KJV Only?

[SaintJoeNow]

In the context of the whole thread, there are number of people making good arguments you should read. Some are from the view of Textual Criticism while mine are more the personal use as being Familiar, Clear, Precise, and accompanied by God's Holy Spirit.

The list of 200 verses is what convinced me and a few others I know of. One fellow on a different forum website was skeptical till reading the list, and comparing the versions. Clearly changed his mind.

Someone questioned your use of many smaller posts, and I just gave a few reasons why you would and should do that. I was cautious to make this about the scripture, the use of posts, and NOT personal.

I know now, I'm sorry...I looked at it again and realized you were offering a fair explanation to people who were trying to make it a personal issue with name calling and accusations of "spamming" as if they were trying to set me up for a rule violation. Before you came on, it seemed like two or three days maybe more, where I was the only one defending the KJV and several were attacking me so I was on edge and mistrusting of your intentions...thought you were chiming in with the others who were trying to accuse me of things.

I do enjoy the different angles people take in defending the KJV and I prefer for myself an approach like yours...more personal as a matter of faith directed by God's Word, the guidance of His Holy Spirt validated by His written Word and never contradictorty to His Word. I'm not big on detailed study and disciplined dissertations thought I very much appreciate the people here who do take that angle more than myself.
People who are reading this thread with an open mind to the possibility that God actually preserved His Word for all posterity from the moment it was written down by the men He first delivered it to in the Bible could follow any one of our lines of reasoning and reach the same conclusions we have. It's better when all the different lines are here, just in case one line is not enough to convince somebody.

I was fortunate shortly after I was saved to meet a great King James defender when Ruckman was still the big name in the movement. He explained in simple common sense supported by a few Bible verses so that a reasonable born-again Christian would have to agree in recognizing God's hand in delivering His Word to us in English. I prefer the philosophical approach of faith vs pride (this is very annoying to "scholalry" type people, and that is why they were trying to character assassinate me) combined with the scripture"s many references showing God's Word is kept pure and preserved and has never changed in spite of the fact that it was hid from many throughout the centuries after it was given.

I'm glad to hear your report of being convinced as well as others were after looking at the 200 verses. The Great Awakening was a King James Bible revival. We need another one. I posted those many fast posts with NASB vs KJB comparisons in hope that others would examine them like you did. The people actively attacking me then had absolutely no interest in the huge discrepencies of the modern translation, and were taking the easy way out by attacking me personally rather than discussing my posts.
I took you the wrong way because I was a bit battle weary trying to reason with unreasonable people. Sorry again and thank you for your patience.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Im stating that the word of God remains unchanged even if your interpretation differs.

I didn't mention any guy with a funny hat who holds a crook and is the boss in a church.

I was referring to the EPISKOPOS example in my earlier post.

What 'bishop' seems to imply in English, is not what the root word means, which is overseer.

 

[LostMarbels]

I was referring to the EPISKOPOS example in my earlier post.

What 'bishop' seems to imply in English, is not what the root word means, which is overseer.

It is not the interpretation of the word that is in question. The question is the word in original text, and carried over to the KJV. or other versions for that matter.

 

[Avid]

... I didn't mention any guy with a funny hat who holds a crook and is the boss in a church.

Wm. Tyndale worked on the English translation, and much of his work is what we know today. It was Tyndale, and not Shakespeare who was the architect of the English language. He was very concerned about that fellow you didn't mention this time.

If the Geneva Bible (which was brought to America by the pilgrims) had been standardized as has the KJV had been, I would likely prefer that. The reason is that Tyndale understood how that, to the fellow with the funny hat, Charity meant, "...give us your money, and we will give it to the people WE think need it." This is why, in I Corinthians 13, Tyndale translated the word Agape to LOVE and not Charity. This is a choice of word use. Many other versions have a difference in manuscript use, and of word use.

 

[LostMarbels]

Wm. Tyndale worked on the English translation, and much of his work is what we know today. It was Tyndale, and not Shakespeare who was the architect of the English language. He was very concerned about that fellow you didn't mention this time.

