Is the King James the Best Version? (White vs D.A. Waite)

And we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back with Dr. D .A. Waite and James White debating on the King James Controversy. And welcome back. You are listening to In Defense of the Faith, the local live call-in program designed to equip the saints and uplift Jesus Christ.

Debate Format and Opening Statements

We are normally opened up for live calls, but tonight we are going to have a special debate on the King James Controversy with Dr. D .A. Waite and James White. And so we are going to open up our lines for calls at about 10 .05, where you can ask them both questions, but up until that point, they will just debate each other.

But before we do that, we were told to read a letter from TexMars having to do with this controversy. Larry, are you on the line?

I sure am, Dale.

Okay, we have our very own Larry Wessels via telephone line, and why don't you tell us what.

You got and quickly read the letter. Yes, I invited TexMars to debate James White in person,.

And this is his reply. Now, this is a debate on the Gale Ripplinger book or what? Oh yes,.

I invited TexMars to debate James White on the Gale Ripplinger book, New Age Bible version, and he sent this reply in the mail. I got it in the mailbox yesterday and wanted it read on the radio show tonight.

So here is what TexMars has to say. He has written many books and is director of Living Truth Ministries. Many people may be aware of him. TexMars says, I believe in debating to reach the lost, the New Agers, cultists, etc.

Thus in the past, I have debated Satan worshippers and witches in Seattle, New Age psychics in Miami, homosexuals in New York, and even Lord Maitreya's forerunner, Benjamin Crim here in Austin. But the word of God, the King James Bible, is not up for debate.

Regrettably, many fine and sincere Christians use the false new versions because they are unaware of the facts supporting the King James. They are unaware too of the hideous omissions and perversions of the New International Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, etc.

But Mr. James White is not one of the misinformed. He, intentionally, maligns the truth. Mr. White claims to be a Christian, but he eagerly defiles the Holy Bible. I will be pleased to debate Muslims, witches, Satanists, Scientologists, or Atheists, but I do not wish to give a heretic the forum to blaspheme God's precious, biblical truth.

And that's what TexMars has to say. Okay. Well, thank you and I'll be listening.

All right. Thanks, Larry. Bye-bye. All right. Obviously, we don't agree with TexMars' statement, but that's where he stands. And with that, let me bring on Dr. D .A. Waite. Hi, Dr. Waite. Are you there?

Yes. All right. How are you doing this evening? Okay. Who is this? This is Dale Deloney. You're the moderator? I believe so, yes. Dale.

Deloney. D-E-L-O-N-E-Y.

Okay. And anyway, what we're going to do is give you opening statements. We'll give you each opening statements of three or four minutes, and you may start, and then we're going to just have an open forum all the way to 10 o 'clock and then open up for phone calls.

At the end of the debate, we will allow both of you to give your addresses and phone numbers. Okay. Okay? All right.

We've both agreed that we each have the same number of minutes and seconds to answer each question so that there's fairness, and we will be able to speak without interrupting one.

Another. Certainly. And you can begin now. My turn? Yes, sir. You can begin with your.

Opening statement. All right. You want me to take about three minutes? Yes, sir. Okay. The opening statement that we have to make would be that I'm the author of a book. We call it Defending the King James Bible, and we believe that the King James Bible has a fourfold superiority over all other versions in the English language.

We believe it has a fourfold superiority, namely, it has superior texts of Hebrew and Greek, and we believe it has superior translators that translated it. We believe it has superior technique of translation, and we believe it has superior theology.

We believe it's God's Word kept intact in English, and we have outlined these points in our book, and I believe that these other versions, we believe, have a fourfold inferiority, whether that be—now, I'm speaking basically and specifically of the versions that Bible-believing Christians are using today.

I'm not involved with the ones that the liberals are using. We could include those because those also are true as far as the Revised Standard Version, New English Version, and so on, but we're centering in especially on the ones that the King James people formerly used, and now they're using these other new versions, such as the New American Standard Version, such as the New International Version, the New King James Version, and the New Berkeley Version.

Those are the four that we cite in our book, and we believe that they're inferior on text of Hebrew. They do not use strictly the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text. They say so in their prefaces. They use other things to correct the Hebrew.

They do not use the received Greek text, the Textus Receptus, on which the King James Bible is founded, but they use the critical text based by Nestle-Allen 26th edition or the 4th edition or 3rd edition United Bible Societies, otherwise known as the Westcott and Hort text.

