The King James is still The King of English translations

https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Main_Page

*******Transcript**********

"I still consider The King James Bible to be The King of Translations for the English Speaking peoples. However, in order to understand why this is one needs to understand the manuscript history underlying the King James Bible. One needs to have a firm understanding of the importance of our Bibles coming from the right line of manuscripts and the received text line of translations.

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name retroactively given to the succession of printed Greek language texts of the New Testament which constituted the textual base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale (1526), Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1557 - 60), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611), and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe such as the Spanish Reina-Valera translation and the Czech Bible of Kralice. The Textus Receptus has been translated into hundreds of languages. (See Also The Word of God for All Nations) The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Abraham Elzevir and his nephew Bonaventure who were printers at Leiden:

Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus. Translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."

The two words, "textum" and "receptum", were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus’ editions, as his work served as the basis of others that followed. Many supporters of the Textus Receptus will name any manuscript which agrees with the Textus Receptus Greek as a "Textus Receptus" type manuscript. This type of association can also apply to early church quotations and language versions.

A Rich and Full History

Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.

All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts

Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus type manuscripts

Papyrus 66 used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

The Celtic Church used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

The Waldensians used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

Curetonian Syriac is basically a Textus Receptus type manuscript

Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus type manuscripts

Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used Textus Receptus type manuscripts

The vast majority of extant New Testament Greek manuscripts are Textus Receptus type manuscripts (99% of them)

The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

85% of papyri used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort type

97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 9 manuscripts used the Westcott-Hort type

99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used the Westcott-Hort type

100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

Although six chapters of the Gospel of John were printed at Venice as early as 1504, by Aldus Manutius, and the whole of that gospel was printed at Tubingen in Suabia, in 1512, these editions are interesting only as literary curiosities, for though they constituted the first portion of the Greek Testament ever committed to the press, they exercised no influence whatever on succeeding editions.

The first printed Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot (1514) but was not published until eight years later. Erasmus' edition was the second Greek New Testament which he called the Novum Instrumentum omne, printed and published in (1516). As early as 1505, Erasmus wrote to a friend;

“I shall sit down to Holy Scripture with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it...[A]ll these three years I have been working entirely at Greek, and have not been playing with it” (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 87).

Erasmus began working directly on the text much before 1507. Froude wrote that years before the text appeared, it was being prepared.

“He had been at work over the Greek MSS. for many years. The work was approaching completion” (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 93).

Frederick Nolan, writing in 1815, states, in addition to the manuscripts which Erasmus owned or had seen himself, he gathered readings from various European nations through his broad friendships in universities, libraries, and monasteries.

In 1512 Erasmus had been in negotiation with Badius Ascensius of Paris to publish the Vulgate of Jerome and a new edition of Adagia. It did not happen, and Erasmus did not continue contacts with Badius. While many critics of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus claim that Erasmus used only a small handful of manuscripts, this is not a correct hypothesis, because the libraries and scriptoriums throughout Europe would not simply give away manuscripts, therefore Erasmus travelled vastly to examine many manuscripts and wrote down variants, and thus had no need to personally acquire the manuscripts or have them on hand when he penned the Novum Instrumentum omne. Erasmus updated his 1516 "Textus Receptus" in 1519, and again in 1522, 1527 and his final edition in 1535. Stephanus also edited the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550 (Editio Regia), and 1551. Theodore Beza edited the Textus Receptus nine times between 1565 and 1604. The Authorized Version translators used the 1598 of Beza, a disciple of John Calvin, who both had access to Waldensian versions and manuscripts. This "family" of texts is also known as the Antiochian Text, Byzantine Text, Syrian Text, Greek Vulgate, and (until the 1980's) the Majority Text.

The King James Version is the most accurate representation of the Textus Receptus and is without translational error. Any translation faithful to this text is THE word of God by default. I do not believe that the King James Version has any secondary inspiration.

Modern "textual criticism" is focused on a narrowing of the field to a few corrupted and rejected manuscripts sidestepping the huge amount of Greek and Latin manuscripts and the early church witnesses as unimportant, only to be used when they can be referenced to try to give some support to the Vaticanus primacy corruption. It really is an anachronism fallacy (false definition) to speak of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, to be doing textual criticism. Since their value were in general opposite those of the Griesbach to Hort to Metzger to Wallace confusions. They based themselves on mostly the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the early church witnesses with some faith-consistent logical and grammatical type of internal evidence considerations. This is essentially, the opposite of "textual criticism" as used today which has a bias presupposition towards The Corrupted stream of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Peace of Christ to you all!"