If the Geneva Bible (which was brought to America by the pilgrims) had been standardized as has the KJV had been, I would likely prefer that. The reason is that Tyndale understood how that, to the fellow with the funny hat, Charity meant, "...give us your money, and we will give it to the people WE think need it." This is why, in I Corinthians 13, Tyndale translated the word Agape to LOVE and not Charity. This is a choice of word use. Many other versions have a difference in manuscript use, and of word use.

I do not completely understand where you are coming from.

I do not accept anything simply because it is well known or mainstream.

And I have no Idea why your telling my about Shakespeare. While I do know that argument I do not understand what it has to do as a response to me.

What is it you are saying? Or asking?

 

[tall73]

If they do adhere to the majority texts, they insist changes in the King James Bible are needed so they are ignoring what the Bible says about the Word of God being preserved without error.

There can only be one true version of God's Word in one language. The correct English translation of the Word of God is the King James Bible.

I appreciate your efforts to help me understand your position. I think I have a pretty good idea where you are coming from now. And I certainly would like to keep the conversation on the issues rather than personal references.

However, there is still an aspect not making much sense to me. The Byzantine Majority text has been in pretty much continuous use by Greek speaking Orthodox churches. It is closer to the TR of the KJV than it is to the Alexandrian type, certainly. So I can see the argument there.

Wouldn't the Byzantine Greek text then be the word of God to them in Greek? How could it not be? It was passed down, and included in the liturgy from ancient times.

Yet the TR does not agree with the Byzantine Majority text in every respect. And you indicate the TR is the underlying text for the word of God in English?

How can two different underlying texts be the word of God if you say it must all match up?

 

[tall73]

As a result of this conversation I might have found a new NT translation to try.

Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EOB - The Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible based on the Septuagint (LXX) and Patriarchal Text

It is a translation based on the Byzantine text, translated by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Might check it out and get back to folks about how it reads.

 

[Jack Koons]

I appreciate your efforts to help me understand your position. I think I have a pretty good idea where you are coming from now. And I certainly would like to keep the conversation on the issues rather than personal references.

However, there is still an aspect not making much sense to me. The Byzantine Majority text has been in pretty much continuous use by Greek speaking Orthodox churches. It is closer to the TR of the KJV than it is to the Alexandrian type, certainly. So I can see the argument there.

Wouldn't the Byzantine Greek text then be the word of God to them in Greek? How could it not be? It was passed down, and included in the liturgy from ancient times.

Yet the TR does not agree with the Byzantine Majority text in every respect. And you indicate the TR is the underlying text for the word of God in English?

How can two different underlying texts be the word of God if you say it must all match up?

Please allow me to give you this short answer now, which will be expounded upon later.

The KJV is based on the MT, the TR, along with other Bibles. This is one of the truths that modern scholarship fails to acknowledge. They say it is built "only" on Erasmus' TR; the evidence clearly shows otherwise. I will share this "evidence" so that the readers of this thread may have a clear understanding of the history of the KJV.

Jack

 

[tall73]

Please allow me to give you this short answer now, which will be expounded upon later.

The KJV is based on the MT, the TR, along with other Bibles. This is one of the truths that modern scholarship fails to acknowledge. They say it is built "only" on Erasmus' TR; the evidence clearly shows otherwise. I will share this "evidence" so that the readers of this thread may have a clear understanding of the history of the KJV.

Jack

Before you go to all that work, I have not disputed that the KJV is based on more than just Erasmus TR. And I have looked at a listing of some of the manuscripts, and read about the role of the Bishops Bible, etc. So there is no need to go back and hash that over at length, as it would not address what I am actually asking.

While the KJV was not based solely on the TR, the fact remains that the KJV underlying text has a number of differences from the Byzantine text type as a whole (which itself is not monolithic).

If he is talking about each word being rendered correctly, etc. then having differences in the underlying text would seem to rule that out. And the Byzantine text type was God's word in Greek from ancient times.

 

[DeaconDean]

You said:

I can think of FEW reasons he would, and should do that.

First: Too many times, long posts are not read through. Scanned, skimmed, or something, but not read through.

Second: The repetitive nature of these posts may cause trouble for some people trying to keep the items separate.

