Who is ReceivedText and what is he all about?

I have been recently asked by many of you to explain who I am and where I am coming from. So here it is:I serve as bishop (1 Tim. 3:1) of Bible Believers Church in Seattle, Washington. This is a new church plant and my second church plant. My first one in America. My first was in the Cayman Islands. It is a growing church there called High Praise Tabernacle. My sister and brother in law succeeded me there.To know what I believe you can click here:Doctrinal StatementWhat we are all aboutI used to be licensed with the Assemblies of God. We still have a great name in that organization and a lot of friends. We left for minor issues like church government and such, but love the people and they love us. My dad is an AG minister as was my grandfather, so that makes me a PK. I am fifth generation preacher on one side and third generation on the other.I have a bachelor's degree in theology from Central Bible College. It is my goal to be a life-long learner. I read a LOT. I want to follow peace with all men. Jesus has called us to be peacemakers. Contending for the truth is likely to gain enemies, but this is not my goal. I fervently love the brotherhood. I believe that we all need to have the ability to separate our contention against false doctrine and error and our attitude towards the brethren. We should not attack the character of God's people (the temple of the Holy Ghost), we should fight against error, ungodliness, and the like. This has been my goal in everything I have posted here. Please forgive me if I have not accomplished this. God's precious word, the Bible, is my sole authority for faith and conduct. I believe that God has preserved His words for us to read and believe in every generation. (Ps. 12:6,7) I reject the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts created at the hands of such men as Origen and transmitted through such men as Jerome. There are only about 45 of these manuscripts and were rejected by the Reformers for good reason. I receive the over 5,200 Greek manuscripts and the thousands of vernacular manuscripts including the Old Latin associated with the Antioch stream. For more click here:Greek ManuscriptsI believe the KJV is the best representation of this textual evidence in the English language. I reject the NKJV because it omits words like God, blood, Son, devil, hell, Jehovah at variance with the KJV and that manuscript stream. So far I have seen nothing wrong with the KJV-ER (easy reading) version used by Ray Comfort and the Sword Bible. This is a simple removal of archaic language and does not incorporate the corrupt text as the others do (NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc.). And yes the KJV had predecessors in the early forms of English, Anglo Saxon, and Gothic. (See "In Awe of Thy Word" by Gail Riplinger)The reason this is important to me is because the Bible is the basis for EVERYTHING we believe. If we don't have a Bible, we must go on "hear-say" or trust our failing senses to hear from God. It is in the plan of God to give us written scriptures and has done so since the beginning of the world.I have so many other issues that I will love discussing with you all. I usually begin with this one, though, because it tells me where people are. If you have two different people discussing an issue with two different foundational references, they will talk past each other and accomplish little. My desire is to be fruitful with my time as I am confident you all share this desire.My attitude is that if anyone can convince me that something that I believe is wrong using the full cousel of Scripture, I will change. And have many, many times. I don't have any problem admitting I am wrong. I am extremely thankful that the Holy Spirit is patient with me to guide me into all Truth! I know that He wants to use others to help me. This is why I am here. I also know that I will be used to help others. I just want to be a good Berean.So go ahead and check me out. This is who I am and I hope that you all will forgive me for rubbing anyone the wrong way. That is not my intention.God bless,RT

TR I am pretty new here to. It appears to me that in the last couple of weeks, this site has been under attack. Everyone is grumpy, and confrontational, and spoiling for a fight. I can only pray for the good work of this site to continue, because it does provide a wonderfull service to all those who want to learn and grow. May I say welcome, hope to see you prosper here to. Greg ;-)

Hey thanks, Greg. Great to meet you. I look forward to continued fellowship.

