Those who support the modern corrupted texts trash the TR, and even Erasmus because he created it. Born in Rotterdam, Holland, Desiderius Erasmus (1466 – 1536), known simply as Erasmus, had the best education available in Europe at the time. At the age of 20, he was forced by the death of his parents and poverty to enter the monastery of Emmaus where he studied the classics. Because of his linguistic abilities, in 1491 he became the secretary of Bishop Cambrai who ordained him a priest in 1492. Cambrai sent him to Paris in 1496 to study for his doctorate in theology at the Univ. of Paris, where he also began his Greek studies. He was an expert in Latin, which was the language of the European elite; but he said:
Latin scholarship, however elaborate, is maimed and reduced by half without Greek. For whereas we Latins have but a few small streams, a few muddy pools, the Greeks possess crystal-clear springs and rivers that run with gold. I can see what utter madness it is even to put a finger on that part of theology which is especially concerned with the mysteries of the faith unless one is furnished with the equipment of Greek as well, since the translators of Scripture, in their scrupulous manner of construing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians call it, literal, meaning. (Epistle 149. The Correspondence of Erasmus, vol. 2 in Collected Works of Erasmus, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), p. 25. Quoted in Combs, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal.)
There was no better scholar in all of Europe who could have produced such a monumental work as the TR. But Erasmus did even more than produce the Greek text for Bible translation. He spoke the truth and exposed problems within the RCC, as a consequence the RCC banned many of his books, books which helped to bring about the Protestant Reformation. Yet, Erasmus is accused by TR haters today of being a Catholic, because he never became a Protestant, but he was hoping the Church would reform.
It has been said of the Reformation, that Erasmus picked the lock and Luther opened the door. Also that Erasmus laid the egg, but Luther hatched it. Before the start of the Reformation Erasmus’s books and pamphlets influenced Martin Luther who even wrote a letter to Erasmus, but it went unanswered because he received many letters from all over Europe.
One of Erasmus’ books, The Christian Soldier’s Handbook, was translated into English by William Tyndale. In it, Erasmus “insisted on the New Testament as the test of doctrinal truth” (Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, p. 90). This idea of his became one of the foundational principles of Protestantism, which is that doctrine comes from the Bible and not the Church.
At one time 10-20% of all book sales in Europe were his books! So it is no surprise that he had many enemies, perhaps jealous of his intellectual prowess, or success. Benjamin George Wilkinson, in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, speaks of Erasmus:
Endowed by nature with a mind that could do ten hours work in one, Erasmus, during his mature years in the earlier part of the sixteenth century, was the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever at work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing and publishing. Europe was rocked from end to end by his books, which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the [early Church] Fathers.
It is customary even today with those who are bitter against the pure teachings of the Received Text, to sneer at Erasmus. No perversion of facts is too great to belittle his work. Yet while he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price; the Emperor of Germany did the same. The Pope offered to make him a cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his conscience. . . .
Erasmus was called “The prince of the Humanists” (Bainton, p. 125). A saying went, “Our delight and our hope. Who has not learned from him?” (Ibid). Clearly, Erasmus was a man greatly used of God. But the haters of the TR belittle and mock him any way they can, but God’s stamp of approval is all over him.
He also wrote a collection of proverbs called “Adagia,” or “Thousands of Proverbs,” in two or more editions. Many of our old sayings today came from Erasmus such as: kill two birds with one stone, hanging by a thread, nowhere near the mark, to throw cold water on, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, no sooner said than done, women: can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em, between a rock and a hard place, can’t teach an old dog new tricks, a necessary evil, to leave no stone unturned, God helps those who help themselves, the grass is greener over the fence, to put the cart before the horse, and many more!
He traveled around Europe hobnobbing with kings, professors, cardinals, and other elites of society. During his travels in 1504, he found an unpublished manuscript at a monastery in Brussels, written by Lorenzo Valla (1407–57) called “Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum” [Annotations, or Corrections, to the New Testament], which Erasmus published (1505) and wrote the introduction. His introduction stressed the need for a new translation of the Greek NT, with, “a return to the original text, and respect for the literal sense” (Catholic. Ency.).
