The KJV is a variety of the TR?

Good points

The KJVOs like Edward Hills for ONE REASON: he is an actual textual critic, and he shares their views for the most part. He admitted in "Believing Bible Study" to three errors in the KJV, but this is generally not even discussed by the modern KJVO movement.

Fact is that the KJV was an ECLECTIC text based on prior TRs. Scrivener notes that the KJV translators made different choices because there were - are you ready for this - 252 variant readings within the TR itself!!

They chose Beza on some, Stephanus on some, Erasmus on some.

In short - they engaged in textual criticism and ecelecticism just like the KJVOs accuse modern translations of doing.

Now that said - I concur with your original point. This is little more than a scholarly way of being 'KJVO' without the idiocy attached to the label.

Keep in mind, however, that there are really only two well-known TR advocates, Hills and his late disciple, Theodore Letis. Yet the latter is NOT BY A LONG SHOT a KJVO. For example, Letis admits that the last 12 verses of Mark are secondary but holds them to be canonical. He also denies the authenticity of I John 5:7, so he would qualify as a TR guy.

Hills is a TR guy but he still opts for virtually every reading in the KJV. And keep in mind - he does not do this because of his training in TC but because of his theological a priori.

 

Maestroh, it appears that the AV men used all the materials they had available to them, including existing translations and about every TR edition they could get their hands upon, although they followed Archbishop Bancroft's instructions to stick to the Bishop's Bible closely as possible. the KJVOs just don't wanna admit the AV translators used an eclectic mix of translations, TR editions, & manuscripts to make the KJV.

 

"Inquiring minds have to know":laugh:

 

Thus a specific variety of the "TR" was used to give us the word of God.

 

Variety, yes.

Specific, no.

 

So where was the Word of God BEFORE This?

"Out there" somewhere? "Among" the manuscripts?

It seems to me that such a view hardly differentiates that of those who claim the KJV is the preserved text from those who do not hold to any form of preservation.

 

In an article entitled "What is that Book You Hold in Your Hand" that written by Shelton Smith, editor of The Sword of the Lord, and that is posted at the swordofthelord.com web site, he makes a claim that is similar to the misleading or inaccurate claim made by Hills.

Shelton Smith wrote: "Now, God has preserved His inspired Word for us. It is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Textus Receptus text. It is also preserved for us in English in the King James Bible.

What He at first inspired, the Lord God has now preserved. Therefore, when I hold the King James Bible in my hand, I hold the inspired text."
[bold added by this poster]