RTI too am convinced that the Byzantine Textform is a more authentic witness to the original documents, but it is important to realise that the KJV is not based on the Byzantine Textform but on a tiny sub-section of that family of manuscripts. The study and attempted reconstruction of the original autographs (the actual 'letter to the Romans' etc) is a long and laborious task. You write as if the Received Text and the Byzantine textform were the same things; of course they are not. You also make statements for which there is no historical evidence. eg I reject the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts created at the hands of such men as Origen and transmitted through such men as Jerome. Although there is evidence that Origen had copies of the scripture transcribed there is no evidence to sugggest that he 'created' this family of texts. If were are to understand the complicated history of transmission of the text we cannot afford this kind of historical myth.I suggest you read some authoratitive histories of the life of Tyndale (David Daniel) and the King James translators so that you can see how things developed historically. A hagiography of the KJ translators has arisen, but they were by no means the spotless souls that they are sometimes portrayed as. In part, The KJV was a political document written at a particular time of English history. Its aims and methodology are easily discoverable by any who really want to know. There are many assumptions made by KJV-ers (and the amusing thing is that this is what most people know me as). The process of 'textual criticism' did not begin with Westcott and Hort; Erasmus was a 'textual critic' too. His 'eclectic' text was the main document used by Luther and Tyndale as the basis for their translations. Erasmus had very few actual manuscripts from which to created his 'text'; he had a single copy of Revelation that had holes in it! On occasion where there was no textual evidence he invented it rather than run foul of the Catholic authorities. The famous 1 John 5 passage is one example where he translated Jerome's Vulgate into Greek rather than risk the wrath of the religious authorities. The point of the last paragraph is that we now have a better form of the Byzantine textform than was available to the translators of the KJV. Original sources are, of course, only one part of the tranlsation equation, but an important one for all that. The idea that the KJV was the perfect finished product is based on ignorance of the fact that it was itself part of a process. It is a snap-shot of the process as at '1611' Tyndale's brilliant translation was also a 'work in progress' and Daniel's book above will trace his thinking during that process. I love this comment by Tyndale "If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended." This is the man who provided 'verbatum' 83% of our KJV. Incidentally, Tyndale's version is less of a literal equivalence translation than is the KJV, so in some ways the KJV is more 'accurate' in its word for word translation. However the KJV was heavily influenced by the political considerations of the day in which King James himself insisted that Tyndale's 'congregation, love and acknowledge' were replaced with the KJV's 'church, charity and confess'.The issue is not really complicated but there are many aspects to it which, in the cause of 'getting back to the original' need to be considered. It only becomes complicated when we produce 'sound-bites' rather than reasoned statement.

