ON DEFENDING THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

DEFENDING THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

Over a year ago I had a phone conversation with a
Sacred Namer in St Louis.  He  made  many of the usual
Sacred name arguments, that the term Christians was
first used in a derisive way by the Romans, that the
Spanish name for Jesus sounds like Zeus for the second
part, or    "Hey-Sous," as spoken,  that early on
English had no letter J, and that the King James
translation "changed" the Bible.  I had no idea  then what
he thought  the King James changed the Bible from, the
Geneva Bible, the Vulgate or what?  I think the Sacred Namers mean the
New Testament was changed from its original Hebrew.

When I said that in the Greek New Testament, Jesus
starts with an I, not a J, he said no. Apparently the
Sacred Namers believe that Jesus, or in the Greek New
Testament, Iesou, or Ieso (e is an Eta not an
Epsilon),  was added later or is somehow incorrect  as
the name for Christ.

This Sacred Namer gets his doctrine straight from the
House of  Yehweh in Abiline, Texas. the outfit that
T.E. Blackmon says is "...a  serious cult, with no
visible love, everyone
is scared to touch anyone,because then they may become
UNLCLEAN,and these people are serious about that. Bunch
of zombies that do what they are told by Buffalo Bill
Hawkins ,Who calls himself with another name now,and
says the holocaust was all about the devil trying to
find his family because Satan knew his ministry would
be built and was trying to stop it....
People are just mezmorised by an old cowboy
sheriff, who talks about himself, what one needs to buy
at his health  food store,and asks for lots of
money, and tithing is especially required even if you
don't have any money. It's okay though, they've been
said to take food stamps for tithes,and they'll even
help a poor widowed or seperated woman,or black person
fill out the right paperwork. They are out there,way
out there......."

Many into the Sacred Name are in the militia and
patriot movements, and their religion may well be one
reason why the Lord has not allowed them much success.

Dave VanKleist, Joyce Riley and Butch Paugh on Genesis
Radio Communications Network are Sacred Namers.

They appear to have the moral high ground on issues
like 911 and depleted uranium.  But it may be that as
Sacred Namers they are the devil's controlled
opposition.  They oppose some evil of the ruling
class  and ruling elite  but their religion is apostate. Their
consistent use of the name Yehweh rather than Christ, Lord or God is
the key to their apostasy.

 Its not just the use of the name Yehweh, but their theology that goes
along with it. If a Saced Namer has been deceived into a consistent
use of Yehweh rather than Lord, or Christ and yet does not hold to
Sacred Name theology, he or she is still deceived and should not
mislead others by the use of the Sacred Name, thinking he or she is
into that theology.

I want to zero in on what the St Louis  Sacred Namer
said about the  King James translation "changing" the
Bible.  I think in general what he meant is that the
brand of Sacred Name Theology he follows regards the
King James  New Testament  as being corrupt, and if
they are aware that the Authorized Version come out of
the Textus Receptus, then they also reject it.

I told him that Sacred Name Theology had led him to
doubt or reject the doctrines of the New Testament,
and that he was lost because of that and should
repent.  He said he would think about it.

Many of the arguments of the Sacred Name Cultists are
absurd and cannot be taken seriously.   The Sacred Namers do not get
their ideas so much
from the older New Testament Textual Criticism, but
from the Hebrew Roots Movement.

 The Hebrew Roots Movement  claims the New
Testament was written in Hebrew and that all Greek NT
texts are corrupt.  The oldest fragments of the NT
perhaps from the second century, are in Greek, not
Hebrew.  Also, Paul wrote to Greek speaking peoples in
his letters and would not have written them in Hebrew.

 A Latin version of the Bible, the Vetus Itala, used by the
Waldensians, dates back as far  as 157 A.D.

Although the Sacred Namers are against all Greek texts and
translations from them, it is important to distinguish between the
Greek texts that come from Antioch and those from Alexandria. Many
other than Sacred Namers are opposed to the King James Bible and
prefer the modern versions.

