About the Textus Receptus
The Textus Receptus (Latin for “Received Text”) constitutes a Greek New Testament that served as the textual foundation for the vernacular translations during the Reformation Period. It represents a printed text, rather than a hand-copied manuscript, and was produced in the 15th century to address the demand for a textually accurate Greek New Testament. As the Christian message spread internationally, the books of the New Testament were not only transported but also translated into the native languages of the recipients of the message. In the process of textual transmission, numerous copies were produced, predominantly by Christians lacking expertise in the art of transcription; consequently, insufficient emphasis was placed on the accuracy of these copies. As the proliferation of copies in various languages occurred, it became increasingly evident that significant differences and discrepancies existed among the multiple versions. Ultimately, the necessity for a scholarly approach to textual criticism emerged.
Who was Erasmus
Erasmus was ordained as a Catholic priest at the age of twenty-five; however, he was subsequently granted a dispensation from his religious vows, which permitted him to assume the position of secretary to the Bishop of Cabrai. In 1495, Erasmus enrolled at the University of Paris and was awarded a Doctor of Divinity from the University of Turin in Italy in 1506. From 1510 to 1515, Erasmus served as a faculty member at Queens College, Cambridge, England.
Erasmus produced a version of the New Testament in both Greek and Latin, which became a bestseller. His second edition (1519) of the Greek text was utilized by Martin Luther in his German translation of the Bible. The third edition (1522) served as the foundational text for William Tyndale’s first English New Testament. Furthermore, it constituted the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition, employed by the translators of the Geneva Bible (1599) and the King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible (1611). In 1527, Erasmus published a definitive fourth edition featuring parallel columns of Greek, Latin, and his own notes. The final edition (1535) omitted the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus dedicated this scholarly work to Pope Leo X and considered the production of a Greek New Testament as his foremost contribution to the advancement of Christianity.
During the Reformation, Erasmus exhibited a dual perspective. He voiced his critique regarding the malpractices prevalent within the Catholic Church and advocated for reform; however, he maintained a degree of separation from Martin Luther and continued to acknowledge the authority of the Pope. Between 1524 and 1527, Erasmus and Luther entered into a contentious dispute concerning the concept of free will. This exchange culminated in Luther’s renowned work, On the Bondage of the Will. Erasmus also engaged in debates with fellow theologians and humanists, and despite his opposition to abuses within the Church, he frequently aligned himself with Catholic doctrine.
History of the Textus Receptus
In the late fifteenth century, the Greek language—previously unknown for several centuries—was reintroduced to the Western world, specifically within the geographical domain of the Latin Church. The rediscovery of Greek, coupled with its establishment as the vernacular, prompted a rigorous critical analysis of the Latin Vulgate translation in relation to the original Greek texts. Scholars identified numerous instances of mistranslation or outright inaccuracies within the Vulgate. This revelation served as a compelling justification for the printing of the New Testament in its original language, Greek.
Erasmus, a 15th-century Dutch theologian, endeavored to expedite the publication of a Greek New Testament that was concurrently being prepared in Spain. To this end, he gathered a collection of hand-copied Greek manuscripts, locating five or six in total, the majority of which were dated to the twelfth century. Despite the urgency of his task, Erasmus did not engage in the transcription of these manuscripts; rather, he made annotations directly on the manuscripts themselves and forwarded them to the printers. Consequently, the entirety of the New Testament was printed within a span of six to eight months and subsequently published in 1516. It achieved notable commercial success, despite the presence of certain errors, resulting in the swift sell-out of the first edition. A second edition was released in 1519, which incorporated corrections of some of these errors.
Erasmus published two other editions in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work. Erasmus’ Greek text became the standard in the field, and other editors and printers continued the work after his death in 1536. In 1633, another edition was published. In the publisher’s preface, in Latin, we find these words: “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum,” which can be translated as “the [reader] now has the text that is received by all.” From that publisher’s notation have come the words “Received Text.” The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years. It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position.
