiticus joins the KJB reading with, "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so does the NIV, but B says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so does the NASB, thus making our Lord a liar.

    Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

    John 17:15 "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

    I Corinthians 13:3 Instead of reading, "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing", both Aleph and B read: "and though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST".

    I Corinthians 13:5 ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

    I Corinthians 15:51 "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

    1 Corinthians 15:54-55 "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

    1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children". "But we were BABIES among you." according to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    II Peter 3:10 . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND".

    Revelation The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

    Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

    Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

    Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

    Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

    Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

    These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

    "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

    "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

    Will Kinney

    [ October 22, 2002, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  16. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it is commen sense to assign the term "marjority text" to whatever reading has a "majority" of manuscripts behind it. Since the TR (which of the more then nine additions by the way?) differes from the "majoirty" text in more then 1800 places, you must simply accept that some textual critisism has taken place to construct it. It may be the most accurate text, indeed it may be word for word THE text (though please pick an addition because they are all different) yet it is NOT the "majority" of readings.
     
  17. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will J. Kinney,

    I am a Geneva Bible Believer. You King James Version is a modern perverstion that added to and subtracted to the perfect Word of God perserved by God himself. God didn't wait until 1611 to preserve it but already had in its perfect form in the Geneva Bible. The King James Bible was made by [snip], the Pope, abortion doctors, and your Anglecan ([snip], not baptist) Bible Correcting "Scholars". I can show you where you KJV is wrong simply by comparing it verse to verse to my straight stick perfect preserved Geneva Word of God. God is not a liar and he didn't create two Bibles. He made the Geneva Bible and what is good enough for Him is good enough for me!

    [ October 21, 2002, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well ... yes and no. I do care what it reads. I care whether its reading are of sufficient weight and character to be considered accurate. My point was not about whether the minority reading was right or wrong. My point was about the consistency of the KJVOnlyists in arguing that the KJV is the Majority Text when it clearly is not. There are over 1800 places where it differs. I don't particularly care, I don't correct God's word, and I am very familiar with what you have said in your post. Having considered the evidence, I disagree with you.

    The verses you list are what are known as textual variants. Your KJV came from someone either chose to accept or reject these textual variants. God did not inspire that editor to choose them. He chose them because he felt they were most likely to be accurate. You have not placed your faith in God on this matter; you have placed it in men. It is simply that you believe different men and methods than I do.

    However, the point still stands that the KJV differs from the Majority text about 9 times per page. That is significant no matter which way you cut it.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    I would reiterate that the TR is a representative of the Majority text type. It differs from the other representatives in numerous places. It was compiled from less than a dozen manuscripts in great haste and suffers from that fact. It is a faithful text but needs to be changed to reflect more of the Majority text type.
     
  20. Zebedee

    Zebedee
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    What, you couldn't find a port-a-potty, so you had to unload that here?
     

Share This Page

Loading...