Third: For well over ten years I have done this (not all on this site,) and some people literally complain about a long post.

Fourth: There is a limit to the size of posts here. Too long, and it will not post the comment.

Fifth: There are things we like to do in posts that are not allowed for NEW members till they reach 50 posts, and that can curtail what is said.
​

It may seem odd to you, as you have a certain way you like doing things. None of those posts were short. I have seen posts in these forums that were one short sentence, one word, or just one smilie!!!

I submit:

Mark 7:8 KJV "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." NASB ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."" NASB leaves out the example of how they held to the traditions of men rather than the Word of God, as Catholic's do today.

Romans 10:15b KJV ". . .How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and being glad tidings of good things." NASB ". . . HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"" NASB leaves out "preach the gospel of peace," and only refers to "glad tidings of good things." What good things? Without the gospel, there are no good tidings.

1 Pet.4:14 KJV "If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified." NASB "If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you." NASB leaves out the last 15 words, changing the meaning or import of the passage.

Matthew 20:22 KJV "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able." NASB "But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They said to Him, "We are able."" NASB totally leaves out the underlined reference to baptism. This is a reference to the Baptism of suffering of which believers partake. Philippians 1:20; 1 Timothy 4:6; 2 Timothy 1:12; 2:12; 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; 1 Peter 2:20; 3:14, 17; 4:16, 19; James 5:10...

Here's a good one from the NASB showing the method of modern versions delaring to carry the message of the Word of God in a supposedly better translation so we can get a better idea what the message of the Word of God is......

1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV "when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it. ." NASB "And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe." NASB changes 'the Word of God' to 'word of God's message.' If the Bible isn't THE WORD of GOD, then we have no final standard.

Multiple posts, without a chance to address one, forces one to address all in a single post. Thus, a lengthy post to wit some argue against.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Avid]

... Multiple posts, without a chance to address one, forces one to address all in a single post. Thus, a lengthy post to wit some argue against...

I understood your question, and just saw there may be more of a reason to do that than to put it all in one. Some of my five reasons may not be anywhere near the motive, and other motives may have been there I did not guess...

A list of 200 verses comprises what may be 130 to 197 omissions in Bible versions many people say they like. The blood of the LORD Jesus is omitted 15 times in certain Bibles. Many versions show some of these occurrences, but indicate they do not really belong there. That qualifies as omitting them.

The comparison that was shown in those posts is the very thing I had done almost 34 years ago with my girlfriend, and her NASV. (32 years married now.) We got about 2/3 or 3/4 through when she had more than enough, and set that book aside permanently. (NASV omits 183 of the 200)

The point is not simply that there are some different words used, but that significant doctrinal points are obscured or abandoned in many places. Have you gone through the list to see how many of the 200 are missing in the versions you use? Compare with the Geneva Bible as well, when you have the time.

http://aChristianspirit.com/200VERSES.HTML

May God bless us all with understanding in His truth.

 

[kiwimac]

That would. of course, be heiferdust.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

A lot of people simply don't care about the doctinal changes and deletions of the new versions, much less the ungodly character of the people who had those versions copyrighted iwth enough significant changes to fullfill copyright requirements for excleusive profit of the editors. The King James Bible can be rewritten without copyright infringement. No modern version, as far as I know...please correct me if I'm wrong....no modern version can be printed without permission of the peole who hold the copyright on that version.

Only the footnotes and indexes and such in a King James Bible can be copyrighted. Why in the world the Gideon Bible society stopped using the King James Bible and started paying a royalty to the wicked people who brought us the New King James Version, which in reality is not the King James Bible at all but just another invention based on corrupt manuscripts.

And many Christians still are going to tell me they have the Holy Ghost to get them closer to the oringinals which were lost and changed purposely if not by human error, and everything the Bible says about the purity of the Word of God and it's eternal character is heresy...please.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I'm sure most of the people arguing against the King James Bible here are fine godly Christians who simply have some problems believing that God preserved His scriptures through all generations and delivered them to us in English. But anybody with an adolescent understanding of human nature knows that when people make a big fuss about something that is really simple and not worth that much of a fight... usually its because they have something else going on in thier lives which they are trying to protect for selfish reasons. People who fight hard againt the preservation of scripture, and God's hand in giving it to us in English by the willing hands of martyrs, and will not even listen to the true story of how God through those willing, obedient, and godly martyrs brought us the King James Bible, often will be people who have issues compromising personal holiness. Again, I'm assuming that all here are godly and fine Christians. Not trying to make any personal statement agaisnt any individual, but if the shoe fits they can wear it...God knows.