The Greek text of the New Testament printed by Erasmus was based on manuscripts no earlier than the twelfth century. Revised and corrected by comparison with other manuscripts, also dated late, this became known as the Textus Receptus or the received text. Since the 16th century, thousands of earlier manuscripts have been found, some dating to the second century, which have variants from the Textus Receptus, showing scribal additions over the centuries. The famous Johannine Comma, the last verses of Mark 16, and the woman taken in adultery in John 8 are three examples of additions found in the Textus Receptus and not in the earliest manuscripts.
Manuscript problems
The first edition of the Greek NT to be published after the invention of printing was by the Rotterdam humanist Erasmus, whose 1516 edition went through several revisions over the years. Other publishers based their own editions on Erasmus, rather than doing a careful study of the surviving manuscripts themselves. Eventually it became such a standard text that it came to be known as the Textus Receptus. Erasmus’s edition was based just on only 31 Greek manuscripts at his disposal (we currently have discovered over 2,000).
Since mistakes can get replicated over time, and introduced over time, in general it is a good idea to consult the *earliest* manuscripts for determining what an author of a book wrote. The later manuscripts tend to be worse (that’s not an *absolute* rule, but a relatively good one).
Created His Own Greek Manuscript
The manuscript Erasmus had of Revelation was incomplete, so he translated the Vulgate into Greek to fill in the gaps. He did tell his readers in a footnote that he had done this.
Erasmus’s primary Greek manuscript for Revelation was identified as manuscript 2814, which was a commentary on Revelation by Andrew of Caesarea (c. 563-614), and not even a manuscript of scripture itself.
Erasmus said, “At the end of my exemplar of Revelation – of which I had only one, because Greek copies of this book are rare – a few lines were missing. I added them, using Latin copies as the basis. These lines were of the sort that could be reconstructed [in Greek] by consulting the preceding text.”
This accounts for the very unusual Greek text of Revelation 22:16b-21 in Erasmus’ compilation. For these verses, Erasmus took in hand a copy of the Vulgate, and translated its Latin text of Revelation 22:16b-21 into Greek. Erasmus’ reconstruction of this passage, however, does not match up with any Greek manuscripts at several points (at least, not with any Greek manuscripts made prior to his compilation). Although the Textus Receptus went through several revisions in the 1500s, Erasmus’ retro-translation of Revelation 22:16b-21 survived the process; as a result, the Textus Receptus continues to perpetuate some Greek readings in this passage that originated with Erasmus.
For many years after Erasmus used it, its location was not publicly known, and there was some concern that it had been lost. In 1861, however, it turned up, and the scholar who discovered it – Franz Delitsch – wrote a detailed essay (in German) describing its readings, and showing how tightly its contents match up with Erasmus’ compilation, leaving no doubt that it was indeed Codex Reuchlins, the manuscript used by Erasmus.
There are many places where Erasmus (or his associate, or his printer) had problems to read the text or to distinguish between the commentary and the biblical text, so that Erasmus’s Greek text of Revelation has not a few unique readings.
The Revelation 21:23–24 Oopsy
In Revelation 21:23–24, Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum introduced a unique reading due to a confusion of Bible text and commentary. As can be seen that the first visible line begins with Revelation 21:23c: “for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof” (γὰρ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφώτισεν αὐτήν καὶ ὁ λύχνος αὐτῆς τὸ ἀρνίον). Immediately after that, the early manuscript that was really just a commentary on Revelation that was being used, but it is the author’s commentary, before line four is again marked as biblical text in the margin.
However, the scribe of the manuscript mispositioned the marginal signs. The text of line four simply continues the author’s commentary with the words translated in the KJV as “and the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it” (καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τῶν σωζομένων τῷ φωτί αὐτῆς περιπατήσουσιν). This commentary text naturally deviates from the usual Bible text attested in Revelation 21:23–24 which should read “by its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it” (καὶ περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς). Thus, a few words of the author’s commentary crept into the Received Text as Holy Writ, the words of God, and, from there, into the early translations such as Luther’s German Bible and the KJV.
