Greetings!

I've been spending a lot of time recently studying the reliability of the AV and the Textus Receptus, but I've been unable to come to a conclusion. I'd like to make it clear that I am a Bible believing Christian and I trust in God's infallible and inerrant Word, the question that is being repeated over and over again for me is "Is Biblical inerrancy confined to the original manuscripts?".

I've spent a tremendous amount of time the last two years debating Muslims, and I always encounter their main arguments being that the Bible is full of errors. It is extremely easy to prove them wrong, because none of the possible Biblical variances permit such an extensive overhaul as Islam requires. But when answering them, I have found it the simplest and most convincing to show rebuttal lists to their 'contradiction' lists where many of the 'contradictions' are explained as translational errors, and most of them recommend using modern Bible versions.

Now after reading an article where a NASV committee member switched allegiance to the AV (in conjunction with other articles), I've become relatively convinced that the Westcott & Hort text is unreliable.

But questions still abound for me, and I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out on this. Whilst I've seen strong evidence against the modern versions, I've not seen any thoroughly convincing evidence for the reliability of the TR and AV. Another issue is contradictions. Due to my constant confrontations with Muslims both IRL and online, I need an answer to contradictions badly, if I am to stick with the AV. Also, 1 John 5:7 would be extremely useful, and am almost convinced (could be partly due to my personal desire) that it is properly rendered in the AV. But why then did the 1545 Luther Bible leave it out, as Luther also based his translation on the TR?

Any answers are much appreciated.

In Christ,
Jacomus

I need an answer to contradictions badly, if I am to stick with the AV. Also, 1 John 5:7 would be extremely useful, and am almost convinced (could be partly due to my personal desire) that it is properly rendered in the AV.

There are other passages, without controversy, that prove the trinity. So, don't worry about using 1 John 5:7. You don't want to step into a textual debate with a Muslim. You will just get distracted. See John 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Titus 2.13

But why then did the 1545 Luther Bible leave it out, as Luther also based his translation on the TR?

Because not all TRs have this passage. Erasmus' first edition of the TR did not have the passage.

But questions still abound for me, and I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out on this. Whilst I've seen strong evidence against the modern versions, I've not seen any thoroughly convincing evidence for the reliability of the TR and AV.

The AV and TR are the Word of God as well as the NASB, NIV, ESV...
To say that the AV is the Only Word of God today is not supportable at many different levels.

Translations are just that, translations. Through copies and printings, errors creep into and out of all books. The KJV certainly has not been immune to errors. Most here will say that there were minor typographical errors. I am definitely in the minority. There are glaring errors.

I've not seen any thoroughly convincing evidence for the reliability of the TR and AV.

I would say that the TR and AV are reliable. They are simply not perfect.

Yes, I know there's an abundance of other verses to use for proving the Trinity, and I love to use them. But 1 John 5:7 would be the most obvious, even more so than Matthew 28:19-20.

I feel I should clarify and say that I've not seen any thoroughly convincing evidence that the TR and AV should be more reliable than the other variants out there. And, of course, I mean primarily the missing verses which are found in the TR and AV but not the Westcott & Hort and its translations.

Thanks for your answers, much appreciated!

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Jacomus

Yes, I know there's an abundance of other verses to use for proving the Trinity, and I love to use them. But 1 John 5:7 would be the most obvious, even more so than Matthew 28:19-20.

Ignore advice not to use powerful verses. Getting us to lay down our swords and not boldly proclaim powerful verses like 1Jo 5:7 is a goal of Satan.

See Disarming the Saints: The Bible as Defective Weaponry.

As for concerns about getting into a "textual debate" -- I just don't see how any Islamist is going to be genuinely interested in textual issues anyway. You should quote relevant verses, and if they attack the word, there is just nothing you can do about it.

As for 1Jo 5:7 itself, see here.

And, of course, I mean primarily the missing verses which are found in the TR and AV but not the Westcott & Hort and its translations.

Have you considered approaching this from the standpoint why the AV adds the verses as well? You should consider both directions. Intentionally adding and omitting Scripture are both wrong.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Have you considered approaching this from the standpoint why the AV adds the verses as well? You should consider both directions. Intentionally adding and omitting Scripture are both wrong.

