New book for me

And you wouldn't make him guilty by association either, now would you?:laugh:

Appling it to anything is a gross mistake, it can only fit what it's intended subject is directed at, not anything one can invent for it to apply to as well.

I would have to say, and not speaking for anyone else, that your statements warrant only the remarks be somewhat dishonest according to the content of said remarks as being dishonest.:thumbs:

 

The printers that included it were often the official printers of the KJV such as the King's printer, Cambridge, and Oxford.

It had also been the choice of the KJV translators that it be included. One of the KJV translators even issued an order to prevent the binding and selling of Bibles without the Apocrypha included.

 

The fact that this book depends on and repeats several inaccurate KJV-only claims and arguments would be clear to anyone that has examined the overall evidence carefully. Actual statements from the book have been quoted that reveals some of these inaccurate claims and arguments. Making inconsistent and inaccurate claims does not defend the KJV.

I do not disagree with nor object to a consistent defence of the traditional original language texts and good translations based on those texts including the Geneva Bible, KJV, 1842 revision by Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ2000.

 

Good job. I agree. You are a voice of reason.

 

The statement above is factually incorrect. That incorrect claim or one similar to it is made by several KJV-only authors. The KJV is not the only English Bible whose text is free of modern day copyright restrictions in most of the world.

The pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible, several English Bibles made in the 1800's such as the 1833 Webster's revision of the KJV, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1866 American Bible Union Version, and even some translations in the early 1900's such as the 1901 ASV along with recent translations such as the World English Bible are in the public domain and are thus free of copyright restrictions in most of the world.

 

Isn't it therefore a possibility that the author is not as knowledgeable on some other matters which he addressed?

 

I had quoted from D.A. Carson's book earlier on one of these threads. It's called The King James Version Debate : A Plea For Realism.It was published by Baker Book House in 1979.

Well, here I go again.

The textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts.In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness.(p.36)

To keep a correct perspective it is important to note that the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses,while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence.(p.37)

There are many volumes of writings by the ante-Nicene fathers,and not one of them unambiguously reflects the Byzantine textual tradition: and it is essential that such data be accounted for. (p.45)

...within the Byzantine tradition, the latter witnesses are inclined to change things in favor of giving more titles to Christ, not fewer;in favor of using more liturgical phrases and explanatory asides,not fewer. (p.62)

... before arguing that an individual manuscript or text-type is at some particular reference interested in denying a specific doctrine, it would be necessary to show that the manuscript or text-type in question consistently tries to suppress or deny that doctrine. (p.63)

 

Yes, Ouellette does make these other statements about copyright. These statements would in effect seem to contradict his own claim that it is a false statement to say "the King James Bible is copyrighted" (p. 149).

 

Textus Receptus are the Latin words now used in English that mean "Received Text." The two terms are used as having the same meaning so that it would seem only to add confusion to attempt to try to make one of them mean something different. It would seem to be incorrect to try to make a difference between two terms that actually mean the same thing.

While the KJV was not based exclusively on any one printed edition of the Textus Receptus, it is more accurate to say that it was based on the Textus Receptus than to claim that it was based on the Byzantine Greek text. While there was more than one edition of the Textus Receptus available to the KJV translators, it is possible that they actually relied on one certain edition. The possible reason that the KJV does not seem to follow any one edition may be because the KJV is more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than a new translation and that the KJV translators may have preferred to keep certain renderings from one of those pre-1611 English Bibles that was made from a different printed edition even when it varied from that one TR edition that they generally followed.

The way that you present Ouellette distinguishing between the two terms indicates that he is presenting his claimed distinction incorrectly. The KJV is based on the formally printed Textus Receptus editions, and it would be somewhat incorrect to say that the KJV was based solely on the Byzantine Greek text. He would seem to have his attempted distinction between the two terms that actually mean the same thing backwards. While the Byzantine Greek text may support the Textus Receptus for the most part, the printed editions of the Textus Receptus include some readings from the Latin Vulgate that are not supported by the majority of the Byzantine Greek manuscript evidence. There are printed editions of the traditional Byzantine Greek Text now available that likely more accurately present that text than the Textus Receptus editions did, but the KJV does not follow them and was not based on them. One example would be the Byzantine Textform text edited by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont, which has been translated into English in the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible by Gary Zeolla.