They were the architects basically following manuscripts B and Aleph, the Vatican and Sinai, so that's, we believe, inferior as to manuscripts. Then we believe that they're inferior translators. We do not believe that our present man can hold a candle to our King James Bible men and their erudition and their spiritual insight and especially their equipment for knowledge of the Hebrew and cognate languages, the Greek and cognate languages.

The translation technique, we believe, is inferior in these other versions, which they use either at a greater or lesser extent, the dynamic equivalency, which adds to the words of God, subtracts from the words of God, and changes them.

And then they're inferior in theology. Many errors in theological statements that are found, we have over 158 of those in our book. There are really over 356 doctrinal passages. So these are the four reasons for superiority that King James and inferiority, these other versions.

That's my three minutes.

Hey, that's really good timing, Dr. Waite. Now, so you wouldn't, you're not going so far as to say that these other versions are of the devil or anything like that? Are you in quite in that camp?

No, I think that the other versions of the scriptures, I believe that they're made by men, probably, of integrity and fine abilities and so on. But I do not believe that they're as accurate as King James.

But what their motivations are, I think some of the publishers now, I think their motivations are the dollar sign. What are the motivations of the translators? Oh, I wouldn't, I can't read their hearts and their minds, so I wouldn't know.

I was just wanting to know if you're in that extreme part of the camp. All right, James, your opening statement. Well, I appreciate Dr. Waite being with us this evening, especially knowing how late it is back on his part of the nation.

I believe that the King James only controversy is based upon normally a misplaced allegiance to a 17th century translation that certainly God has blessed tremendously. If anyone wishes to use that translation today, I certainly don't have any problem with that.

But I do not believe that the King James Version is the most accurate version for today. And I do not believe that the, especially the textus receptus, called the received text, underlies the King James Version is the best Greek text that can be utilized today by any stretch of the imagination.

I am concerned when the King James Version becomes a point of contention within churches when churches are split over the issue of whether one uses a 17th century translation done by Anglicans or whether one uses a 20th century translation done by interdenominational scholars.

I am very concerned when that becomes an issue of fellowship in the church and when that then causes churches to no longer be able to, for example, send out missionaries because people have left the church, et cetera, et cetera.

I see this as a non-issue in the sense that I do not believe that there is any conspiracy involved in new translations to attempt to hide or deny cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, or the physical resurrection of Christ, or the virgin birth, or any of these other issues.

I believe that Christians should be avail themselves of all the information that is available to them, that they should be aware of textual variation within the Greek manuscripts, and that they should have a freedom to examine all that information, and I think they would be best suited by comparing a number of different translations, including the KJV.

But taking a position that the KJV, I think, is the best, I think is somewhat untenable in light of mistranslations within the text itself and other things that have come to light that even the King James Version translators didn't know about, such as the Granville Sharp Constructions, the Titus 2 .13, and 2 Peter 1 .1.

So I think these are issues that we need to discuss and to bring out. Okay, thank you for that. Well, now that we have the opening statements, let's just have an open forum and dialogue, and I guess, of course, each person can clearly state their point, and hopefully there'll be no filibustering, but we'll have a gentlemanly debate, and who wants to start?

Well, I want to thank Dr. Waite for sending me his book, Defending the King James Bible. I've had the opportunity of looking through it, and I just did want to ask him, in light of what he said about other translations, on page 125 of your book, you made the statement that, I'll just read it here, I believe the New King James Version is probably the most dangerous of the new versions on the present market today.

And then just below that, you also said in bold print, the diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them.

By so doing, they confuse the readers. And I was just wondering, I carry a New King James Version, and in fact, the primary reason that I do so is because the New King James does provide the textual footnotes, it does let the reader know, because it's based upon the textus receptus, obviously the reading of the TR is found in the Bible itself, and then they give you what's called the majority reading, and then the NU reading, the Nestle All-United Bible Society reading.

You seem to feel that they shouldn't give you that information, and my first real question was, why would you feel they shouldn't give that type of information in the footnotes?

Okay, I'll take about the same time that you took to ask it, to answer it, Mr. White. I think that the information that they give in the footnotes is very misleading to the new Christians as well as to the older Christians.

In the top of their text, they claim to use the textus receptus reading. In the bottom, they have a smorgasbord, a veritable cafeteria of other possible readings, as you said, very honestly, either the NU, the Nestle United Bible Society, or the M, the majority text readings.

And so, when a pastor is preaching from the upper top, and says, for instance, that the last 12 verses of Mark are genuine, Mark 16, 9 to 20, and then in the footnotes, there is a caution that certain manuscripts omit these portions, there is a decided bifurcation of loyalty, either to the upper part or to the lower part.