philologos,First of all, thanks for the post. I really appreciate you engaging me here on this material. I really appreciate your perspective.I will admit that I have posted using some pretty large generalities. Most don't know as much about this as you and I obviously do. I am well aware of what you have posted. Please forgive me if in my generalities I have written in error. Usually if I go into all of the specifics, people get bored to death, so I try to summarize for the benefit of the curious. It is easier for someone reading a short post to understand two main streams, than sub-streams and the different percentages of agreements between all of the papyri related to those streams. We have to begin somewhere. I really think you would enjoy "Crowned with Glory" by Dr. Holland. I posted it under the book review column. It is a great introduction and I think you will agree.You write as if the Received Text and the Byzantine textform were the same things; of course they are not.Technically you have a point, but many scholars have different standards of classification and different criteria for their text family. The RT, Byz, Majority, etc. are all different classifications of the same family of viable manuscripts. Call it what you may. Pick a term. So many people disagree on what to call it and what to include. I have chosen to call it the Received Text, but have not limited this to what Erasmus had. How could I? We both know what he had. (I probably think he had more than you do, but I don't know where you are on this) But we can both agree that he didn't have near what we know exists of this today. We do know that he did not only refer to the Greek, but to the Old Latin as well. I apologize for not specifying my criteria for my term. I didn't know if anyone would fully appreciate it here. I'm glad you do. Here is an exerpt of Dr. Holland's book:Biblical preservation does not demand the rejection of textual criticism. It is just as essential for the student of biblical preservation to be aware of the textual evidence as it is for any student of textual criticism. The biblical preservationist, however, first approaches the subject theologically and then considers the existing textual evidence, usually in light of the promise of preservation.Because there are variants within all the existing manuscripts, the science of textual criticism is conjectural. Different scholars examining the same manuscripts will produce differing Greek texts. This is why there are now three basic Greek texts of the New Testament in circulation: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus.The Critical Text is the basis for the majority of modern Bible translations today. It is currently reflected in the Greek New Testaments of the UBS-4 (United Bible Societies fourth edition) and the NA-27 (Nestle-Aland twenty-seventh edition). These two texts are now identical in regard to their Greek text, but differ in regard to their critical apparatus (the footnotes discussing the different textual variants). Generally, the Critical Text reflects a textual line called Alexandrian, a name that is explained later in this chapter.The Majority Text is a work in progress. As the name suggests, it catalogs the majority of the existing Greek manuscripts and reflects a consensus of these manuscripts. However, it does not use all of the existing manuscripts; instead, it uses only a portion of those manuscripts that would reflect what is considered the majority. [There are currently two editions of the Majority Text: The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Nelson, 1985) by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, and The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform (Original Word Publishers, 1991) by Maurice A. Robinson, William G. Pierpont, and William David McBrayer.]The Textus Receptus was the standard Greek text for centuries. It was used by Protestant translators during the Reformation, and is responsible for the Authorized Version and its English forerunners. [The Textus Receptus used by the translators of the King James Version was that of Theodore de Beza (1589 and 1598). The basic text of this edition has been reproduced by The Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) and is entitled, The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611. This was based on the work by F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version (Cambridge University Press, 1894 and 1902).] The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are very similar (except in the book of Revelation) because both reflect the majority of existing Greek manuscripts.The Byzantine Text. The name is derived from the Byzantine Empire, as it is the type of text copied by Byzantine monks. There are more manuscripts of this text-type than of the other three combined. This line of manuscripts would reflect the Greek Textus Receptus that was used to produce the King James Version. It is also known as the Traditional Text or the Syrian Text.The Alexandrian Text. The name refers to Alexandria, Egypt where scribes prepared most of these texts. Most contemporary versions are derived from this textual line. The three most important manuscripts that reflect this text-type are Alexandrinus [Codex Alexandrinus is of the Alexandrian textual line except in the four Gospels. There it reflects the Byzantine textual line.] (also known as Codex A, fifth century), Sinaiticus (also known as Codex Alpha, fourth century), and Vaticanus (also known as Codex B, fourth century). [Most scholars today only recognize two text-types: The Alexandrian and the Byzantine.]The Western Text. Some scholars debate whether this is a real text-type or not. Most believe it is, while others deny its existence as a text-type because of the vast diversity within its representative manuscripts. [Frederic Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1912), 356. E. C. Colwell, "The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: its Nature and Uses," in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 33.] This line has several sub-groups of manuscripts or families within it. The text is longer than the Alexandrian, sometimes given to paraphrases, and is closer to the Byzantine Text. Some have considered this the oldest textual line. [Bruce Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 213-214.] Codex Bezae (also known as Codex D05) in the Gospels and Acts and Codex Claromontanus (also known as Codex D06) in the Epistles reflect the Western Text. The majority of the Old Latin manuscripts are usually classified as Western.The Caesarean Text. This text-type seems to be a mixture of the Western and Alexandrian line of manuscripts. It is represented in a few manuscripts (Q, 22, 28, 565, 700, family 1, and family 13). [A "family" is a cluster of manuscripts that reflect the same characteristics and therefore are grouped together.] Some believe it was derived in Egypt by Origen and brought to Caesarea. Because it is a mixture, some question if this should be classified as a separate text-type. [At the beginning of the twentieth century, Kirsopp Lake expounded the possible existence of the Caesarean textual line. Others, such as B. H. Streeter, suggested that this was a new text-type. However, the textual line lacks pure representatives, most demonstrating a significant mixture with the Byzantine text. Larry W. Hurtado has argued against the Caesarean text, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark (Studies and Documents 43, Eerdmans, 1981).]You wrote:Although there is evidence that Origen had copies of the scripture transcribed there is no evidence to sugggest that he 'created' this family of texts. If were are to understand the complicated history of transmission of the text we cannot afford this kind of historical myth.Go look at your quote of me. I didn't say he alone created it. I said, "created at the hands of such men as Origen." Key words, "such men as" Origen. If we cannot lay this charge at the foot of Origen and other like-minded scholars of Alexandria, there is no where we may lay this charge. Do you deny that he was a central figure?As for the Johannine comma (1 Jn. 5:7), the Greek grammar does not allow for an omition. Erasmus knew this. He had the evidence of the Old Latin to confirm it. This is the man who provided 'verbatum' 83% of our KJV. Incidentally, Tyndale's version is less of a literal equivalence translation than is the KJV, so in some ways the KJV is more 'accurate' in its word for word translation.I am well aware of this and I thank God for Tyndale. I am also well aware that much of the translational difference had to do with synonym word choice and the shaping of the text to allow for poetic flow. Tyndale was friends with Luther who was less literal than the KJV as well. But we couldn't say they were dynamic equivalent. They actually produced real literal translations. They were translating for to the common man and had this in their hearts. Praise God for that.However the KJV was heavily influenced by the political considerations of the day in which King James himself insisted that Tyndale's 'congregation, love and acknowledge' were replaced with the KJV's 'church, charity and confess'.In any kingdom there are political considerations. But remember that the KJV, while dedicated to the monarch, was not royally funded. None of the translators were paid for their work. They translated more out of permission than commission. They had three committees composed of both Anglicans and Puritans. Any man could send a suggestion. And many learned men did. Yes, the king provided guidelines, but good ones. James I was groomed to be a scholar. Remember, though his mother was a fiery Catholic, she died early in his life. He was groomed by John Knox Scotch Presbyterians. He even knew Knox as a young boy. The king was a godly man who was highly trained as a scholar. He placed wonderful guidelines that would guide the translation. Pretty good politics. Of course he was concerned with his position as head of the Anglican church, but another maybe more pressing concern was that he denied the Calvinistic elements of his Presbyterian upbringing. He discouraged Anglican ministers from preaching on predestination and the like.As per your "congregation, love and acknowledge", these are synonyms to "church, charity and confess." Though I agree that the word "church" has its roots in the goddess Circe, there are elements of all Gentile tongues that have pagan roots that have little to no replacement. No one who uses the word "church" today thinks "goddess." They think of Christianity and Scripture. I'm not saying that congregation wouldn't have been better. Wycliffe sure liked it better. I think they used church more because of the fact it has less sylables and fits meter much better. I don't think it was all the king's doing.Thanks for your referral of David Daniel. I thought you meant David Daniels of Chick Publications. (great guy)I want to encourage you to pick up Gail Riplinger's new book, "In Awe of Thy Word." It is over 1,000 pages thick. The second half of the book is a gold mine. She really does here work. She taught herself Gothic to write it. Anyone into this subject as much as you should consider getting a copy. She also has it on CD-ROM with the "Nuremburg Polyglot," the "Tome of the Paraphrases of Erasmus upon the New Testament", the 8-volume "Acts and Monuments" by John Foxe, and of course the KJV text. Great buy. This is availible from A.V. Publications.Great to discuss this with you. OK, let's hear your reply. (I love these conversations) :-D God bless you, brother!RT(BTW, great nickname)