Arguing that verses have been added to the AV is absurd. The best example of this laughable charge against the AV is Romans 13:9:

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the Critical Text that forms the basis of most modern Bible translations. Scholars say that it was added to the text. I ask: what is more reasonable to believe? That a scribe added a phrase that was at once self-incriminating, or that one of the Bible corruptors (like Origen, etc) removed the phrase that directly indicted them?

1Jo 5:7 is not "added" to Scripture. In fact, removing the phrase in question demolishes the grammar of the text so badly that it is obvious it belongs there. There is early-church evidence that the passage was as it reads in our perfect KJV Bible. Nobody need question it except those helping do the work of undermining the authority of the Bible and peoples' faith in it.

freesundayschoollessons,
Yeah, I was, and despite my relative uncertainty currently am to an extent still, a supporter of textual criticism, particularly due to Dr. James White. But I've not been totally convinced by their explanations as to how these alterations would have snuck in there.

Diligent, do you know of a site which answers the often propounded 'Biblical contradictions' from a perspective of absolute Biblical inerrancy?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

The KJV certainly has not been immune to errors.

There are no errors in the KJV. If there are errors in the book you are reading that you call the "Bible," then it is not God's word. If you choose to believe that God's word simply doesn't exist for you to read, that is a problem for you. If you call the NAS or KJV or anything else "the Bible" and yet say it is not wholly and completely immune from errors of text and translation, then you don't have God's word. God's word is pure and without error.

[George]

Originally Posted by Jacomus

Greetings!

I've been spending a lot of time recently studying the reliability of the AV and the Textus Receptus, but I've been unable to come to a conclusion. I'd like to make it clear that I am a Bible believing Christian and I trust in God's infallible and inerrant Word, the question that is being repeated over and over again for me is "Is Biblical inerrancy confined to the original manuscripts?".

I've spent a tremendous amount of time the last two years debating Muslims, and I always encounter their main arguments being that the Bible is full of errors. It is extremely easy to prove them wrong, because none of the possible Biblical variances permit such an extensive overhaul as Islam requires. But when answering them, I have found it the simplest and most convincing to show rebuttal lists to their 'contradiction' lists where many of the 'contradictions' are explained as translational errors, and most of them recommend using modern Bible versions.

Now after reading an article where a NASV committee member switched allegiance to the AV (in conjunction with other articles), I've become relatively convinced that the Westcott & Hort text is unreliable.

But questions still abound for me, and I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out on this. Whilst I've seen strong evidence against the modern versions, I've not seen any thoroughly convincing evidence for the reliability of the TR and AV. Another issue is contradictions. Due to my constant confrontations with Muslims both IRL and online, I need an answer to contradictions badly, if I am to stick with the AV. Also, 1 John 5:7 would be extremely useful, and am almost convinced (could be partly due to my personal desire) that it is properly rendered in the AV. But why then did the 1545 Luther Bible leave it out, as Luther also based his translation on the TR?

Any answers are much appreciated.

In Christ,
Jacomus

Aloha brother,

Here is an answer to your last question: If you can get a hold of Dean John Burgon's books (especially) "The Revision Revised" it would be helpful. However, the most thorough study on this subject has been done by Michael Maynard. Maynard's book - "A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8" runs 382 pages! And presents every scrap of evidence available to support the "genuineness" of the reading.

As to the rest of your inquiry please check out my post: AV1611 Bible Forums > Bible Versions > Were The Early Fundamentalist KJV Only? > Page 7 - Post #69 where I have tried to outline the "issue" of "WHICH BIBLE?" and list many of the men who have been involved in either defending the "Traditional Text" or "The Received Text" or, like myself, have been engaged in the defense of the King James Bible.

If you pursue this study don't be surprised to find that there are different "Camps" (points of view) involved in the issue and the "debates" can get pretty "heated". And please, whatever you do, don't get discouraged or disappointed just because some us may "get in the flesh" every so often defending our "point of view" (NO EXCUSES! But it happens.)

If you read my post (#69) you will see that this "issue" is not only very "controversial" (even among so-called Bible "believers"), it is also extremely "confusing". However, I believe, if you are sincere, that God will guide you along the way and lead you into all truth.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide youinto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

May you always have trust and confidence in God and in His Holy word.

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy word,