So, I believe that's a serious situation. I believe the Nestle, or rather, the New King James, for instance, in the edition that I have, page 12, 50, 12, 35, they say it was the, let me just get that exact quotation, the editor's conviction, the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers.

He recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something that he felt was not properly a part of the text than to insert a word, phrase, or phrase, which had been left out by the reviser.

So, I believe that their motivation is to try to make people technical critics, and I don't believe that that's a part or necessary in the Word of God. And, of course, we could go on, my time is up on this portion, but I could go on and say that I've done a study on the New King James and found that there are over 2 ,000 examples of addition to the Words of God, subtraction from the Words of God, or changing the Words of God, and I think that is a very serious thing as well.

Maybe not as much as the New International, not as much as the New American Standard, that's 6 ,000 and 4 ,000 respectively, but it is in the wrong direction. I'm sorry that took me two minutes.

Well, Dr. Wade, I hope you won't cut your response short just out of a sense of making sure it's absolutely the same amount of time. I hope we can just have a regular conversation here and do so in such a way as to get all the information out.

But you just said that changing God's words, that you use the King James as the standard for determining what God's words are, and you said you don't feel that people should be being textual critics, basically, by having the information that the New King James prints at the bottom of the page.

Let me ask you, though, if a person just has a KJV that has no textual notes, or if they have the Textus Receptus that is printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which also does not give any textual notes, doesn't that limit them to having to believe whatever the TR says, even when there are places in the Textus Receptus that are plainly in error due to the rush that Desiderius Erasmus was in to get his Greek text into print?

Aren't we, in point of fact, telling people they have to believe whatever Desiderius Erasmus said? Wouldn't it be better to let them have the information and make a decision for themselves? Well, Mr. Wade,.

Just let me say, first of all, I don't believe that the ground of the comparison was that adding, subtracting, or changing, as in some of the New King James, over 2 ,000 places in my book number 1442, wasn't based upon the King James.

When I read through, word by word, the New King James and compared it, I did compare it, first of all, with the King James to see if there was an upset here and there, but I always went back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to check and to see which was the closer of the two.

So that's the first thing I would say. I don't also believe that there's errors in the Textus Receptus because of haste. I don't believe Erasmus was the only one, of course, who was the pilot and the source of what we call the traditional text.

Dean John William Bergan has written five books on textual matters which we've published and reprinted in our Bible for today, and Dean Bergan feels that the traditional text I agree with him goes all the way back to the writings of Paul and Peter and James and John, and we have confidence in that.

I was brought up on the Westcott and Hort text myself from Dallas Seminary. That was the text I was given to learn my Greek in, and for 21 years I was that way. The last 22 years or 23 I've been reading and studying and I've come to a different conclusion, but Erasmus' text was not the only Textus Receptus or traditional text at that time.

As you know, there was certainly the Complotensian Polyglot of Cardinal Jimenez who came out really first to print, or rather to finish but not to publish, and of course you have the Elsevier brothers and of course the visa in 1598 which is the form of the King James.

So there are others. I don't think we have to be shut up to any Erasmus quote-unquote errors. Well, the TR that you're talking about,.

I'm assuming it's the same one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? Yes, sir. Okay, does that not still to this day, for example, contain Erasmus' translations into Greek from the Latin Vulgate at the end of Revelation, as well as some of the importations that he made like in Acts 8 from the Latin Vulgate into the Greek text without Greek textual support?

Isn't that still a part of that particular edition that is printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society?

Well, in answer to that, Mr. White, the Erasmus instance of Revelation, which he had no manuscript in the Greek, so the story goes, using the Latin, I can quote text that was used by the Revised Standard Version, and I read it from that and read it from the text of Receptus that underlies the King James, and I didn't find more than two or three words that were out of place or different, and so I believe Erasmus was not the only one.

I think he did a pretty good job of translating it. I think Acts 8, I think that that's got legitimate standards and standing with many other texts and early Church Fathers' quotations.

But you will admit that there are words like Orthrinos at Revelation 22 -16 that basically he made up as he translated into the Greek, and they're still a part of the TR. You wouldn't.

Defend them as being God's words, would you? Well, Mr. White, I go by what God has preserved for us through the years, and as was accepted by the Church, we have over 37 historical links in our book, as you notice, down through the centuries, and also that which is accumulated and proved by the evidence that is before us.

Over 99 of the texts that we have, 5 ,210, go along with that text basically that underlies the King James Bible, and I believe that's what God has preserved for us. Well, yeah, I would agree, if you're talking.

