The source of a text in its original language (or as close to it as one can get), is of the utmost importance when establishing theological doctrine. Slight variations of words, transliterations instead of translations, or dictated mistakes, play huge roles in the different translations of scripture that we have available to us today. And every version of scripture is JUST THAT – a hand-copied translation. The original documents have all went with the blowing wind of history. Thankfully, and, of course, providentially, copies remained, from which all of our current translations have derived. The preservation of ancient texts have been, to say the very least, miraculous. I’d like to veer slightly from simply regurgitating information from …show more content…
(7) An argument that appeals to 4th century writing practices to deny even the possibility that the Byzantine text is a conflation is fallacious. (8) Textual arguments that depend on adopting the Textus Receptus and comparing other text-types with it are guilty of assuming what they’re trying to prove, methodologically speaking, and presenting less than the whole truth. (9) Charges that non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is blanketly false. Moreover, alleging a conclusion with an authority doesn’t make the conclusion true. (10) Regarding the KJV, the KJV was not accepted without a struggle, and some outstanding believers soon wanted to replace it. (11) The Byzantine text-type is not the precise equivalent of the Textus Receptus. (12) Any argument that ties the adoption of Textus Receptus to verbal inspiration is logically and theologically false. There are no two manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition that agree perfectly. And the Textus Receptus has some major problems to overcome, including verses in Revelation translation from Latin back into Greek with NO Greek manuscript evidence, among others. (13) Arguments that attempt to draw textual conclusions from a prejudicial selection of not immediately relevant data, or from a slanted use of terms, or by slurring appeal to guilt by association, or by repeated appeal to false evidence, are not only misleading, but ought to be categorically rejected by Christians who, above all others, profess both to love truth and to love their brothers in Christ. (14) Adoption of Textus Receptus SHOULD NOT be made criterion of