Ouellette's statement is also incorrect because of his claim that the KJV is "the only English Bible" that solely comes from that text. There are other English Bibles that are as much based on that text as the KJV such as the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, and a few present-day English translations.

According to the way Ouellette attempts to make a difference between the terms Textus Receptus and Received Text, his statements may not contradict in his thinking. In my opinion, the two statements are not accurate.

 

Ouellette indicated that "95-99% of all manuscripts favored the Received Text" (More Sure Word, p. 91).

Ouellette wrote: "The Received Text is based on 5,210 out of 5,255 manuscripts according to Waite" (p. 94).

Does this claim made by Waite and repeated by Ouellette present an accurate picture of the known evidence?

D. A. Waite wrote: "The TR is not a 'subset" of anything. It is based upon over 5,210 manuscripts of those in our possession as of 1967" (FUNDAMENTALIST DECEPTION ON BIBLE PRESERVATION, p. 87).

Waite wrote: "Does he know that Von Sodden had only 414 Greek manuscripts (and that was all that were used) as the basis of the Majority Text of Hodges and Farsted? 414 is not a majority of anything compared to the over 5, 255 manuscripts that we have as of 1967. The Textus Receptus is not a subset of anything" (p. 87).

Were the printed editions of the Textus Receptus in the 1500's and 1600's that had some differences "based upon over 5,210 manuscripts" as Waite implied?

The first two editions [1546 and 1549] of Stephanus' Greek New Testament were a compound of the earlier editions by Erasmus and the earlier Complutensian Polyglot. KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance also noted: "The third edition in 1550 had the distinction of being the first Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus and was the standard text in England until the time of the Revised Version" (Brief History of the English Bible Translations, p. 12). Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). The Cambridge History of the Bible pointed out that "Erasmus's Greek text was to remain the principal source" for that standard 1550 text of Stephanus (Vol. 2, p. 449). Tregelles affirmed that in Stephanus' 1550 folio edition "Erasmus was almost exclusively followed" (Account of the Printed Text, p. 30). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener noted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Are KJV-only advocates trusting 100% the collations of an eighteen year old? Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of all his collations? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31).

The editions of Theodore Beza (1519-1605), the friend and successor of John Calvin at Geneva, were based on those of Stephanus with only a few differences. Laurence Vance acknowledged that Beza's text "differs little from the work of Stephanus" (Brief History, p. 13). Floyd Jones claimed that Beza's fifth edition "reads almost the same as the last update of Erasmus" (Which Version, p. 44). Beza's Greek editions also included the Latin Vulgate and Beza's own Latin translation (Brief History, p. 13). Irena Backus stated: "Beza's 1582 version differed from Stephanus in about 40 places" (Reformed Roots of the English N. T., p. 2). Backus produced evidence that "suggests that Beza was largely dependent on the collations of the two Stephani for his MS variants" (p. 6). Scrivener affirmed that “Robert Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many of whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza from the collator’s own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective” (Introduction, II, p. 191). KJV defender Edward F. Hills noted: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208).

Were the printed editions of the Textus Receptus in the 1500's and 1600's based on more than one hundred actual Greek manuscripts [or perhaps less than twenty] that were completely collated and accurately tabulated as to their readings at every verse and that can be named and identified?

How can Waite accurately suggest that the twenty or so Greek manuscripts upon which the Greek text editions of Stephanus and Beza were based are a larger group of the 5,210 than the 414 examined Greek manuscripts are?

 

I know this horse has been beat to death here. I am Assuming by incorrect thingie is, God preserving His word.

If this is the case that would violate the law of hermeneutics which is context. The determined meaning of a passage comes from the context. The context of Psalm 12 is "Words", Mans words Vs God's Words

Ehud

 

God can and does preserve His word without taking it out of context.

 

Ouellette indicated that "95-99% of all manuscripts favored the Received Text" (More Sure Word, p. 91).

Ouellette wrote: "The Received Text is based on 5,210 out of 5,255 manuscripts according to Waite" (p. 94).


At times, D. A. Waite has made other statements that seem to conflict with his own claim that Ouellette quoted.

Waite also wrote: ““There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’” I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer, p. 118). Waite asserted that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). According to his own statements just cited, how can Waite also accurately claim that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text” [a text type] known as the Traditional Text that is represented by 5,210 “orphan” Greek manuscripts that cannot be classified as belonging to one another?