The work of Valla evaluated the Vulgate and compared it with the Greek New Testament:
Valla attempted to patch up the Latin scriptures and render them a more faithful reflection of the Greek. Thus he presented in his work for the most part a “collatio,” a comparison of the Latin Vulgate with the Greek New Testament. He set for himself a straightforward scholarly task: the evaluation of the Vulgate as a translation of the Greek New Testament. In carrying out his task he found many passages, he said, vitiated [spoiled or impared] by unlearned or negligent copyists; others he found corrupted by conscious alteration on the part of audacious scribes; still others he found inaccurately translated from the Greek. In his “collatio,” then, Valla annotated these passages in order to offer Latin Christians the clearest possible understanding of the New Testament. (Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983, pages 35-36. Quoted in Erasmus and The Textus Receptus. Professor William W. Combs, Detroit Baptist Seminary. Detroit Baptist S. Journal, #1 1996, p. 38.)
This work, without a doubt, fueled Erasmus’ desire to study the NT in Greek and Latin. Then he went to Italy where he completed his doctorate at Turin in 1506. While there he became an expert in Greek since many Greek teachers had fled there when Constantinople was defeated in 1453. Inspired by Valla’s book of annotations, he began working on one of his own, seeking to correct the Vulgate by the Greek. Erasmus wrote:
“My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense.” (“Epistle 273” in Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 2: Letters 142 to 297, 1501–1514 (tr. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson; annotated Wallace K. Ferguson; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), p. 253.)
Commenting on the Latin translation of the Greek, he said:
“But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep.” (“Epistle 337” in Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 3, p. 134.)
It is clear that he spent much time analyzing copies of the N.T. in Latin and Greek. He became a professor of Divinity at Cambridge 1510 to 1515, where he taught Greek. He then lectured at the University of Leuven, leaving in 1517.
When he began working on these annotations is not certain, but by the time of his stay at Cambridge (1511–14), his letters indicate considerable progress. There he was able to compare the Vulgate against certain Greek and Latin manuscripts. In a letter dated July 8, 1514, Erasmus tells a friend: “After collation of Greek and other ancient manuscripts, I have emended the whole New Testament, and I have annotated over a thousand passages, not without benefit to theologians.” In a later letter to Johannes Reuchlin, he notes: “I have written annotations on the entire New Testament.” . . . . (Combs, Detroit Baptist Sem. Journal, #1 1996.)
His original intent was merely to publish his annotations of the Vulgate, which included corrections from the Greek, but many friends and colleagues urged him to do a full translation of it, so he did, along with the Greek.
It was also in 1514 that Erasmus first went to Basel to meet with Froben, a printer. He completed his Latin translation in a hurry, most of the text actually being the Vulgate. And since he had not planned to include the Greek until the last minute, he used the manuscripts that were available to him in Basel, which were 7 incomplete MSS.
The actual printing began in August of 1515. The work was carried on at a frantic pace, involving two presses, and was completed by March of 1516. In June of 1516, Erasmus wrote to a friend: “At last I have escaped from the workhouse in Basel, where I have got through six years work in eight months.” (Ibid, Combs)
Because the work and the printing were both rushed, there were a number of mistakes that were mostly corrected in later editions. But the TCs trash his work on the TR because of the original mistakes, claiming that he only used a few bad manuscripts, as though he had not spent years collating and analyzing many copies of the Greek New Testament. About Erasmus, Dr. Hill said:
Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16). (Dr. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1979, p. 198-199).
In his dedicatory letter to the pope [Erasmus] mentions that the special care due to the sacred writings caused him not only to compare ‘the oldest and most correct manuscripts’ but also to ‘run through all the writings of the old theologians and to trace from their quotations and expositions what each one of them had read and changed. (W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation, p. 145)
Erasmus had 7 Byzantine MS to use when he created his first edition, but how many did he have when he created his annotations? Can you tell me that, Erasmus and TR haters? It is clear that he studied many Greek texts, not just the ones used for his translation. And because of the lies being said about the codices he used, I will give them here and the references to where this information came from. For the first edition he used:
codex 1eap that contained the entire NT except for Revelation;
codex 1r of Revelation except for the last 6 verses;
codex 2e of the Gospels,
codex 2ap of Acts and Epistles;
codex 4ap with Acts and the Epistles;
codex 7p of the Pauline Epistles;
codex 817 of the Gospels.