About the majority texts, that that certainly has deep historical roots, but the specific readings of the Textus Receptus, such as the one I just gave you, Revelation 22 -16, or 22 -18, or 22 -19, or Revelation 17 -4, Revelation 14 -1, especially the book of Revelation, there are a number of problems where there is no Greek manuscript support, and none of those readings existed prior to 15 -16.

The Church had never seen Orthrinos at Revelation 22 -16 prior to 15 -16, so I don't understand how it could be said that the Church accepted these things when the Church had never seen these readings in the first 1 ,500 years of its existence.

I don't think that our discussion should center around one or two Greek words. I believe that the thrust of the text that underlies the King James Bible is the text that the early Church copied and recopied, and the text that underlies these false versions, these versions that are not based upon proper text.

The fourth century, they claim, 350 -375 AD, and that text, basically the Egyptian text, doctored by heretics, Egyptian texts, really, B and Aleph, those two particularly that they almost worship, those texts were never copied and recopied by the Church.

There are a measly 45 Greek documents, and that's as far as it goes, B and Aleph and 43 others, and they have kept themselves buried until Westcott and Horton, some of the others, unburied them and said, aha, these are the texts that the Bible, the New Testament should be based on.

And we believe that that is serious because the early Church realized that there were forgeries and falsities and errors abounding in those two Egyptian texts, and they never copied and recopied.

Them. Well, Dr. White, certainly you're aware of miniscules that exist long after the time of the Egyptian texts that still maintain the Alexandrian readings like 1739, 1881, and others, but I don't agree that these texts were, quote-unquote, doctored by heretics or things like that.

I certainly see no evidence of that when I examine the texts themselves. I notice that in your book, you do feel that there are a lot of theological issues that are impacted by the textual readings that we choose.

You, for example, noted when the modern text will say Jesus and the King James says Lord Jesus, that you feel that this is, in fact, an attack or a denigration of his deity. Am I.

Correctly representing what you said in your book on that? Yes, I believe, Mr. White. I think that these Docetists or these Aryans or these Egyptians, all of whom were unorthodox in the area of Egypt, even according to some scholars on the other side, when they came to these places, they often removed the lordship, especially Lord Jesus Christ.

That was foreign to the Gnostics, and so, as far as the doctoring of the verses there, Dean Burgon, in his book called Causes of Corruption of the Early Manuscripts, lists on chapter 13 quite a few of these heretics.

The Gnostics, the Ebionites, Marcian, Thacian, Thessalides, Valentinus, Sorinthus, Heraclion, Theodotus, the Manichaeans, Manus, all of these, in fact, they said the greatest heretics and the greatest corrections and corruption occurred within the first hundred years after the scripture.

Was made. But, sir, can you actually historically demonstrate that any of these heretics had anything whatsoever to do with what you would identify as the Alexandrian Manuscripts?

Well, I don't know by name. All I know is these men that were writing their own Gospels, certainly that's a change of the word of God. Marcian, for instance, A .D. 150, wrote his own Gospel and mutilated shamefully the scriptures.

Thacian and his Diotessaron tried to weave the four Gospels into one and thus polluted the Thessalides. He was a heresiarch, a lead heretic, wrote the Gospel of Thessalides, 134 A .D. And Valentinus, 140 A .D., wrote his own Gospel.

I can't pin down that this man or that man, for instance, took away the word Theos, God, in 1 Thessalonians or 1 Timothy 3 .16, but that certainly is a heretical reading and it's certainly not a reading that ought to be accepted by the texts that we have.

God manifest in the.

Flesh, not simply. He appeared in the body. Well, sir, I would happen to agree with you that the best reading of 1 Timothy 3 .16 is Theos personally, but I don't see that there is any theological reason to assert that someone, some scribe who saw Hoth there, which is the other reading, was somehow a heretic.

But I don't think I really got an answer to what I was saying earlier, and that is, while we all agree that there were heretics in the early church, I ask where you can demonstrate that these heretics had anything to do with the writing of the manuscripts that are vilified by King James Only advocates.

In fact, the first one you mentioned, Marcion, you also mentioned Valentinus. They both flourished in Rome, not Alexandria, Egypt, and hence could not one, if we're just citing names, assert that maybe that's why the Byzantine text does not contain a reference to the deity of Christ at John 1 .18?

I mean, could we not utilize that type of an argumentation? I mean, I wouldn't, but it would seem that if you're going to use that type of argumentation, it has to go both directions,.