Moreover, as is well-known, a leaf is missing toward the end of manuscript 2814, so that the biblical text quoted ends abruptly with Revelation 22:16 (fol. 92v), while the next leaf (fol. 93r) continues with the author’s commentary until its last page (fol. 94r). To fill the gap in his Greek text, Erasmus had to retranslate it from the Latin, which he freely admits in the defense of his text against the critique of Edward Lee: “At the end of my copy of Revelation, a few lines were missing. I added them in accordance with Latin copies,” which means that he retranslated them from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Similarly, he writes in his Annotationes to the Apocalypse: “Although at the end of this book I have found some words in our text [i.e., the Latin] that were missing in the Greek copies, we have nevertheless added them from the Latin.”
Johannine Comma
“Johannine Comma” is a reference to 1 John 5:7-8; When Erasmus produced his first edition of the Greek NT, he left that verse out, since it was not in the Greek manuscript he was using. Church theologians were incensed that Erasmus had left the Trinity out of the Bible and attacked him for it. He explained that he could not find the verse in any of the Greek manuscripts he had consulted, and what he was producing was, after all, a Greek New Testament. He did agree, though, that if someone could show him a Greek manuscript that had the verse, he would include it in his next edition. And so, someone (literally) produced a manuscript, poof, out of nowhere, a greek manuscript that no one had ever seen before until now – adding the verse by translating it in its proper place from the Latin. And so Erasmus was true to his word, and included it in his next edition. It was this subsequent edition that was used by other publishers of other editions of the Greek NT, and these were the editions used by the translators of the King James. And so you will find the verse in the King James. As more and more manuscripts were discovered, it became clear that in fact the verse was not part of the original text of 1 John, and so modern translations do not include it.
That is why those who insist on following the King James version insist that the story of Jesus and the Woman taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11) and the final twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-21) were originally in the NT. They weren’t.
For a more in-depth study on the Johannine Comma, check it out here
Pericope Adulterae
The story about the adulterous women thrown before Jesus’ feet in John 7:53-8:11 is another problem for the KJV and it’s reliance on the Textus Receptus. The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. Some later manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53). The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53—8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel.
There is internal evidence as well, that John 7:53—8:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of these verses breaks the flow of John’s narrative. Also, the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to “the scribes” anywhere in his book—except in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel.
Now, it may have been an oral tradition as it seems that Origen appears to possibly allude to it in one of this 3rd century writings, but, it is not for sure.
A scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). And to know exactly what that is, is to determine what exactly they wrote originally.
Those who favor the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery point to the sheer number of later Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. This is their best argument: John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later church leaders deemed the passage morally dangerous—since Jesus forgives the woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So, the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem “soft” on adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place.
Despite their theory, base completely on conjecture and assumptions, the fact, however, remains that John 7:53—8:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence.
The Ending of Mark
Another issue for KJV and it’s dependence on the Texas Receptus is the inclusion of Mark 16:9-21. Many scholars, from all theological persuasions, consider Mark 16:9–20 to be a spurious addition to Mark’s Gospel.
(That has no impact on the resurrection story because verse 6, which is included in the older Greek manuscripts state: “6 But he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him.” Therefore, even if the ending is spurious and not part of the original, Mark still validates the resurrection)
If we only consider the number of later Greek manuscripts containing Mark 16:9–20, one might hastily conclude that the passage is genuine. However, this assumption overlooks critical evidence from earlier manuscripts. Notably, two of the most ancient and reputable texts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, conspicuously lack the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark, stopping instead at Mark 16:8. Their significance is underscored by the principle that older manuscripts are typically more reliable as they are closer to the original autographs. Fewer generations of copies mean less chance for alterations, making it plausible that an older manuscript might be more accurate than its more recent counterparts. Given that the earliest manuscripts omit Mark 16:9–20, many scholars justifiably harbor doubts about the presence of these verses in the original Gospel of Mark.
In addition to the commonly accepted wording of Mark 16:9–20, there exist two other endings to the book of Mark found among ancient manuscripts. The NASB puts one of the endings in brackets:
“And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.“
Another ending found in various other manuscripts reads:
“This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. “Therefore reveal your righteousness now”—thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.”