William W. Combs gave this list in the above-sited article in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, and referenced these sources:
Cornelis Augustijn, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence, trans. J. C. Grayson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 93; Brown, “Date of Erasmus’ Latin Translation,” p. 364; de Jonge, “Novum Testamentum a Nobis Versum,” p. 404; Yamauchi, “Erasmus’ Contributions,” pp. 10–11; Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, pp. 127–32.
According to The Journal of Sacred Literature published in 1853, Erasmus had available to him a copy of Vaticanus and the Complutensian Polyglot:
We are now in a position fairly to weigh the merits of the text of Erasmus, from which the present Textus Receptus undoubtedly flowed. As regards the talents and acquirements of the editor, there can be, we suppose, but one opinion. He was probably the ablest man that ever engaged in the important work of editing the New Testament text. Then, as to the materials which he possessed . . . He possessed a collation of the Vatican MS. (B) itself. . . . Besides the MSS., Erasmus, in the Complutensian and Aldine texts, possessed the results of the collations of all the MSS. examined by the editors of those editions. In the case of the former we are disposed to attach great value to the MSS. employed. . . .
It thus appears that the text of Erasmus is by no means open to the charges urged against it by critics of great eminence. Griesbach, Davidson, and Tregelles, to mention no others, all assert that the MSS. which he employed were very few, and those modern. . . .
It must then be allowed, we think, that the early editors of the Greek Testament [the TR] possessed every necessary or important witness to the text of that inspired volume. Of MSS. they possessed some of each class, ancient and modern, Eastern and Western. As to versions, if we except the Egyptian, they consulted almost all that have any right to be independent witnesses of the early text, viz., the Italic, the Peshito Syriac, and the Vulgate. (“On the Sources of the Received Text of the Greek Testament,” The Journal of Sacred Literature, edited by Rev. H. Burgess, Vol. 5, London, Jan. 1853, p. 371-372, 376)
Here is another reference for this info:
With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, p. 413)
But TCs choose to ignore these facts and use distortions and lies to attack Erasmus and the TR. So the facts show that the TR was not based only on a handful of manuscripts, yet this lie is being pushed in an effort to discredit the TR, as they point to the mistakes in his first edition:
Although Erasmus published a fourth and fifth edition, we need say no more about them here. Erasmus’s Greek Testament stands in line behind the King James Version; yet it rests upon a half dozen minuscule manuscripts, none of which is earlier than the tenth century. . . . The textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule manuscripts. (D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, Baker Book House, 1979, p. 35-36).
“. . . the TR is only based on seven late manuscripts.” (Glenny, W. Edward. The Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. 1997. p. 51)
Bart Ehrman says:
It appears that Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfth-century manuscript for the Gospels and another, also of the twelfth century, for the book of Acts and the Epistles — although he was able to consult several other manuscripts and make corrections based on their readings. (Misquoting Jesus, page 78)
He makes it appear that Erasmus only used mostly one MS for the Gospels and another for Acts and the Epistles, though he could look at some others, but that is not what the record shows, as we have seen. The critics want people to believe that he just threw together his Greek text from a few bad MSS, bam! It’s done. That is false. They ignore completely the fact that Erasmus collated many Bible texts, did an in-depth study of every verse of the NT, then wrote up his annotations. This means, that when he read those seven MSS to produce his Greek text, he could easily spot an incorrect reading and correct it.
Also, the texts that Erasmus used were virtually identical to all the other more than 5,800 Byzantine MSS; because, other than recognizable scribal errors, they are not wildly divergent like those of the Egyptian texts. They were faithfully copied, and so it matters little how many he used, or how old they were, they are all almost identical texts. The above mentioned Complutensian Polyglot was a Bible in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew made with Papal approval. It took many years to research and used different texts than Erasmus, yet its’ text did not differ significantly from Erasmus’s text. The Complutensian Polyglot is so close to the TR that it could be mistaken for another edition of the TR.
What’s more, a tenth-century text could have been made from a third-century text. Scrivener said in 1845:
. . . many codices of the tenth and following centuries were very probably transcribed from others of a more early date than any that now exist . . . (A Supplement to the Authorized English Version, p. 27)
And these lying “experts” know it, but they just want to deceive the Bible reading public. And they fail to mention that modern Bibles are based on a HANDFULL of Egyptian texts which are far worse than any of the texts Erasmus used.