RT,At the root of much discussion here on SI is the translations of the words mentioned by Ron. As per your "congregation, love and acknowledge", these are synonyms to "church, charity and confess." Not to split hairs here, but certainly the importance of understanding what a 'congregation' is in light of the context is quite important. There are many here at SI that are part of 'house churches' or are what are known as 'out-of-church' Christians and do not assemble in a 'church' building per se. They come together as a 'congregation' as part of the Church, but not in a local church building. I have long argued that we start our history way too late when discussing these issues. Messianic's dispise the word 'Church' all together and call themselves in most cases "******* - Messianic Congregation" or "******* Messianic Synagogue". They will tell you that the entire pattern of the early church assemblies is patterned after the ancient synagogue. My point in this is, you have a growing list of folk who are quite concerned with how the word ekklesia is translated. In the KJV (And I am also a preferred KJV) it is translated 115 times as 'church' and 3 times as assembly. Yet the word literally means "called out into an assembly." Given the conditions in 1611 I can see the pressure to translate the word as 'church' no matter how well other words may have fit the context. As a student of history yourself, a lot of heads rolled for a lot less. I am not so sure I share your feelings of King James either.The other word I would draw attention to is 'acknowledge' over against 'confess.' homologeo1 John 1:9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.Shall we confess our sins or shall we acknowledge our sins? God Bless,-Robert

Thanks gentleman.

I will admit that I have posted using some pretty large generalities. Most don't know as much about this as you and I obviously do.so what becomes of the rest of us who are not aware of these things? If even the most learned of men can't agree on what the perfect text we should be using is then what hope is there for the majority of believers who are laymen concerning the various texts and their origins and transmission etc?