We should also consider the testimony of the ancient church leaders. Some early church fathers were aware of the long ending of the Gospel of Mark and even quoted from it. However, in the fourth century, two scholars who were aware of the long ending, Eusebius and Jerome, reported that nearly all the known Greek manuscripts ended with Mark 16:8.
There is internal evidence against the originality of Mark 16:9–20. Consider the transition between verses 8 and 9:
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
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.
1) The transition is abrupt, and the two sections are disjointed. The subject of the narrative was the discovery of the empty tomb by the women, told from the women’s perspective. Suddenly, the focus shifts to Jesus and one woman, Mary Magdalene.
2) The word now at the beginning of verse 9 is a conjunction in the Greek. It is akin to saying, “but,” “and,” “therefore,” or “on the other hand.” The point is that now should link what comes next with what came before. It doesn’t, but only serves as a clumsy transition between verses 8 and 9.
3) The Greek participle translated “having risen” in verse 9 is masculine and should be referring to Jesus, but Jesus is not mentioned in the previous verse. (Some translations add the word Jesus to verse 9 for clarity, but the name is not in the original.) If Mark wrote verse 9 and placed it after verse 8, he was guilty of sloppy grammar and illogical sentence construction.
4) Verse 9 seems to introduce Mary Magdalene as if for the first time. But Mark had already mentioned her three times previously in his Gospel (Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1).
These last verses certainly seem out of place for Mark. There are eighteen words in this section that appear nowhere else in his writings. For instance, the title “Lord Jesus,” mentioned in verse 19, is suspiciously absent in the rest of Mark. Other terms unique to this part include apisteó (“disbelieve”), blaptó (“hurt”), theaomai (“behold, look”), and husteron (“afterwards, later”). It’s peculiar that the word thanasimon (“deadly”) is nowhere to be found in the entire New Testament. The expression in verse 10, toís met’ aftoú genoménois (“those having been with Him”), which refers to the disciples, is intriguing since this specific phrasing isn’t applied to the disciples anywhere else in the Bible.
The reference to signs in Mark 16:17–18 raises eyebrows due to its uniqueness. This is ostensibly the only post-resurrection account in the Gospels that mentions the practices such as picking up serpents, speaking in tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. While these signs were apparent during the apostolic age, skepticism lingers regarding the authenticity of Jesus’ words here—did he genuinely say this, or is it a later addition?
But, without note or comment, Erasmus included it without debate.
Confession of the Ethiopian Eunuch
In Acts 8:37, we find another insertion that is not found in the majority Greek manuscripts, including the earliest ones such as Papyrus 45, Codex Sinaiaticus and the Vaticanus. The first early appearances of the variant exist in the Old Latin manuscripts, and begins to only appear in the Greek around the 6th century.
Erasmus himself decided to include the verse in his edition of the Greek text due to its presence in the Latin Vulgate of his day and due to being in the margin of Minuscule 2816 which is a 15th century manuscript. Erasmus argued that its omission could be explained by “carelessness of scribes”. But since his days, we have discovered thousands of manuscripts he did not know about or have access to. Interesting to note, that the Textus Receptus is primary based on Byzantine manuscripts, but in all these discoveries, it is missing from most Byzantine text-type manuscripts that have been discovered until now.
Modern scholars, Christian and Secular, mostly assume that the verse was initially a margin added by those who found the narrative of Acts 8 lacking, which later found its way into the body of the text.
Now, this doesn’t mean it isn’t from the Apostles. The tradition of the confession was current in the time of Irenaeus as it is cited by him (c. 180) and Cyprian (c. 250). These references to the verse are 200 to 300 years before it starts to appear in the manuscripts. But adding it simply because we think and feel it’s something the Apostles taught, we have not right to do.
1611 or 1769 version?
No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original.
As soon as the first edition of his New Testament was published, Erasmus began revising and correcting the printing errors. He made over 400 changes for the second edition, including a change of the title from Novum Instrumentum to Novum Testamentum. One of his controversial changes was in John 1:1, where he changed the Latin translation verbum to sermo.