His third edition of 1550 was the first to have a critical apparatus, with references to the Complutensian Polyglot and fifteen manuscripts. It was republished many times and became the accepted form of the TR, especially in England. It influenced all future editions of the TR. According to Mill, the first and second editions differ in 67 places, and the third in 284 places. The fourth edition had the same text as the third but is noteworthy because the text is divided into numbered verses for the first time. . . . (Combs, DBSJ.)
All the work done for many years prior to creating the actual text does not matter to the Erasmus haters, all the work done on the later editions does not matter to TR haters, because they need to discredit the text so they can get people to accept their WH based Arian-Gnostic texts.
The Muslims did not intend to cause Greek scholars to flee to Europe. The Greeks did not intend to bring their text to Europe to enlighten them; they were just fleeing death and destruction. Gutenberg did not intend to produce a means by which the Bible could be mass-produced without scribal errors, but merely to produce a press to print any and all books. Erasmus did not intend to provide fuel for a Protestant Reformation. Even Martin Luther did not intend to start the Protestant Reformation, but merely to reform the RCC. But God had other plans.
In case you did not notice, the first edition of the TR was published one year before Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses onto the church door, starting the Protestant Reformation. Clearly, God used Erasmus to create a text Christians could use to translate the Bible into many different languages, which fueled the Reformation. God’s timing is perfect. Also, the printing press was invented just 65 years before. Thus, God brought us the printing press in time for the Bible to be printed, in time for the Reformation. WOW
We can see that the greatest works of God through humans are ones that mankind did not intend or expect, yet mankind was intimately involved in the doing and the making. That is when it becomes clear that the hand of God was in it. It is God at work through men to carry out His plans upon the course of history, and Christianity.
Like today, Erasmus also had 16th-century enemies. He wrote to Peter Baberius in August 1521:
I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them. (Froude, The Life of Erasmus, p. 267).
Yet, as good as his text finally was, a few mistakes were never corrected, so it is not as good as it can be because we now have over 5,800 MS of the New Testament, most of them being Byzantine. I believe a new TR should be created, but the text created by WH and those that have come after them, are far more corrupt than the TR ever was. In 1996 William W. Combs said:
Without question it is possible to produce a text which is closer to the autographs by comparing the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts available today. Fundamentalists should reject the attempts by some in our movement to make the TR the only acceptable form of Greek text. (“Erasmus and The Textus Receptus,” Combs, DBTS Journal, #1, Spring 1996: 35–53)
The first attempt to translate the Bible into English for the reading public was by Wycliffe (1330-1384), but it was a translation of the Latin Vulgate. The RCC killed Wycliffe and at least 1,000 of his Bible owners. Plus, the printing press had not yet been invented, so God in his providence did not allow the Latin Vulgate to become widespread.
God got his Word out, in spite of those who attacked Erasmus and his text. Tyndale’s Bible in English was published in 1525, Coverdale’s in 1535, Matthew’s in 1537, Taverner’s in 1539, the Great Bible in 1539, Geneva in 1560, Bishop’s in 1568, and the King James Version in 1611.
Since there are several editions of the TR, which edition should we use for new translations? I believe we should take the latest edition created by Scrivener along with the recent editions made of the Majority Text, and make a new TR, then leave it alone unless new discoveries are made outside of Egypt.
Even though Hort rejected the Byzantine text-type, he acknowledged that it dominated Syria and Asia Minor in the later part of the 4th century:
“The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century.” (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, p. 92, quoted in Burgon, Revision Revised, p 257)
And Kurt Aland acknowledged that the Byzantine MSS virtually agree with each other, while the other MSS vastly disagree:
“. . . the greatest number of manuscripts, comprising the bloc of Majority text witnesses in most instances, are always the same — they are manuscripts with a Byzantine text. The representatives of this text type are extremely homogeneous, exhibiting a high ratio of agreement among themselves. For manuscripts with the fewest Majority readings, that is, most of the early manuscripts, exactly the opposite is true. Even the most closely related among them generally show agreement ratios of between 60 and 70 percent. (Aland, The Text of the NT, p. 323).
