king james onlyism deception part 1

Sam gipp has released a video which has been successful refuted by a few others like James white, but here i just want to make some of my own comments on this video -- its nothing new on the king james onliest camp .. just it has some new twist to it   .. here i will examine the claims point by point


statement 1


(after a student makes a comment of which bible of the 300 out there, Sam say )


let me tell you there's not 300, not 200, not 50, not 25, not 10, not 3, not even one .. there are two  -- when i say there are only two ... i know u walk into a shop and see a selection, but your not seeing half a dozen -- it is just 2


a line from Antioch, and a line from Alexandria




ANSWER ..

here i want to make 2 basic points


A -- there is not 2 line or 2 bibles .. this is far too simplistic answer .. in fact there are multiple lines of manuscripts


B --- the so called antiochan  bible that is said of is simply false .. the king James is based on 7 manuscripts from more than a thousand years after the original .. to be precise almost 1500 year maybe more


* the Alexandrian manuscripts are the early ones .. dating from possible 2nd century to the 6- 7 century ad


* the so called antiochan are 7 in number ... you have 5 additions of Erasmus ... which the fist two did not have 1 john 5 :7, then we have 1550 Stephanus edition, and finally there is the Theodore beza


the textus receptus is a later product .. more on this issue to come

statement 2

what do you know about Antioch (it is the place where the name christian comes from) absolutely we got our name from Antioch - it was also the head of the new testament Church was, i mean Paul when he went out on missionary journey's he went from Antioch and came back to Antioch -- it was the centre of new testament Christianity
in fact many of the original may have been penned there

ANSWER

this kind of thought does not deal with the real evidence, but only deals with speculation

A -- while the first point that the disciples were first called christian in Antioch -- it simple does not follow that mean Antioch is the place where Christianity was based .. they are baseless claims with no substance or merit... also note that in Galatians it was in Antioch the first heresy was made manifest .. so this reason is fallacious

B -- the centre of new testament Christianity .. was never based in any particular place although it could said that Jerusalem  could be the major place in Christianities history, to me it is not about a place but the person of Jesus Christ where the basis of faith lies and this seem the only biblical move to make

C --- originals of what exactly? --- the new testament is this your angle ... i am a little bit disappointed in this surface level answer .. for a start there is not one location to which the original can be traced, but in fact there are several ... a good portion were from Jerusalem ... some from other areas like Rome, and still most of Paul were written in jail .. with a possibility of 5, and then john wrote his in the island of patmos

QUESTION ... why do you appeal to originals when you don't actually believe in them in any real sense .. since king James is your authority .. which is based on 7 manuscripts .. so this appeal seem some what misplaced

statement 3a

today in existence there are 59,900 manuscripts -- the vast majority read as what is known as the textus receptus .. that is the Greek that comes from Antioch

ANSWER

A -- a small matter on numbers of manuscripts .. there are some where between 57,000 and 57,500 .. the number varies .. but still is just an estimate

B -- a majority read what is known as the textus receptus ...

* the textus receptus is not what the k j v is based upon, rather the kjv readings is what the textus receptus is based on .. and since the k j v is based on 7 printed Greek additions from the this last thousand years .. around 800 years ago -- it is unlikely that Sam is giving the whole truth

* this is anachronistic in nature .. and a little mixed up on the facts

statement 3b

so it comes from Antioch through the textus receptus unto the king James bible ... it is like the cup of coffee here its like the one out of Antioch .. which is bigger -- the other one is the critical text which should tell us something

ANSWER

this is just bad logic

A --- as we have demonstrated along with other christian who have taken time to respond in various ways ... as i said above the textus receptus is based on a translation and it is readings .. and also note even this is a critical edition since it was compiled in same manner .. from several different manuscripts  .. also these manuscript have nothing to do with Antioch .. if anything they were roman catholics who prepared them ...

B --- whether it is the manuscripts which form the kjv, or the ones that based newer translation they are all important in terms of knowing more on the word of God .. and it is foolish to go with reading over another

C --- critical does not mean they're not trustworthy .. it just mean that the people of God have invested a long amount of time in accurately documenting all the different reading of every text .. which is a helpful measure in the knowledge of Gods word .. as i said even the manuscripts that surround the k j v had its own ..