IRONMAN,so what becomes of the rest of us who are not aware of these things? If even the most learned of men can't agree on what the perfect text we should be using is then what hope is there for the majority of believers who are laymen concerning the various texts and their origins and transmission etc?We DO agree on what perfect text we should be using. Some of us merely disagree on how to classify certain families of texts. But we can all agree on where the perfect text is and where the corrupt one is. (That is those that reject the Alexandrian stream) The Byzantine "text" is a work in progress even today. This doesn't mean that we don't have a perfect text to translate from. It just means that this classification of texts has not yet been agreed upon by those making an issue of it. Remember, God promised to preserve His words in every generation. (Ps. 12:6,7) God is NOT a liar. Hallelujah! Both philologos and I know where God's pure words are.Furthermore, the KJV translators didn't just use the Greek. They had numerous vernacular Bibles from languages all over the world. Bible translation had been so much spread abroad that there was no doubt as to WHAT was supposed to be in the Bible. But HOW it was to be translated.It wasn't until 1881 that Protestants (for lack of a better term) en masse began to challenge WHAT was supposed to be in the Bible. This cancerous mentality has remained until today. And you see the fruit of hundreds of Bible versions after 1881. Fear not, your KJV is pure.To philologos:Do you see now why I wanted to give the truth on a first grade level? You never start someone out in college. A foundation must first be built. We heartily welcome the details and research, but due to the apostate day in which we live, we cannot afford to imply that we are just as hard pressed as liberal theologians to find a Bible. We HAVE a pure Bible. You and I both know it. The foundation is sure, complete, and steadfast. Suffer little children to come unto Jesus. I know this is your heart. God bless you, brother. I really appreciate our dialogue. I hope it will continue. This is really fun.Blessings,TR

so what becomes of the rest of us who are not aware of these things? If even the most learned of men can't agree on what the perfect text we should be using is then what hope is there for the majority of believers who are laymen concerning the various texts and their origins and transmission etc?You may rely on your KJV, but don't be afraid to use another version for comparison in study. Sometimes we have to say something like the NASB is generally more accurate in its use of prepositions and verb tenses, but personally I could not give a blanket recommendation for the NASB; although the OT in the NASB is very good.Many godly men have preferred the old 1881 ASV (RV); Campbell Morgan, G H Lang, C T Studd, Lilias Trotter. Spurgeon said he feared that the inferior quality of the NT might be carried in on the back of the excellencies of the OT.In short, we all use 'experts' in daily life but we listen to their 'expertise' and then make our choice. The KJV was vigorously opposed in its day by many Christians who thought the Geneva Bible was better and who saw the KJV as a government/monarchy conspiracy. The difficulty is that both sides of the argument tend to be immoderate in their statements.

This doesn't mean that we don't have a perfect text to translate from. It just means that this classification of texts has not yet been agreed upon by those making an issue of it.How can the Byzantine textform be both a 'work in progress' and 'perfect' at the same time? Can it become more perfect? My conviction is that the Byzantine textform is the best witness to the scriptures as originally given; I could never call it perfect.

although the OT in the NASB is very good.How can you say this? The NASB OT uses for its base the Ben Asher Leningrad text. It rejects so many times the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text. Also the NASB translates certain passages in a very strange way. For example, you have Isaiah 14:12 "morning star" instead of "Lucifer." While kokab (star) appears in the next verse, it doesn't appear in v. 12. If morning star were the appropriate translation, there would be the same wording as "morning stars" in Job 38:7. I find it strange that the same title given to the Lord Jesus in the NT is ascibed to Lucifer in OT by the NASB.There are other problems with the NAS OT in my opinion. Just my firmly held opinion. ;-) Just because a "godly" man prefers something doesn't make it right. My grandfather preferred the Phillips translation. He was a godly man. But I guarantee that if my grandfather knew what I know about J.B. Phillips and his translation, he wouldn't have trusted it as far as he could throw it. Again, just my opinion. :-) The difficulty is that both sides of the argument tend to be immoderate in their statements.I think this is wisdom and healthy. I will take it under serious advisement. God bless you.RT

How can the Byzantine textform be both a 'work in progress' and 'perfect' at the same time?You must not be understanding me. My fault. I will try to communicate this a bit better.When I speak of the Byzantine text in the narrow sense, I am speaking of a group of manuscripts that includes some and excludes others and seeks to compile a uniform text. While we have a recent Byzantine text, there doesn't seem to be an agreement on a final product concerning what should be included and what should be excluded. Yet in what is excluded there remains certain manuscripts that are still considered Majority text rather than Minority text. The Byzantine text is an expression within the Majority text family. But it is not an all inclusive term, at least not in the narrow sense.On another note, I am not a Greek text only guy. Neither were the Reformation era translators (pick your country). The vernacular texts have an essential part in Bible translation. This way there is so many witnesses, it is much more difficult to get a defective product.RT