You heard it from the mouths of the big dogs themselves, Byzantine text-type MSS are 99% in agreement with each other, while the others only agree 60-70 percent of the time. And yet it is those disagreeable texts that are used for the modern Bibles. Pickering said:
Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75, B text form for example). . . . (Pickering, The Identity of the New T.T., IV)
How can witnesses that contradict each other be called reliable? They cannot. After the Greek texts came to Europe, Erasmus published four editions of his Greek text. The first edition was an ok text made great with later revisions. Then Robert Estienne, known as Stephanus, improved Erasmus’ text with four more editions 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551. Then Beza’s edition, then it was produced by Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir (or Elzevier) with seven editions between 1624 and 1678.
Their second edition in 1633 contained, in Latin, the words, “Therefore you have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” Thereby, the entire line of texts, starting with the first edition of 1516, were labeled as Textus Receptus (TR), or the Received Text. I believe “nothing changed or corrupted” doesn’t mean they did not make any changes to the text, but that they believed it was the closest to the originals as they could make it; because, even though the printers made no changes, “the 1633 edition was edited by Jeremias Hoelzlin, Professor of Greek at Leiden” (DBSJ, Erasmus and The Textus Receptus, by William W. Combs, page 35).
Most sources say the 1611 edition of the KJV used the 1550 TR, but the TR continued to be revised, and so did the KJV. Today’s KJV was slightly revised in the early 1800s, which is why staunch KJOnlyers insist on the 1611 KJV.
According to Edward F. Hills, author of The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, p. 220, the differences between the various editions of the TR are not many and are minor (Hills had a doctorate from Harvard in modern textual criticism; one of the few who did not drink the Kool-Aid).
Critics of the TR like to point out that the copy of Revelation that Erasmus used was missing the last six verses, so he translated the Latin into Greek, with bad results. The TR haters like to make a big deal of this, as though it actually is a big deal. Well, let’s look and see the difference between them. Keep in mind that since these are two different translations, they will be different even if they were made from the exact same Greek text.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
|ASV of 1901, the U.S. edition of RV:
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the off-spring of David, the bright, the morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely.
Rev 22:18 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Thus far there is no difference. The ESV says “warn” in v.18 where the KJV and ASV say “testify.” The majority text also reads “testify.” The majority text (MT) is simply a text created that uses only readings found in the majority of all Greek MSS, which means Byzantine. But it does not always agree with the TR because the TR is not just a majority text, but was created to be critical text, and so Erasmus also consulted many other old translations.
|Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.||Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.|
Now, in verse 19, there it is! There is the horrible thing, the reason the TR is being trashed! It says, “Book of Life” instead of “tree of life.” Oh the corruption! Burn the TR, BURN IT! LOL Does it affect any doctrine? No. Does it change the meaning of the verse? No. Should it be investigated and changed if the evidence warrants? Yes. The MT has “tree of Life.”
The more important point is, that if the Sinaiticus did not have that verse, the entire verse would have been removed without a quip, and anyone who did not like it would be condemned as being against scholarship and reason. But the verse is not removed, but merely has one wrong word.
|Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.
|Rev 22:20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen.
The MT says “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Yes, come, Lord Jesus!” So in verse 20 the only difference is “even so.” And in verse 21 the KJ says “all of you” instead of “the saints.” Therefore, there are only insignificant minor differences, so I guess the TR and KJV are not so corrupt after all. Yet, the TR haters make a big issue of these last 6 verses!
Why the outrage of hate toward the KJV and the TR? Because Satan hates God’s true Words, a text that has not been altered by Gnostics and Arians. They need to justify rejection of the TR somehow and for some reason, so trashing Erasmus and the TR is the only way to do it.
The critics like to point out that the TR differs from the Byzantine text in almost 2000 places, but those differences have been labeled as “trivial.” Whereas the WH-based modern texts differ from the Byzantine text in 6500 places, some of them major, as seen in previous chapters.
God in his providence has preserved the Bible for almost 1800 years. The thousands of hand-copied Byzantine manuscripts, also called “witnesses,” that we have contain few significant differences. The majority of the differences are minor, but since we have discovered so many older and corrupted MSS, we now doubt whether many important words and verses belong in the Bible, nuts!
The TR is not perfect, but it is far closer to it than the modern WH-based Greek texts, and can be made even better.