Quote:
|
1.) There's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO to be found in the KJV itself. Since it's not from GOD, & it's a matter of worship, that leaves only ONE other ultimate source!
|
There is absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the Critical Text-only crowd. But THERE IS for those of us who defend the KJV. Our entire position is rooted in the scriptures.
The Doctrine of Scripture Preservation (as presented in Ps. 12:6-7, Ps. 78:1-8, 105:8, 119:89, 119:97-99, 119:111, 119:152, 119:160, Isa. 40:8 & 59:21, Mat. 5:17-18 & 24:35, Jn. 10:35, and I Pet. 1:23-25) ensures for us that actually believe what the Bible says about itself that the scriptures have always been around since they were breathed by God and always will be. Therefore, simple God-given common sense tells us that if God’s pure words have been promised to be preserved forever, there must be a copy of it somewhere TODAY. We believe we have God’s preserved words in the KJV and its underlying texts.
History of Bible manuscripts demonstrates for us that the type of text represented in the Traditional Text (or Received Text) family can be traced from the KJV and other faithful TR-based translations in existence today all the way back to the Apostolic age (in the Old Latin and Syrian Peshitto). In other words, there is an unbroken chain of manuscript evidence from the Apostolic age to today supporting the type of text that underlies the KJV. Dr. D.A.Waite demonstrates this evidence on pgs 44-48 of his book Defending the King James Bible under the heading The Thirty-Seven Historical Evidences Supporting the Textus Receptus. This evidence demonstrates the type of text that represents the fulfillment of God’s promises to preserve his pure words forever. Therefore, our whole position on the Textual issue is rooted in the Doctrine of Preservation as found in the word of God.
On the other hand, the position that the Westcott & Hort, Alexandrian, Critical Text-only crowd espouses is NOT rooted in the word of God. For they claim that the Critical Text should be the proper basis for Bible translations. The problem with that position, however, is where were the pure words of God between the 4th century and the 19th century if the Critical Text position be true? For even Hort, according to his own writings, recognized that the Traditional Texts were the prominent text of God’s word being used by orthodox Christianity from the 4th to the 19th century. All throughout these ages, orthodox Christianity unanimously rejected the Alexandrian type manuscripts such as Vaticanus. It wasn’t until Tishendorf discovered Sinaiticus in the early 1800s that any significant amount of attention (outside of the Catholic church) was ever directed toward the Alexandrian manuscripts. And it wasn’t really until 1881 that the Critical Text began to develop a following through Westcott and Hort’s Critical Greek NT. You mean to say that for all these centuries orthodox Christianity was without the true and pure words of God? Is it to be believed that Westcott and Hort were the “saviours” that restored for us the true representation of the original words of God? My Bible does not promise for us Bible Restoration, but rather Bible Preservation! The position of the Critical Text crowd is completely contrary to what the Scriptures say about themselves concerning Preservation.
So it is not us whose position is unscriptural. It is the pro-Alexandrian, pro-Westcott & Hort, and pro Critical Text crowd whose position is totally unfounded in Scriptural support.
(continued)