The accout of how Tyndale's work was snatched by stealth by Rogers after Tyndale was betrayed and placed in bonds before being burned at the stake where he prayed as he died, "Lord, open the kings eyes" and won the hearts of England and Europe to become known as the Hero of the Reformation"..., and then Rogers continued Tyndales work untill he was martyred are nothing short of miraculous.

The King's heart is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it whichever way He chooses. When the King of England was petitioned to commission the translation of one Bible which would be known as the Authorized Version translated in English under the authority of the King of England, many stood up agaisnt this proposal thinking they would talk the King out of the idea but He liked the idea.

God made sure the scriptures were accurately translated into English shortly befrore English became the closest thing to a universal language of manking since the Tower of Babyl (spell check on Babyl...Babbyl? I'm rusty over the years, forgot way more stuff than I remember from my school days. God did this for a purpose for these last days, and most of His church is trying to tell everybody we really don't know what God said because it was lost in human error of copying and translating...and then they are going to tell us what the originals MAY have intended.

I'm not talking to anybody in particular who opposes the King james Bible. I am simply addressing the underlying attitudes and beliefs of people in general who do not believe God kept the scriptures pure and gave them to us in English.

A final note for this post...when people talk about "human error" causing copied originals to be altered, they are excluding every copy including the first copy ever made from the original Word given to the prophets and implying that God was not concerned enough to make sure His Word was accurately copied. By this same thinking, even the original authors could have made mistakes as they were writing what God told them to write.
He cared what they wrote, He cared how it was copied and preserved, and He cared how it was translated and used His chosen men and the King of England to do it for the English speaking world which today is pretty much the whole world...the whole world teaches English as a second language..(exaggerating a bit here of course...just a bit)

God wanted His Word in English because He knew what was ahead for the English language in the world thanks to the good old US of A.

 

[Avid]

I wonder how it helps the cause to spam so many posts in a row?

In using of the word SPAM, are you saying that there is not merit in what each of these posts showed? Were they just multiples and Carbon Copies of the same thing? They weren't, and that is why I was trying to show that these were not short little things tossed up as SPAM.

Here are actual examples of SHORT posts on CF:

.

Yep!

.

.

.

QTF

.

.
Each may have quoted a short or very long post by someone else. Even these are not typically labeled as spam.

Must go now.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I appreciate your efforts to help me understand your position. I think I have a pretty good idea where you are coming from now. And I certainly would like to keep the conversation on the issues rather than personal references.

However, there is still an aspect not making much sense to me. The Byzantine Majority text has been in pretty much continuous use by Greek speaking Orthodox churches. It is closer to the TR of the KJV than it is to the Alexandrian type, certainly. So I can see the argument there.

Wouldn't the Byzantine Greek text then be the word of God to them in Greek? How could it not be? It was passed down, and included in the liturgy from ancient times.

Yet the TR does not agree with the Byzantine Majority text in every respect. And you indicate the TR is the underlying text for the word of God in English?

How can two different underlying texts be the word of God if you say it must all match up?

All of your questions and objections are reasonably answered if you want the answers. The one thing you are ignoring is God's concern about keeping His Word without error as it was given to the holy men of God whom He chose to write it down from Moses and Job all the way through to John who was directly told by God to write down the Revelation.

If you will not accept God's providence in first giving His Word to His chosen men, and then preserving it in spite of whatever human or devilsh devices would have denied God's Word from humanity, then you will not accept any answers to your questions but will only come up with more and more and more.

I get the impression that you have studied this issue only for the purpose of discrediting God's promise to preserve His Word and keep it pure.


If, as you say, you actually have a "pretty good idea" where I am coming from, then let's discuss the real issue here. "Yea, hath God said...?" It seems to me that all you are trying to do is say it is impossible to know what God's Word is, and tha't the devil's work and you are not on God's side in this issue. Sorry.