Erasmus’ third edition contained further revisions. Under pressure from his critics, Erasmus include the controversial “Johannine Comma” in I John 5:7-8, though it was not in most of the Greek manuscripts Erasmus consulted.
The Evolution of Language and Word Meaning Over Time
There are words that will make us, modern English speaking Christians cringe:
Chode
Genesis 31:36 “And Jacob was wroth, and chode with Laban…”
Numbers 20:3 “And the people chode with Moses…”
We don’t need to share the modern use and definition of what a chode is, but we can guarantee that it is NOT what it means back in the 17th and 18th century. So, if you had no background or even google, how would you know what is being said here? Would you chode with Moses?
Ouches
Exodus 28:13 “And thou shalt make ouches of gold;”
Exodus 39:18 “And the two ends of the two wreathen chains they fastened in the two ouches, and put them on the shoulderpieces of the ephod, before it.”
Now, what is an ouches? Without google or an extra reference help, if you gave a KJV bible to someone who does not have access to additional resources for more in-depth research and only has the understanding of common modern english, how are they to know what in the world is being spoken about?
Wimples
Isaiah 3:22 “The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,”
Another word that is no longer commonly used in the English due to cultural changes. Nuns may understand what that is but the modern common person doing a personal Bible study would have no idea.
Dragons and Unicorns
Deut. 32:33, 33:17 “33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps… 17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns.
Well, the folklore of the medieval ages of the 17th century was still fluid in the culture. But, in light of other earlier manuscripts, even later manuscripts, the proper translations, which, Erasmus too should have know, Deut. 32 is talking about snakes, not mystical dragons. Also, in light of other earlier manuscripts and later manuscripts, Deut. 33 is talking about an Oxe or Bull, maybe even a Rino, but defiantly not a mystical creature of folklore.
Phrases that no long make sense to the modern common reader:
What is a “collops of fat” saying? The common person doesn’t know. If I was to say “kill two birds with one stone” the modern common person would pick up on the gist of what is being said in context, but a future person 1,000 years from now would have no idea what I am talking about unless they understood what it meant in our time currently.
Collops of fat on his flanks
Job 15:27 “Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.”
What is going on here? Well, if we read the NASB, we’d better understand:
“27 For he has covered his face with his fat, And put fat on his waist.“
Very naughty figs
Jeremiah 24:2 “One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad.”
Those figs were very naught! So naughty that they couldn’t be eaten. No one uses this concept like this anymore. Most people don’t even know what figs are anymore anyway. The modern common English speaker says “pear” or a “pear shaped fruit” And if the fruit was bitter, or very bitter, we don’t call it naughty or very naughty.
Now, for the lightning round, try and guess what is stated here:
sod pottage
Genesis 25:29 “And Jacob sod pottage…”
The NASB renders this: “29 When Jacob had cooked a stew one day, …”
Straitened in your own bowels
2 Cor. 6:12 “Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels”
What is said here?
The NASB renders this: “12 You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.“
Pisseth
1 Samuel 25:22 “So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.”
Is 1st Samuel talking about someone peeing against a wall when he wakes up in the morning? For the full context we read that it is David who is planning on killing Nabal and all the males of his household.
Sort of. He is characterizing to a certain type of human that can pee against a wall, which means he is referring to males. But not just any male, a sort of bad, rude, improper, with out manners sort of male; or just a group of men that are frowned upon and viewed as unpleasant. David is talking about the men of Nabal’s house, but is characterizing them in a negative light. The common phrase in the 17th century for these sort of males was “the kind of man who pisseth against the wall” But, we don’t use that sort of phrase anymore.
NASB renders it: “if by morning I leave alive as much as one [a]male of any who belong to him.”
the a notes: “Lit who urinates against the wall“
Also, in the modern common English language, the word “piss” is now viewed as a rude and derogatory word. This word itself is not viewed as proper for respectful persons to say in a respectful professional manner.
Watered down Deity of Jesus in the KJV:
The KJV fans love to claim it is the closest to the truth than all other translations, but in the most important aspects, such as the actual and specific doctrine of Christ, we see it too is still a little shallow.
