|Bro. Schaap, What Greek Do You Use?
When I was a great theologian (sophomore in Bible college), one of the other great theologians (I think he was a junior) asked me this question: Do you think the King James Bible corrects the Greek? I told him that was silly. There is no way the KJB could correct the Greek; it came from the Greek! He said that some people were saying the KJB corrected the Greek, and we both agreed that they didn’t know anything about which they were talking.
It was amazing how confident we were when we didn’t know anything, but thought we did!
The first time I entered an independent Baptist church, I was carrying my NIV. I got into a disagreement with the Sunday school teacher after class because he said the KJB was the best version. I told him I thought the NIV was the best. I had never really read the NIV and had never studied the issue. The only thing I had read was the preface of the NIV that said they used people to translate from different denominations to avoid denominational preferences, and that it was taken from the “best and oldest” manuscripts. That was all I knew, and was ready to defend it.
How quickly I learned differently!
When I went to HAC, I was taught there was one perfect English Bible, the King James Bible, and that it was taken from the one perfect Greek New Testament, which was the Textus Receptus. Through the years, I felt bad for my simple and wrong understanding.
I knew there was a bad strain of Greek New Testaments in the Nestle-Aland NT (now on their 27th edition) and the Wescott-Hort, but I didn’t know anything about there being different Textus Receptus New Testaments and all of them being somewhat different.
If they are all different, can they all be correct? If they are all different, can they all be the “inspired originals?” I didn’t know anything about the:
Then I found out that even those Greek NT are not the same, as there are different editions of the Beza and different editions of most of the Greek NT’s. These were not font changes, spelling changes or printer error changes like the so-called “editions” of the King James Bible were.
I didn’t even know anything about the Greek NT that we were using. I had never heard or Scrivener. The only thing I knew was that the Greek NT we had, said it was the underlying text of the AV 1611 and that it was printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society.
During the question and answer time at the “KJB Summit” at HAC, I had written down about ten questions for the speakers to answer. Bro. Schaap didn’t give any of my questions to the speakers, but he did come over to my seat and “answered” a couple of them, since I was sitting right behind the speakers on the second row.
One of the questions I had put down was, “Bro. Schaap, what Greek do you use and does it have any errors?” He came over to me, and said he didn’t understand the question. I asked him the first part of the question again, “What Greek do you use?” He said he didn’t understand. I slowed down and asked him again with the exact same words, “W-h-a-t G-r-e-e-k d-o y-o-u u-s-e? He finally answered, and said, “The Textus Receptus.” I then asked him, “Which one?” He backed up a little bit, got a smirk on his face, squinted his eyes as to say, “oh, you know there is more than one Textus Receptus” and said, “Dave, I use a lot of them,” and then walked away from me.
They do not want people to know there is more than one Textus Receptus. They do not want people to know that all of them are different. They are so busy trying to represent the “Greek” as the “perfect, inspired, preserved originals” that they cannot tell us the truth.
Most guys that went to HAC didn’t know and many still don’t know that there are different editions of the Textus Receptus. Last week I received a twitter message from a HAC graduate and former FBC deacon that said, “Do you believe that the Greek / Hebrew manuscripts are equal to the KJV, or that the KJV is better?” I answered him, “Which Greek/Hebrew manuscripts?” I am still waiting for a response. He would probably answer the Textus Receptus and then I would ask him, “Which one?” Bro. Schaap is not teaching the guys anything about that.
If people knew that there are “many” different Textus Receptus Greek NT’s, and they are all different, then the “originals only” argument just goes away.
There are no originals today.
The printed Greek New Testaments we have today all have errors in them.
There are no perfect/without error printed full Greek New Testaments!
If people knew that, then they would have to look at the King James Bible as the authority that it is, and not some “originals only” garbage. In fact, we are constantly told we have to go back to the Greek. The King James Bible was printed in 1611, and the Greek New Testament we used at HAC was printed in 1881 by a member of the Revised Version as an incomplete back translation of the Greek underlying the King James Bible. We don’t need to go back to the Greek, but back to the KJB.
So, to answer the original question again differently… Does the King James Bible correct the Greek? Absolutely!
God, through the Holy Spirit, led the translators to use the correct Greek manuscript or the correct version to make sure we have a perfect/without error Bible in the King James Bible. Sometimes, God led them to use the majority text, and on occasion they used the minority text. God led them and because of that, today we have a perfect/without error Bible through the AV 1611.