 This Old Latin Bible of the
Waldensians has the verses found in the King James that are left out
of the modern translations.  Seventeen   verses  in the King James
translation are not found  in  the New Testament in
such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB. The NIV omits
all  seventeen of these verses.. These seventeen  verses are found in
the ancient Old Latin
Version which dates from around 157 A.D., and was in use through the
1500's.

Below I show the verses that are in the King James but not in the New
International Version.  For some, like I John 5: 7-8, the NIV has a
partial reading, but not the full text that is in the King James.: The
verses given below are those found in the King James,

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting." This is not in the NIV.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was
lost."  This verse cannot be found in the NIV.

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore
ye shall receive the greater damnation."  This is not in the NIV.

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."  This is not in the NIV.

Mark 9:44-46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched...into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."  Again, this verse is
not in the NIV.

Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which
is in heaven forgive your trespasses."  We do not find this verse in the NIV.

Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was
numbered with the transgressors." This verse cannot be found in the NIV.

Luke 9:55-56 "But he turned and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT
WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO
DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another
village." All the capital lettered words are missing from the NIV.

Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and
the other left." This verse is not found in the NIV.

Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the
feast." This verse is left out of the NIV.

John 5: 3-4 "Here a great number of disabled people used to lie -the
blind, the lame, the paralyzed."  Verse 4 in the King James, "For an
angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the
water:  whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped
in was made whole of whatever disease he had," is not in the NIV.

Acts 8:37 "And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God." This important verse is not in the NIV.

Acts 9:5-6 "And he said, Who art thou Lord? And THE LORD SAID, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE
PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU
HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the
city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." All the  words
here in capital
lettered  are missing in the , NIV, but are  found in the Old
Latin and the King James.

Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
This is not in the NIV.

Acts 24:6-8 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we
took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. BUT THE CHIEF
CAPTAIN  LYSIAS  CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUT
OF OUR HANDS, COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE; by examining
of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we
accuse him."  Words in caps are not in the NIV. The King James has
additional text here that is left out of the NIV.

Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and
had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE
FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND
THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water,
and the blood: and these three agree in one."  The words in capital
letters are left out of the NIV. The NIV says for verses 7 and 8, "For
there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood: and
the three are in agreement."

The differences in the New Testament between the King James and the
New International Version stem from differences in the Greek texts
used to translate these two versions. The NIV, like just about all
modern versions, was translated from the Greek manuscripts that came
from Alexandria in Egypt, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus.  The King James Bible, on the other hand, was translated
from the Textus Receptus of Erasmus.  The Textus Receptus was created
by Erasmus from a few Eastern Greek texts which agree very closely,
and go back to Antioch in Syria rather than Alexandria in Egypt.

The enemies of the King  James New Testament seem to
assume that if they can discredit Erasmus and his
Textus  Receptus they can discredit the King James
New Testament.  The King James or Authorized Version
was the main Bible read by English speaking
Protestants for about 350 years.

If you discredit the  Textus  Receptus  you then
discredit the New Testaments (NT)  translated from it,
such as Luther's German NT, the Tyndale NT, and the
Geneva NT, as well as several others in various
European languages.

The following are typical attacks upon Erasmus who
first published a printed version of the  Textus
Receptus in 15l6 and upon his  Textus Receptus:

l.  Erasmus was a Catholic and therefore the Textus
Receptus is a Catholic text.

2. Erasmus hastily prepared the text of the  Textus
Receptus and it contains many errors.  Here, the
enemies of the Textus Receptus may be like the Sactred
Namers;  if you make them be more explicit, their
argument may be disproved.  If you ask the enemies of
the Textus Receptus whether they are talking about the
first or later editions of the Greek text by Erasmus,
then if they say the first edition, this admits the
fallacy in their argument, that they are arguing in
effect that the translations used the first edition of
Erasmus which had  printer's errors, not  a later
edition.  According to  John Cereghin on
http://www.watch.pair.com/erasmus.html no translation
used the first edition of Erasmus.

3. A third attack on the Textus  Receptus  argues that
Erasmus did not have access to alternative Greek NT
texts, especially the Codex Vaticanus.