I suggest you focus more on the history of Tyndale and Rogers and the miracles of how their work was protected and continued, and how God answered Tyndale's prayer of "Lord, open the King's eyes" which he uttered while dying being burned at the stake for his life's desire in serving what he firmly believed was his God-given duty to translate the Bible into English.

The way you are trying to nitpick, all you are doing is trying to prove human error always has and always will trump God's desire for us to know Him personally according to His Word in our own language.

You are calling for "civility" in a discussion in which you are actually insulting God. I'm sorry for being so blunt about it, but this is what it comes down to. Either you believe God said exactly what He said preserved if for us in English as it is preserved in the originals or you side with the Serpent who in the Garden of Eden framed his argument much simpler than the complicated "scholars" of today. It all comes down to "Yea, hath God said....?"

 

[SaintJoeNow]

In using of the word SPAM, are you saying that there is not merit in what each of these posts showed? Were they just multiples and Carbon Copies of the same thing? They weren't, and that is why I was trying to show that these were not short little things tossed up as SPAM.

Here are actual examples of SHORT posts on CF:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Each may have quoted a short or very long post by someone else. Even these are not typically labeled as spam.

Must go now.

He knows I was doing a good job of accurately pointing out why the NASB cannot possibly be considered to be the Word of God or even convey or contain the Word of God because the NASB goes AGAINST God in so many places by changes, deletions, or additions to his Word. He started attacking me personally accusing me of "spam" when each post was a unique display of the weakness of versions differing with the King james. He did this the same as anybody who fights in favor of their own Holy Ghost guidance in truth over the guidance of the written Word of God to know the Truth so we can be sure it really is the Holy Ghost guiding us rather than our own proud spirit or some lying spirit from Hell saying "Yea, hath God said....?"


Vote in favor of the King James Bible as the Word of God in English.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Before you go to all that work, I have not disputed that the KJV is based on more than just Erasmus TR. And I have looked at a listing of some of the manuscripts, and read about the role of the Bishops Bible, etc. So there is no need to go back and hash that over at length, as it would not address what I am actually asking.

While the KJV was not based solely on the TR, the fact remains that the KJV underlying text has a number of differences from the Byzantine text type as a whole (which itself is not monolithic).

If he is talking about each word being rendered correctly, etc. then having differences in the underlying text would seem to rule that out. And the Byzantine text type was God's word in Greek from ancient times.

I am talking about God's providence in giving His Word to men who put it in writing not because they wanted to, but because God gave it to them and they recorded in in obedience to God. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. I'm also talking about God's providence in protecting that given Word exactly as He gave it for us today. Thank God for the King James Bible. Greek Orthodox Bible is NOT the Word of God.

Just for you, I'll do a piece about the doctrine of preservation throughout history untill delievered exactly as given to the original authors. This is Biblical doctrine, backed by SCRIPTURE which God in His Word said very plainly, even when translated from Greek into English, CANNOT BE BROKEN.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

1) Starting point of apostacy
Satan in Genesis 3 did not begin his attack by questioning whether there was a God, or whether God created, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true. Nor did it begin with the question of whether God's word was inspired in the originals. Apostasy began when Satan asked Eve, "Yea hath God said?" "Eve, are you certain that you presently have a full recollection of what God said?" When doubt was given a bridgehead at this point, the other defenses soon fell. The same principle applies today: Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture. Those gody men held to the highest of Biblical doctrine except for in the preservaton of scripture even through translation into English.


2) Faith or Unbelief?
Like all other Bible truths, the Scripture's teaching on its own preservation is to be in the first instance accepted by faith. The facts and evidences of the preservation of scripture are obvious when look at in faith of God's desire to keep His Word pure even when translated in our language. If God guided the translation, it's His Word. If He did not guide the translation, it's a fake, a fraudulent version of His Word. Translations which vary are either all wrong or one of them is right. The evidences of the King james Bible being the God-guided preservation of His Word in English are vast but can never be acknowledged if a person says it's not possible and will not know regardless of the evidences. This is the same mindset an atheist has toward God, saying their is no evidence of God when the evidence is in every particle of the entire Creation as well as the Creation in it's entirety including our own bodies and breath of life. Those who deny God's Word is preserved in Englsih are holding the same mindset as an atheist in the matter, even if they are great Godly men like Charles Stanley and J. Vernon McGhee.
Those gody men held to the highest of Biblical doctrine except for in the preservaton of scripture even through translation into English.

