I am going to show you a little bit of history and some common objections to the King James Bible issue. By understanding these facts, you can be more established on the two main foundations (KJV Only and Dispensationalism).
The modern bibles are influenced by Alexandrian text. So among scholastic world, there are 4 main family lines of manuscripts but scholars will generalize to make things so simple that there are only 2 main lines – Alexandrian and Byzantine.
The manuscripts from Syria – we call them Antioch, which is where King James Bible originates from. Modern bible versions are mainly from Alexandria. It is important to understand that not every verse in modern versions are from Alexandria and not every verse from KJV is from Antioch.
Acts 11: 19-23 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
The bible already gave you a clue if you want the closest area for the word of God. It is a matter of fact that that’s where the first Christians were called.
Acts 11: 26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
If you look up every verse in the Bible that talks about Alexandria, it’s a negative reference. Alexandria came from Egypt. There is nothing good about Egypt in the bible. The NKJV brags that they came from Antioch and Byzantine manuscript, but if we look carefully at the words, they do not all come from Antioch. Take a look at the previous post.
So a lot of scholars will say that the KJV did not come from Antioch and Byzantine manuscripts, this was later coined as Textus Receptus. The Old Testament of the KJV came from the Masoretic text – the Hebrew. The New Testament of the KJV came from Textus Receptus. So what scholars are going to say is point out verses in the Textus Receptus & Masoretic text that differ from the KJV and say “See, it does have errors and it’s not infallible.”
Some Independent Fundamental Baptist churches say that the Textus Receptus is correct and not the KJV and that’s a red flag because they are always going to choose Textus Receptus over the KJV. A lot of these people are anti-semite and post-tribulation, they have gotten their doctrines wrong. But not only, they are rebel rousers who went rogue.
So there are 2 oldest manuscripts – old Latin and Syriac Peshitta. These 2 manuscripts can be proven to be as early as the second century. The modern versions boast of Vaticanus and Sineaticus?. The famous argument that scholars use is that Vaticanus and Sineaticus are the older ones, but that’s a lame one.
Between 85% -to 99% of Greek manuscripts support Textus Receptus. Even so, they try to argue their way that Vaticanus and Sineaticus are older text. There are also statements from the church fathers that back up the Greek manuscripts.
The papyrus manuscripts are considered to be the oldest ever. But do you know where Papyrus comes from? Egypt – Alexandria. But the argument that it is older, doesn’t mean it’s better. If I picked up a Bible that is written by a satanist, and it’s older, does it make it better?
Look at the background between Antioch and Alexandria. Which one is more Christian? Would you pick the manuscripts from a more trustworthy area that the Lord picked, or would you go with an older manuscript?
We believe KJV comes from all manuscripts in the line of Antioch and Byzantine. So, where there’s a Greek manuscript that KJV doesn’t have, you’ll find old Latin supporting it. Where the Greek manuscript failed, you’ll also have the Syriac peshitta. There are also papyrus manuscripts but these are famously called the traditional texts. This line has many different names – Antioch Byzantine, Textus Receptus, (remember it is Greek only). Why is traditional text better? Because it’s going to take all the Greek manuscripts and everything in line with Textus Receptus or Antioch. Old Latin came out in 2nd century after Greek originals in Antioch. Syriac Peshitta are 2nd century also.
When the KJV translators translated, they used these 2 manuscript families but also all the manuscripts that were birthed out of Antioch – Byzantine. They picked the best words out of them and gave you the KJV. Before the KJV, there were other earlier translations, e.g. Valera Spanish, Old English Wickliffe, Leviton’s French, Polyglot bible, Luther’s German. There are 7 to 14 different editions of the Textus Receptus – so the KJV translators took all of these to give you a superior bible. That’s why the KJV is superior to the Textus Receptus, Hebrew Masoretic text. The blood of the martyrs who bled and opposed the Roman Catholic church, gave up their lives to translate the bible are the ingredients of your bible.
The bible always says look at the fruits. Whose fruits look better?