The Textus Receptus - Dr Steven Combs - KJBRC Regional Conference 2023

Buckle up because this lecture by Dr Combs covers material from thousands of years of history at a breakneck speed! Is there any evidence for the received text in ancient times? Do the Egyptian Papyri prove the minority text is correct? The answer may surprise you!
Subscribe for more videos!
kjbrc.org

[@dfwnorthwest]

This was excellent. I am so thankful there are a group of men doing this work. I love history, but am no historian, nor scholar. The first 1000 years after Jesus have for too long not been defended very well with regards to the preservation of God's word. The intellectuals and scoffers think they have the KJV defeated and have swayed many to their side. I'm reminded of Titus 1:11 "Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." I recently listened to a "debate" between someone defending the Byzantine text vs Bart Ehrman. While it was "scholarly", I think this video with Dr. Combs did far better at illustrating the fallacy of "older is better". Thank you, all the rest at the KJCRC!

[@vhollinrake]

This is excellent, particularly from the aspect of God's presentation, the points Steven brings out are vital, especially, the Byzantine empire remaining 1000 years beyond the western and one year later was the Gutenberg press in action! The Greek scholars having fled from the fall of Constaninople taking with them the manuscripts into Europe! I just hadn't seen this, but clearly the hand of the Lord in preservation of His word is manifest. Thanks for your work and for your presentation......shame you didn't speak for longer.

[@TracyZdelar]

Excellent. I need to relisten.

[@toshamccarty5115]

Thank you for sharing; I enjoy learning about the history and preservation of The Bible. It's especially nice to be able to watch and listen 24/7 via this platform, long after this sermon/lecture was given.

[@InLawsAttic]

Thank you so mush! ❤ Amen!

[@michaeltravers3095]

I may not be King James Only but as a Textus Receptus Onlyist, I got a lot of information from this sermon.

[@johnonymous1592]

Which Textus Receptus is the correct one?

[@debbiekerr3989]

I would say that the Beza text is an excellent choice. It's basically the Erasmus text blended with the one done by a Spanish cardinal.

[@larrybedouin2921]

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Jesus never had an original autograph, and he never questioned the written word of his day, but rather quoted from his word which had been written.

[@dirkanderson2944]

Well put , May God give you the ability to speak louder for longer.God Bless My RT education began with a book by CH Pappas , in defence of the authenticity of 1 John 5 : 7 I’d love to hear your opinions

[@danaSingley]

I am Textus Receptus Only because the evidence compels me to consder the facts and I encourage you to as well.

[@titusministries]

Please post the link for the slides 🙏🏻

[@navydiverdlt2316]

Excellent material! As we cannot see the presentation screen, might you provide the website to which Dr. Combs was referring? I would very much like to dive deeper into his research...thank you!

[@augustusappling139]

what is the Dr. Combs' website?

[@kevinjodrey7664]

Do. He spent all that time holding up the TR above the Critical Text, only to point out that there was critical work done on the TR. Erasmas didn't put 1st John 5:7 in his first 2 editions of the TR. Reason. It was not in the Greek. The earliest known Greek instance of it isn't until the 14th century

[@sovereigngracedoctrine5774]

Amen.

[@stevenvalett1231]

How much better to compare multiple manuscripts for variants than only 2 or 3 for accuracy.

[@christopheryetzer]

Just a small correction at the end. The "Amen" at the end of Ephesians is not in the printed 1611. That is why Scrivener left it out. It is also not in one of the early manuscripts of the KJV during translating. Where did Scrivener say it wasn't in Beza?

[@bobbyadkins6983]

And you felt the need to share that because???

[@christopheryetzer]

@@bobbyadkins6983 I just thought it might be helpful to have a bit more of the information. I used to criticize Scrivener for not following the KJV like he said he did. See Mark 9:42, John 8:6, John 16:25, 1 Corinthians 14:10 etc. It was later that I realized he said he followed the 1611 text and matched it with previous printed TR editions.

[@bobbyadkins6983]

@@christopheryetzer In the 1611 KJV, Of all of Paul's writings, Ephesians is the only one that doesn't have amen at the end. The only thing that makes sense about it is that the translators somehow missed it or the ones who copied it missed it. No doubt it's supposed to be there.

[@christopheryetzer]

@@bobbyadkins6983 I agree 100%. I think the Amen is correct and should be there. I am just pointing out that Scrivener was following the 1611 printing. Also Lambeth Palace MS 98 is a manuscript of the translators work in the progress of translating and it too is missing the Amen. So it must have been an early scribal error of the translators or a secretary leaving it out.

[@user-bz7hw4gx5n]

What about the majority text?

[@InLawsAttic]

The textus receptus is the same, many names for the same, as I understand it.

[@user-iw5ff9um9f]

I am missing clear arguments for the TR in this video. Don't you?

[@derdeolifant]

"If you were to stand up and write books ... against the textus receptus, you would be recognised as a scholar the next day." Good observation. Just stand up and tell lies, and you will get a set of friends that take you as one of their own.