Doesn't it? Well, as far as John 1 .18, I believe it is inimical to the deity of Christ. To have God the only begotten, I believe, is a travesty and a heresy and a theological perversion. I believe the only begotten Son is the proper reading, I believe it's the proper doctrine, and I think that what you said about those heretics in Rome, they had an influence in the early church in some of these versions.

For instance, if you take 1 John 4 and verse 3, every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, this is the spirit of Antichrist, the words Christ has come in the flesh is left out of Aleph, or rather be, there's no Aleph here in this portion, and I believe this is a great heresy.

They do not want to believe that Jesus Christ, perfect God, perfect man, has come in the flesh, incarnate, and I believe that's the essence of 1 Timothy 3 .16 as well.

And you just mentioned 1 John 4 .3, if I just might turn our readers' attention to that. You just indicated that that phrase is not found in modern translations, and you're right, and you consider that heretical.

Isn't it significant though, you indicated these manuscripts did not want to believe this, why then do they all include it in verse 2, the verse immediately before the one that you read, which in all the modern translations speaks of the one confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

Isn't it much more logical to understand that the reason that the Byzantine manuscripts have this same phrase twice was due to scribal error and not the other way around, and isn't it clear, no matter which direction you go on that, that since all the manuscripts of 1 John 4 .2 contain that phrase, there obviously was not some sort of conspiracy to attempt to deny the wonderful truth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

Well, in verse 2, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and every spirit that does not confess is not of God. I believe that wherever, whether it's twice, whether it's once, I don't believe that we take out any portion of that which is solid and straight.

I didn't name the versions that did remove Christ has come in the flesh, but the New American Standard Version is one, and certainly New King James and the footnotes. I believe that we should not take, for instance, another example of heresy and theological error, for instance, in John 7, verse 8, where the Lord Jesus is made out to be a liar by Olive and by the New American Standard Version.

I believe this is serious heresy against our Savior, the Lord Jesus,.

Who loved us and gave himself for us. Well, sir, again, if you're asserting that there is some heresy on the part of these manuscripts, when you have the phrase, Jesus has come in the flesh, right there in verse 2, obviously, if someone wanted to take that doctrine out of the Bible, then they would take it out of the Bible, but they didn't.

In John chapter 7, what you're talking about here, again, it is not calling Jesus a liar to take out the word yet, going up to this feast. That can be understood very plainly in other ways other than calling Jesus Christ a liar.

There would be no reason for anyone to attempt to do such a thing, but there would be a very good reason why later scribes would want to put that word yet in, so they wouldn't have to explain why Jesus put it the way that he did.

Again, one can understand the situation here without resorting to some sort of theory that certain manuscripts are somehow attempting to insert heresy. But you did just say something that intrigues me.

You said that whatever is, I think you put it, fuller or more strong and in solid doctrine, that that's the reading that we should go with. Let me ask you possibly about another passage and see what your opinion on it is.

In Acts chapter 4, verse 25, in the King James Version, Acts 4 .25, we read the following, Who by the mouth of thy servant David hath said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Now the New American Standard Bible at Acts 4 .25 says, Who by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of our father David thy servant did say, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things?

The modern translations teach very clearly here the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures. Could not a person, if they're using the same methodology and argument that I'm finding in your book, say that at this point the modern texts are superior to, in both text and translation,.

To the King James at Acts 4 .25? Well, Mr. White, you've said a number of things in this last question. Regardless of Acts 4 .25, I believe we ought to leave it the way the text of Receptus has it and the King James has it.

I'll let the readers, or let the listeners, to decide as far as John 7, 8, whether Christ is made a liar or not. Here it says, Go ye up into this feast. The Lord Jesus in John 7, verse 8, was talking to his half-brothers.

The feast was at Jerusalem, and he said, I go not up yet unto this feast, for my time is not yet come, full come. But Aleph, a Sinai manuscript, there's no B here in this area, but they remove the one word yet.

And so does the New American Standard Version, so does the New King James in the footnotes, suggesting that we ought to take that away. I'll leave it to the listeners' discretion to see whether or not, and yet he went up afterward, and if he says, I go not up, well, that would make him a liar, wouldn't it?

And regardless of what you say, that you say the scribes added this or added that, I'm pointing out there are theological errors in these versions and their superiority in theology.

In our King James Bible. Well, sir, the going up to the feast, if you're familiar with that situation, as I talk of the Gospel of John over the past couple of years, I explain that, and I think it's a very logical explanation, that when Jesus says, I am not going up because my time has not yet fully come, he's talking about the public displaying of himself to the people of Israel.