Hi RT,On another note, I am not a Greek text only guy. Neither were the Reformation era translators (pick your country). The vernacular texts have an essential part in Bible translation. This way there is so many witnesses, it is much more difficult to get a defective product.There are some who would argue that semetic versions are a translation of the Greek (for example), but the Messianics contend that the semetic versions predate the Greek ones and that we only think differently because the Church left it's Jewish roots and headed west deeper and deeper into Hellenism. Many contend Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and that Jesus spoke Hebrew- as He addressed Paul in Hebrew on the road to Demascus. It is as if He spoke to Paul in a language that he would recognize authoritatively- as (perhaps) Paul would have regarded the Hebrew over against Greek or Aramaic. Others have split the horns on the topic of Matthew and suggest there were both Greek and Hebrew versions of Matthew. There is also a ton of archeological evidence that Hebrew was spoken more than was previously believed. many things have changed since 1967 in terms of excavations and such. The discoveries have been remarkable and have shed much light on these issues. It has also silenced a lot of critics who are long in their graves from the 1800's. I would have not mentioned this at all, but there is a bizarre thing I see here from a Jewish Roots perspective; on the one hand there is a strong anti-Romanism- on the other there is a strong desire to maintain the 'Greekness' (for lack of a different word) or Hellenistic language as the foundation of the New Testament and yet that same Greek influence is what infiltrated the Church and made it to be the idolatrous mixture it would eventually become. The madness we see in Rome did not come from Jerusalem- a pure Gospel did.God Bless,-Robert

1 Corinthians 4:14-20"I don't write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, I became your father through the Good News. I beg you therefore, be imitators of me. Because of this I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every assembly. Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord is willing. And I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."

Hi Eli,And I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.I could not agree more. Discussing these things are OK once in a while and may serve the purposes of strengthening our faith in the Scriptures; but for those who have settled that the whole conversation can become a spiritual liability that drains the spiritual man. I recall an earlier post on our 'spiritual diet.' I could not handle a steady diet of this. God Bless,-Robert

We DO agree on what perfect text we should be using. Some of us merely disagree on how to classify certain families of texts. But we can all agree on where the perfect text is and where the corrupt one is. (That is those that reject the Alexandrian stream) The Byzantine "text" is a work in progress even today. This doesn't mean that we don't have a perfect text to translate from. It just means that this classification of texts has not yet been agreed upon by those making an issue of it. Remember, God promised to preserve His words in every generation. (Ps. 12:6,7) God is NOT a liar. Hallelujah! Both philologos and I know where God's pure words are.ok so if y'all agree on what the perfect text is then what does the classification of texts matter? :-? But isn't the preservation of God's word more a work of God in the spirit in that His spirit never changes therefore the word never changes? And when it says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God etc and then goes on to say that the word became flesh etc would suggest that the word of God is more than just a text. So where would I find God's pure words then? What text should I be using?

You may rely on your KJV, but don't be afraid to use another version for comparison in study. Sometimes we have to say something like the NASB is generally more accurate in its use of prepositions and verb tenses, but personally I could not give a blanket recommendation for the NASB; although the OT in the NASB is very good.well I don't have a kjv, I use an niv, coz I'd rather not translate the olde englishe into the new english. :-D

elithank you for that verse, we need to keep that in mind always.The bible is the standard by which to test doctrines only as the spirit of God interprets it for us and not by our own interpretation. the bible is of no consequence whether the translation of the words is on point lest it is plugged into the spirit of God from which it came. Therein is the power, it is that spirit we need to tap into each time we go into scripture of else we risk scripture becoming nothing more than empty words. Let us not become puffed up with mere words, let us become giants in power of the Holy spirit in all things.

Brother Robert wrote;"I could not handle a steady diet of this" ...Well as i've said before "mostly it makes my head hurt" :-? because i'm not on such a level, but i do empathize the need of association and dialogue with like leveled peers ... This i think was part of Jeremiah's great lonliness in that no one else seemed to "get" what he was saying ... So i no longer (because i once did) begrudge any scholars who like RT and brother Ron find such discussions/debates to be "fun", for if such knowledge is shared out of humbleness and not intellectual pride, then there's a place for such expertise according to 1 Cor. in Christ's Body, and we can all benefit from it as Holy Spirit leads ... Case in point the confirmation of what i'd already suspected, that my ole Ryrie KJV Study Bible was serving me well enough towards Holy Spirit's getting His Lamb lifting points across to me ... That $150. spent to have her re-bound was well spent ... So much thanks to RT and brother Ron for that confirmation ... ;-)