[@user-iw5ff9um9f]

I see it as a sign for the end times that many YT-videos attack the deity of Christ and/or attack TR-bibles. Don´t you think?

[@gabrielaparks4740]

What is the link that has his slides?

[@koreyoneal2623]

Speaking of editors , I just had another person in recent history trying to tell me that Francis Bacon edited the KJV . Could one of you do a video about that please ?

[@randywheeler3914]

So when the people were making copies and making copies if they changed one word is it still inspired?

[@PhilChristStudio]

I love KjV but I don’t elavate a translation like some people do. Just preach the Gospel pls.

[@dirkanderson2944]

Jehovah Witnesses are not Jehovah’s witnesses but rather Watchtowerees, that’s exactly what they are.

[@jamessheffield4173]

A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.

[@user-iw5ff9um9f]

Can you please cite a source for that?

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@user-iw5ff9um9f A Latin writer in North Africa named Victor Vitensis attended the Council of Carthage in 484, after the Arian Vandal king Huneric had instructed the Trinitarian bishops of North Africa to meet there with Arian bishops to discuss the subject of the Trinity. The Trinitarian African bishops, who numbered over 100, were led by Eugene of Carthage. The Council of Carthage itself was unproductive and brief. Eugene of Carthage, the leader of the Trinitarian bishops, had intended to present a statement of faith at the council, and this manifesto was incorporated into Victor Vitensis’ account. It includes the following statement: “Et ut luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.” - which means, in English, “And as a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the testimony of John the Evangelist demonstratively testifies: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’” This indicates that the CJ was so well-circulated in Latin in North Africa in the late 400s that a prominent bishop was willing to utilize it at a theological conference. Vigilius Tapsensis (484 A.D.) -- “... twice in his books concerning the Trinity, printed among the Works of Athanasius (viz. Book first, and seventh) and also in his Tract against Varimadus the Arian, under the name of Idacius Clarus, cites 1 John 5:7” (Twells, II, p. 135). Victor Vitensis (484 A.D.) -- “... contemporary with Vigilius, writes the History of the Vandalic Persecution, in which he sets down a Confession of Faith, which Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and the orthodox bishops of Africa, offered to King Hunnerick, a favourer of the Arians, who called upon those bishops to justify the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. In this Confession, presented Anno 484, among other places of Scripture, they defended the orthodox clause from 1 John 5:7, giving thereby the highest attestation, that they believed it to be genuine. Nor did the Arians, that we can find, object to it. So that the contending parties of those days seem to have agreed in reputing that passage authentic” (Twells, II, pp. 135, 136).

[@user-iw5ff9um9f]

@@jamessheffield4173 Thanks Mr. Sheffield. What is the full name of the book you seem to cite by "Twells II"? Thank you very much and Greetings from Germany.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@user-iw5ff9um9f A Defense of 1 John 5:7 [Reports] ... the Editors at Complutum" (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late ... of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128). " ... Leonard Twells (1684?-1742) A critical examination of the late new text and version of the New Testament; wherein the editor [D. Mace]'s corrupt text, false version, and fallacious notes are censur'd, Part II (1731) The various Reading examined; most of them improperly so called; neither numerous or momentus enough to serve the Purpose of such collections: The Authorities for Those Readings carelesly transcribed from Dr. Mills, and sometimes fallaciously misrepresented, especially with Regard to the contested Passage of 1 Joh. v. 7. Leonard Twells Hope this helps

[@user-iw5ff9um9f]

@@jamessheffield4173 Thanks

[@kbrad1267]

First off Erasmus was rebucked by Martin Luther about his teachings on free will. By his writing called bondage of the will,Second Erasmus supported the pope and was a Roman Catholic. Not a Protestant Christian reformer.

[@Mr-pn2eh]

Then why did eramus translate the reviced text into Latin instead of the popes command of using the vulgate.

[@larrybedouin2921]

​​@@Mr-pn2eh Luther was in error on the free will.

[@RosieBaker-fp1vm]

The put o n my face financial do I owing money L

[@chriscravens8318]

"Reasearch Council" = a group of preachers. "Regional Confrence" = a preaching meeting. How pathetic, thinking you need to use scholarly sounding titles for respect.

[@timkhan3238]

1 Corinthians 1:27 All modern bible scholars are trying hard to be in par with the more than 40 super geniuses KJV scholars. They need to be reborn a million times to be just like one of them. My, you reject the works of super geniuses and replace it with the works of ordinary men with laptops. Mind boggling. The stories of modern bibles scholars about wirh their modern bibles are soooooo shallow. If you can reject the "scientific" theory of Big BANG and Evolution, well, 10 minutes of listening modern bible stories is long enough already to reject it.

[@recoveringknowitall1534]

How pathetic that you toss ad homs at your brothers rather than critique their ideas. The sign of a weak mind and a mean spirit.