He went up, as the book of John says, secretly and not openly. And hence, there is a perfectly logical, exegetical reason for the reading that is found in the manuscripts upon which the new translations are based, and there's no evidence that they're attempting to cause Jesus to be called a liar.

But you said you feel in Acts 4 .25 that you should just stay with the Textus Receptus. Again, why is that the case? Do you feel that you should stick with the Textus Receptus, even when it pergoes against, for example, the majority of Greek manuscripts?

And if so, why?

Well, the Textus Receptus that underlies our King James Bible is the basic text of Pisa, 5th edition, 1598. And it's been, for two reasons, it's been accepted by the Church down through the centuries, and it's been attested by the evidence.

And I believe the early Church, in the apostolic times, we list over 37 historical links with the Textus Receptus in the early churches, right down from the beginning. And I believe that that's the first reason.

The second reason is that it's been attested by the evidence that over 99 of the manuscripts that we presently have are underlying the King James Bible. The papyrus fragments, 85 of those go along with King James.

The uncials, the big ones, over 97%. The cursives, over 99%. The lectionaries, 100%. That's over 99 of the whole manuscripts that we have. And I believe, by faith, that we have in this Textus Receptus the Word of God that the Church has accepted.

If you reject the received Greek text that underlies our King James Bible, what you're saying is the Church had no real Bible in the 4th century until 1 ,500 years of the false Bible. I don't believe God works that way.

He promised to preserve His words, I believe He did, in the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus.

Receptus. But sir, you're making an error there in that I asked you when the TR varies from the majority text, when you talk about the text going back to the early Church, you're talking about the specific TR where it differs due to Erasmus' mistakes or whatever from the actual majority text.

At one point you defend the TR, and at the next point you're defending what's actually the majority text. And they're not always identical to one another. I have an entire list of readings where the TR is very different from the majority text.

And so I again have to ask, let me give you an example, maybe it'll help if I have an example for us to look at. In 2 Timothy 2, verse 19, we have a passage where we have a quotation from, two quotations from the Old Testament.

The King James says, "...Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His, and that every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.".

Now, maybe you know otherwise, sir, but to my knowledge, I have not been able to find a single Greek manuscript that says Christ at this passage. The majority text reads Lord, all of the Nethelon, UBS, reads Lord, all the unseals, all the minuscules, all the lectionaries, they all read Lord at this place and not Christ.

And so maybe this will help us to get the question more clearly. Why should I believe that the correct reading here should be Christ, when to my knowledge, no Christian prior to 1516 had ever seen the reading Christ here?

Everyone had thought it said Lord. You just said, you know, if you reject it, they receive text and you're saying the church didn't have a Bible until the 19th century. Why should I accept the TR's reading at this point.

Against all the Greek manuscripts? What was the verse? 2 Timothy 2, verse 19.

2 Timothy 2, verse 19. Again, the King James says, "...nevertheless the foundation of God's plan is sure, having to seal the Lord and not them that are his, and let everyone that nameth name of Christ depart from iniquity.".

If you'll look at the Hodges-Farstad edition of the majority text, it will indicate there that that reading is a TR reading over against pretty much everybody else. All the other manuscripts say Lord.

My feeling is there's just an error on Erasmus' part. He was in a hurry, just like Revelation 14 .1. But it seems to me that you're saying that because the TR was used for maybe, what, 200 years from the time of Erasmus onward, 300 years, that somehow we should accept that reading even when it doesn't have any Greek manuscript support.

Well, let me just say a few words without getting specific on any verse. I think it's not necessary that we go into verse by verse. Let me just say a little, think of something about the so-called majority Greek text of Hodges-Farstad or Robinson and Pierpont.

There's two majority texts, as you know, floating around, vying for power. I guess the Hodges-Farstad is not even in print. At least, I guess it maybe has gone back recently, but it had gone out of print.

There are great defects in this so-called majority text. They did not revise the text of Receptus in the way that Dean John William Burgon suggested. They used basically the footnotes of Ansoden. We have a booklet called Defects in the so-called Majority Greek Text and also Why Reject the Majority Text.

They used Ansoden's footnotes and he only had about 414 manuscripts total and he called that the majority manuscripts. They did not look at all 5 ,255 plus manuscripts. They had a shortcut, a quick fix type of a text.

They realized and admitted that it was not really sure. It's not anchored in rock and this is very serious indeed. Of course, Ansoden was not a believer. He was an apostate and they followed slavishly.