Jude 4b – The same or two separate?
NASB: “…the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” [χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι]
KJV: “…the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” [ χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι]
KJV separates the two, God and Jesus, literary as you would mentioning two different people/things. NASB combines them as one, one thing that which is Master and Lord. The combined is based on earlier more reliable manuscripts that were not accessible to Erasmus.
Philippians 2:6-7 – deity or humanist?
NASB: “6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.“
KJV: “6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:“
The NASB is more deity rich while the KJV seems to have a more humanistic word choice. Jesus wouldn’t have thought humbling himself and not utilizing the full extent of his divine power while he was on earth as “robbery.” He was focused on doing the Father’s will, and thus, utilizing his own will and power wouldn’t be something he would desire or consider outside of his Father’s will, and not grasp to use.
So, he emptied himself of his will to use his limitless divine power as he served his Father while on earth; unconcerned about his “reputation” before men.
Lastly, he was made? Not exactly; he was born, not made, in the likeness of men.
Acts 16:7 – The Spirit is Jesus or not?
NASB: “7 and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them;” [ἐλθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν ἐπείραζον εἰς τὴν Βιθυνίαν πορευθῆναι καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ]
KJV: “7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.”
Attributing an action to a specific thing is critical. Here, the NASB attributes the act of divine intervention to the Spirit of Jesus. But in the KJV we see that reference to Jesus completely removed, but instead uses a word that has a meaning changed over time, rendering it less understandable in modern thought.
1 Peter 3:15 – Christ is Lord or just God?
NASB: “15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect;”
KJV: “15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”
KJV again fails to be specific enough for us to more rightly know who Jesus really is. It fails to even mention Christ as Lord and just uses a general overarching name, Lord God.
John 14:14 – Ask Who?
NASB: “14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”
KJV: “14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”
The earlier manuscripts make it clear that Jesus is referring to himself when they ask anything, as in, when they are asking him for anything. Erasmus may not have known this due to having limited older and far later manuscripts.
Revelation 22:14 – Recognized Translation Error
NASB: “14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city by the gates.”
KJV: “14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
This is a known translation error in the KJV (Texas Receptus). The difference is between two ancient Greek words:
HOIPLUNONTESTASSTOLAS (washed their robes) or
HOIPOIOUNTESTASENTOLAS (do His commandments)
This is a good example of how a copyist’s error can cloud a text in rather minor ways, without affecting the essential meaning of the passage.
Conclusion
Keep in mind, we are focused on the Textus Receptus in which the King James Bible depends on. We are not speaking of errors in all things, because there aren’t. We are not claiming the Bible itself is errored, it hasn’t. We are only addressing errors of the Textus Receptus which pollutes the King James VERSION of the Bible. This distinction is necessary because there will always be someone saying that The Bible has errored, when that is not the case.
Since the translation of the Textus Receptus and the latest version of the King James Bible, thousands of manuscripts which were previously unknown in Erasmus’ time, have been discovered and have helped sharpen our confidence in the knowledge of what was originally written from the author’s themselves. This also helps us with determining which verses and words are later additions or errors, which, again, helps sharpen our knowledge of Holy Scripture and determine which is more or less true to the original authorship.
Though the Textus Receptus (not Holy Scripture as a whole) contains humanistic errors, NONE of the issues with in it impact any essential matter of faith or any essential doctrine uniformly contained in all verified ancient and later manuscripts. If we were to remove those in few portions in question, the message and truth contained in Holy Scripture is still the exact same.
But NO honest studied person can claim that the King James Bible is the most reliable. Because of it’s utter dependence on the Textus Receptus, it cannot be the most reliable. As scholars continue to sharpen and hone their understanding of ancient languages and discover other ancient writings that help in our comprehension of how ancient words were used and in what sense they are used in the context in which they were written; we can be absolutely confident that the truths revealed in Holy Scripture are true and unchanged, validated by the miracle discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts and archeology.
Let us know what you think!