Why is that so hard to understand and believe?
For your information, here is one example from each Greek New Testament for you to see how God used the King James Bible to correct the Greek. These illustrations may not seem like a “big deal,” but if we are to live by “every word” and if every “jot and tittle” is important, then these should be also.
Erasmus: John 16:33 “have tribulation” (Erasmus and Stephens) vs. KJB and Beza, etc. “shall have tribulation.”
Beza: Mark 13:9 “stand” (Beza) vs. “be brought” (KJB and Erasmus)
Stephens: Luke 2:22 “their purification” (Stephens) vs. “her purification” (KJB and Beza)
Scrivener: Acts 19:20 “Lord” (Scrivener) vs. “God” (KJB, MSS D, E, etc.)
Elzevir: Luke 8:31 “he besought” (Elzevir) vs. “they besought” (KJB and Erasmus)
This is just the tip of the iceburg. The KJB translators followed the Greek of Beza rather than Stephens about 113 times, Stephens rather than Beza 59 times, and Erasmus (and other Greek texts) against both Stephens and Beza about 80 times. The KJB translators ignored Beza about 139 times. The KJB also followed a different Greek text than Scrivener (TBS/DBS) in between 20 and 60 places. (See Hazardous Materials pp. 653-677 http://www.avpublications.com )
Bro. Schaap never answered the second part of that question: does it (the Greek) have any errors? I would love for him to answer that, because you now know the Greek has errors.
Do not let so-called “scholarship” get you to doubt your King James Bible and put more stock in some old Greek manuscript than God did. God didn’t preserve the Koine Greek language, but He did preserve His Word in the King James Bible.
Need more evidence?
Hoskier, 1890. Herman C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, Together with Ten Appendices Containing &c. London: David Nutt, 1890.
This work is of value chiefly for the information given in Appendix B and Appendix C. Appendix B is titled as follows: "A reprint with corrections of Scrivener's list of differences between the editions of Stephens 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565, and the Complutensian, together with fresh evidence gathered from an investigation of the support afforded to the various readings by the five editions of Erasmus, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, by the Aldine Bible 1518, by Colinaeus 1534, by the other editions of Stephen of 1546, 1549, 1551, and by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582, 1588-9, 1598, and the octavo editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604." This is a collation of Estienne 1550 against Elzevir 1624. The other texts mentioned are cited only in support of one or the other, and are not collated themselves. Appendix C is titled, "A full and exact comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the support given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent editions of 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, and 1678." This is the only published collation of Elzevir 1633 against Elzevir 1624.
EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS COMPARED AND SOME OF THEIR DIFFERENCES LISTED
The differences between the various editions of the textus receptus family texts have been listed by Scrivener (1884) [Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 56-60,242-63] and Hoskier (1890) [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, by H.C. Hoskier, London: David Nutt, 1890, Appendices B & C]. The following are some of these differences. Specifically noted are differences between Stephanus 1550 and Beza/Scrivener [I have not implicated here any of the 191 places where Beza differs from Scrivener – POH]
"their purification" – Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts.
"her purification" – Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).
"two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left" – Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 (1550) omit this verse with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.
John 1:28 (In this case Stephens 1550 and Beza/Scrivener read the same)
"Bethabara beyond Jordan" – Erasmus, Stephanus 3 (1550) 4, Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic.
"Bethany beyond Jordan" – Stephanus 1 2, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph, A, B, Latin Vulgate.
"shall have tribulation" – Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate.
"have tribulation" – Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts.
"by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" – Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir, Aleph A C, Coptic.
"because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you" – Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including BD, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.
"serving the Lord" – Erasmus 1, Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.
"serving the time" – Erasmus 2 3 4 5, Stephanus, D G.
1 Tim. 1:4
"godly edifying" -- Erasmus, Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.
"dispensation of God" -- Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including Aleph A G.
Here Stephanus reads "first tabernacle".
Erasmus, Beza [& Scrivener], King James, Luther, Calvin omit or do not use "tabernacle", reading as with Pap 46 Aleph B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version does not use "tabernacle" and regards "covenant" (from 8:7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and Jer. 31:31-34) as the correctly implied/supplied word, as distinct from “tabernacle”. In fact, “tabernacle” is not really the most theologically correct here.
"without thy works" -- Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions) [& Scrivener], King James, Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.
"by thy works" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek manuscripts.