This post is intended as a response, not to my detractors, but mainly for those that still believe in the Authorized KJV Bible is the True Word of God. I recognize that many of the Doves prefer and use the KJV Bible, intuitively, or from their own personal reasons. This is to affirm your belief and trust in the four-hundred-year old KJV Bible and the substance of this post presents additional evidence from the more traditional approach of chronology. It would be interesting to poll the Doves as to how many use or prefer the KJV Bible.
My series on God's "Heptadic" Design Feature was from the approach of scientific analysis, that being pure mathematics and statistical probability. The existence of God's "Heptadic" Design Feature is the "Piece de resistance" as the French would say. Essentially, this means there is no argument and that the highpoint of the argument has been settle once and for all. Q.E.D.
The point of my post here is that the manuscripts used to translate the KJV Bible were God's pure Word, and marked with His "watermark" signature, the mathematical "DNA" that authenticates it is of God! The Hebrew Masoretic Text was the basis of the Old Testament, and the Textus Receptus was the basis of the New Testament. They, and only they, bear witness to God, and authenticate the validity of our KJV Bible. As I have previously noted, no other existing translations, Apocryhpal, or Pseudepigraphal writings bear witness of being the product of the Creator.
Despite all the efforts of the Jesuits Counter-Reformation, the Vatican, and Roman Catholic sympathizers, within the daughter churches of Rome, the enemies of the KJV Bible have not been able to bury the True Word of God, as preserved in the Authorized KJV Bible. While I am not as sharp as I was when I was much younger, I'm close to 79 in age, I have control over all my faculties, and have a pretty good memory. Sometimes I surprise even myself by what I still can and do recall. Make no mistake about it, there is an intentional effort to dethrone the KJV Bible by many as I have duly noted; however, their slanderous attacks and malice, by so many writers, since the late 1800's, the Truth still has its benefactors. The Truth of the KJV Bible has not been buried and I want to share the definitive proof that supports the veracity and trustworthiness of the KJV Bible.
Please note carefully in what follows here in what I am stating. It is absolutely essential to grasp the information that follows.
The main reason why the Westcott & Hort text is accepted today as the correct Greek text is because it is derived from two sets of Vatican manuscripts (A & B) that date from 325 AD. In contrast, the Textus Receptus, which was accepted as the correct text until 1880, can only be dated to manuscripts dating from about 375 AD. Their argument is the Codex (A & B) are much older and therefore more accurate. This is a ruse.
However, this should not be a total surprise, since the Textus Receptus has been used throughout the ages and the manuscripts wear out, while the Westcott & Hort text was stored in the Vatican since its reproduction. The only way to really date the texts is to find parts of the Textus Receptus being quoted from by the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers (before 325 AD) that does not appear in the Westcott & Hort text.
This is still possible since there exists 3 major passages of verses that appear in the Textus Receptus that ARE NOT found in the Westcott & Hort text. They are Mark 16:19-20, Luke 7:53-8:11, and 1st John 5:7. At the end I will identify the documents that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Westcott & Hort ARE NOT THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS IN EXISTENCE.
++ 1st John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Cyprian a bishop from Carthage, who died in 258 AD quotes this verse in his writings so it proves the Textus Receptus was being used at least 75 years before the Codex A and B from the Westcott & Hort text.
++ Mark 16:9: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
Tertullian (160-225 AD) was a predecessor of Cyprian and he writes about the "seven" demons cast out of Mary, and Mark 16:9 is the only verse that even mentions it and that doesn't appear in the Westcott & Hort text. This reference is at least 100 years before the Codex A & B of Westcott & Hort.
++ Mark 16:19: "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."
Irenaeus (130-202 AD) quotes Mark 16:19 in his writings in the second century AD. That is more than 150 years before the Codex A & B of the Westcott & Hort text.
What these three quotes show and prove is that the Textus Receptus was in use long before the oldest manuscripts of the Westcott & Hort. The Textus Receptus is between 75 and 150 years older than the Codex A & B used by Westcott to come up with their "blended" New Greek Text.
