The Bible war.

Is your question referring to the places where Erasmus or Beza are claimed to have introduced conjectures into their Greek text editions?

Edward F. Hills surprisingly acknowledged: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208).

Jan Krans claimed: “There is a remarkable paradox in Beza’s editions: though he professes time and again not to change the text lightly out of mere conjecture, he offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures” (Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 247). Krans maintained that Beza’s emendations “had not been based on a sound and consistent text-criticial method” (p. 198).

William McKane asserted: “Fulke’s defence of Beza’s arbitrariness in the cases of which Martin complains shakes one’s confidence in his judgment as a textual critic. There is no question of producing textual evidence to support Beza’s conjectures. These guesses were made by Beza in the hope that manuscript evidence would support them at some future date” (Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 92).

 

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation referred to “the conjectural reading of Beza’s last three editions” at Revelation 16:5 (Vol. IV, p. 463). James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). James White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237). William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be” at this verse. Was the KJV a revision of earlier Bibles that put in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ according to a consistent application of Waite‘s claim?

Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”

 

Please, gentlemen:

Romans 12:1-21, especially Romans 12:9-21.

 

Advocating the use of consistent just measures/standards would be cleaving to that which is good (Rom. 12:9), and opposing the use of inconsistent, unjust measures/standards [double standards] evident in KJV-only allegations against the NKJV would be abhorring that which is wrong or evil.

The Scriptures teach that the use of unjust divers measures would be an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10).

 

I would consider myself a traditional Received Text kind of guy.

 

That is not completely true. There is the same difference between editions of the Textus Receptus. There is not one TR text that is the same in all the twenty to thirty TR editions. Only the TR editions that have the conjecture introduced by Beza have the reading followed in the KJV. The earlier TR editions by Erasmus and Stephanus, also used in the making of the KJV, would have a different reading, the one followed in the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

 

Yes, that is what I meant!

 

See post # 67!