On the argument that the Textus Receptus is defective
because Erasmus was a Catholic, Cereghin says
"...Erasmus was not a good Catholic, but a Reformer at
heart."

Erasmus criticized the doctrines of the Catholic
hierarchy, and rejected the Catholic Bible, the
Vulgate.

Cereghin quotes Erasmus as saying "I believe  there
are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken
the eucharist, not having been annointed, not having
received Christian burial who rest in  peace, while
many  who have had all the rites of the Church  and
have been buried next to the alter  have gone to
hell...Flee to His wounds and you will be safe."

Apparently Erasmus turned down the offer of a
cardinalship.  This was probably before he came out
with his Textus  Receptus which was banned by the
Catholics. The Church put his Textus Receptus on a
list of forbidden to read books.

In answer to the  argument that Erasmus was careless
in preparing his Greek text and in a rush, his first
edition was done quickly, finished in about a year to
meet the deadline of the publisher.

But Erasmus put out four additional editions of his
Greek text and in them he corrected the printer's
errors and improved the text.

During the last 20 years of his life Erasmus put out
four editions of his Greek text and these were not
done in a rush.

Luther used a second edition for his German NT.

The Stephanus Greek Text (Textus Receptus) is based
upon the fourth and fifth editions of Textus Rceptus
by Erasmus.  Then Theodore Beza produced his Textus
Receptus based upon the Stephanus version. And so the
King James NT is not based upon the first edition of
Erasmus, but upon the fourth and fifth editions.

Cereghin says "The Authorized Version translators made
large use of Beza's editions of 1588-89  and
1598...The Authorized Version is not affected  by the
first edition at all.  To whine about the first
edition and then   somehow try to tie the Authorized
Version in with it is dishonest scholarship."

Another argument against the Textus Receptus is that
Erasmus did not have access to alternative Greek NT
texts, such as the Codex Vaticanus.  Of course, he did
not have access to the Codex   Sinaiticus which was
found in a trash can at St Catherine's Monastery on
Sinai in the mid-19th century.

Some opponents of the Textus Receptus claim that
Erasmus had no knowledge of the Greek NT texts that
came from Alexandria, Egypt.  Both Codex Vaticanus and
Codex  Sinaiticus came from there.  I believe the
scholars of the Textus Receptus say it came from
Syria.

According to Cereghin, Erasmus was familiar with Codex
Vaticanus and also Codex B and he rejected both Codex
Vaticanus and Codex B.

The King James translators  had these variant Greek NT
texts but like Erasmus rejected them, according to
Cereghin.  These variant texts are apparently Codex
Vaticanus, Codex B, Codex D and Codex Bezae.

In a Preface to  an  edition of his Greek New
Testament Erasmus wrote "These holy pages  will summon
up the living image  of His mind.  They will give you
Christ  himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the
whole  Christ in a word; they will give him to you  in
an intimacy so close  that he would  be less visible
to you  if he stood before your eyes."

Catholics may not  find Christ in the
Scriptures as much as   they find him in the sacraments and in the
rituals.

There are some important points made in the source I
used for this article.

Erasmus is said to have available to him the Codex
Vaticanus and smilar Greek texts and rejected all of
them.  He was still supposedly a Catholic, but he knew
and believed the New Testament teachings  and thought
the Greek texts from the Eastern Church were more
authentic than the Codex Vaticanus.  Erasmus
apparently believed the Greek text handed down by the
eastern Church contained the true doctrine of the NT.

There were many Greek manuscripts available at the
time Erasmus printed his Textus Receptus (early 1500
hundreds).  They were all almost identical and they
say he used only six or eight of them to create the
Textus  Receptus.

The Codex Vaticanus they say was found in Alexandria,
Egypt.  In the middle 19th century, a second
Alexandrian Greek NT text - Sinaiticus -  was found in a monestary in
North Africa.

In the late 19th century Westcost and Hort created
from these two manuscripts  a Greek NT text, which is
the basis for the New International  Version, one of
the New Age Bibles according to Gail Riplinger. Bernard