The underscored references above to "the only way to really date the Texts is to find parts of the Textus Receptus being quoted by the Ante-Nicene Fathers", can be verified to be 100% true. "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" is a 10-volume reference work by Hendrickson Publishers, titled 'The Early Church Fathers'. It is the first section of the much larger 38-volume reference set published in 1994. Its editors are the well known church historian Philip Schaff and Alexander Roberts.
Every theological school in America has at least one set of this massive historical record in their library. The 38-volumes contains over 19,000 pages of sermons, writings, position papers of all the Early Church Fathers.
Several years ago I donated the set I purchased when I was doing a Master's program on Christian Apologetics.
Despite no longer having the bound set, I do have it on my computer, in two different Bible software packages.
When I was attacked on my position concerning the KJV Bible, I opted not to get bogged down in the "Textual Criticism" debate for a few reasons. My chief reason was not to be diverted and dragged into a futile attempt to debate "Textual Criticism" issues, because it was over the complexity and breadth of the issue. I seriously doubted that most of the Doves would not be interested in a debate that becomes tedious, even boring, and even irrelevant to most believers. It remains a larger issue for theologians who have devoted their entire academic career to this one issue. Yet to ignore the challenge would make it appear I did not know what I was talking about. I waited until I could re-frame the larger issue at that is at stake, and that is the purpose of this post, and likely my last.
The fact of the matter is, liberal theologians, seminary professors, and Roman Catholic leaders, hate the KJV Bible. All of these folks have been almost, but not quite, totally successful in their attacks on the KJV Bible, and the manuscripts used by the KJV translators. I'm from a leftover remnant of a generation of preachers who have not abandoned the True Word of God.
Westcott & Hort were heretics of the worst kind. They were Anglican, Church of England theologians, one a bishop and one a professor. They were sympathetic with the Church of Rome, opposed to the Reformation, and were known to have collaborated with Jesuit theologians. They were Satanists and neither of them accepted the basic tenants of the Christian orthodox beliefs. Fortunately, serious Bible scholars still have the benefit of the Internet, where you can learn all about these two monsters. Rome even went so far to reward Westcott with the 'red hat' of being made a Roman Catholic Cardinal.
The Westcott & Hort "New" Critical Greek Text, then became adopted by the Church of England, and within a decade, the Revised Standard Bible was released about 1901 or 1902. Every existing translation published since 1902 have been based upon a corrupted Greek text. I'm in the process of writing a book, on a different topic, and in going through my files I came across something that I had forgot that I have - a 3-ring binder dealing with specific issues of Westcott & Hort. I have a huge library of files, as many as two-hundred+ 3-ring binders with material in plastic sleeve protector sheets. Some times I forget what all I have because of the vast topic and material resources compiled over fifty years of ministry. In researching my library files for a book I am writing, I began weeks ago to do a complete check of all my Rubber-Maid containers in which I keep my files. In my Westcott & Hort binder, I have a 40+ page section identifying the "changes" and "deletions" made by Westcott & Hort. Westcott & Hort, for example, in Isaiah 14:12, changed the name "Lucifer" to "Morning Star". The Lord Jesus Christ is the "Morning Star" based upon Revelation 22:16. Interestingly so, only the NIV chose to use Westcott & Hort's change, while other modern translations chose to stay with "Lucifer". Westcott & Hort changed no fewer than 337 verses of the Bible, making changes and deletions from what is in the KJV Bible and the combined Masoretic (Hebrew) and Textus Receptus (Greek Byzantine) manuscripts.
Above I noted but just three examples of where the ancient Ante-Nicene Early Church Fathers are on record of quoting from the Textus Receptus, which ARE NOT in the Westcott & Hort Greek text. There are others, and may even be more than I am actually am aware of, but even these three are confirmation to the effect that the manuscripts used to translate the KJV Bible are OLDER than those used by Westcott & Hort. They are older by as much as 150 years, older than the Codex A & B used by Westcott & Hort.
The Roman Catholic Church has kept these (Codex A & B) under lock and key in the bowels of the Vatican's library, and unavailable to historians, theologians, and scholars for centuries. With this I rest my case and ask you, can I get a witness or should I rest my case with the early church fathers - Cyprian, Tertullian, and Irenaeus as my witnesses?
Blessings to all,