3) Preservatio grounded in eternal counsel of God
The Bible's preservation is rooted in the eternal counsels of God. The Scriptures are as eternal as God Himself.

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89) There are so many other verses and passages that say the same thing in different ways emphasizing aspects of purity, unchangability, preservation, perfect punctuation while preserved that to ignore them you have to call God a liar.

4) Preservation through priesthood of believers
The preservation of the Scriptures took place through the priesthood of believers. The Old Testament text was preserved by the Aaronic priests and the scribes who grouped around them. //// Unto them were committed the oracles of God ...Romans 3:12

In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ. Hence, the New Testament text has been preserved by faithful Christians in every walk of life. //// Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all truth John 16:13 (the favorite verse of people who say they have to go back to the Hebrew and Greek to try to figure out what God really said)

IT WAS NOT THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF CHURCH FATHERS OR COUNCILS THAT DETERMINED THE TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IT WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT....
guiding His own into the acceptance of the true word of God. Such copies proliferated, while defective ones were ignored. The Holy Spirit continues this work today in the questions that arise over the wording in the modern versions.


Points 5-12 will follow in upcoming posts

 

[Jack Koons]

Before you go to all that work, I have not disputed that the KJV is based on more than just Erasmus TR. And I have looked at a listing of some of the manuscripts, and read about the role of the Bishops Bible, etc. So there is no need to go back and hash that over at length, as it would not address what I am actually asking.

While the KJV was not based solely on the TR, the fact remains that the KJV underlying text has a number of differences from the Byzantine text type as a whole (which itself is not monolithic).

If he is talking about each word being rendered correctly, etc. then having differences in the underlying text would seem to rule that out. And the Byzantine text type was God's word in Greek from ancient times.

Tall73,
While I appreciate your desire to save me work, I assure you, the research has already been done. However, it is my desire to answer your question as directly as possible, without rehashing those things, which, it appears may be commonly understood.
One of the first things I believe we need to do is define “Majority Text”, along with the term “Textus Receptus”. I hope you will accept my simple definitions, rather than using ‘textbook’ definitions.
The Majority Text are those MSS which are of the Byzantine Text type, which make up anywhere from 95-99% (depends on who is counting) of all extant Greek MSS (approximately 5366). These are the Greek MSS that have been used throughout what was known as the Byzantine Empire, the area which includes the very area where the Apostle Paul founded churches while on his missionary journeys. The majority of these copies, (known as the Majority Texts) became very worn due to use in the churches throughout the years. Nevertheless, God still used His chosen people to keep His word until the time of His choosing, when He would, according to His sovereign plan, choose a man to bring these copies (or manuscripts [MSS]) together, so that He could have His words published in the language which would become known, world-wide: English. Before having His words translated into this new 'vulgar', (common) language, God would first choose a man to make a Greek text that would be a coalition of the Majority texts, which would be the groundwork of not only the English Bible, but the 'anchor' of His preserved words, in any language in the world. The man God chose was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. (October 27, 1466 – July 12, 1536) Erasmus was the greatest scholar of his day, I dare say, I doubt there has been, or is, a textual critic who could even begin to measure up to the caliber of Erasmus.
A quick word concerning these “copies” of the Greek MSS. Not every MS of the approximately 5366 MSS are perfectly pure. However, having said that, please understand that God knew (knows) which were (are) pure, and those that were (are) not. It was the job of the Holy Spirit to guide men like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and others in their part of the work which would 1) bring us the pure Greek Text; and 2) bring us a pure English translation of that Greek Text. Not forgetting the Hebrew Text: The “First Rabbinic Bible” was an OT published text by Daniel Bomberg, in 1517-1518. In 1524-1525, a converted Jewish Rabbi named Jacob Ben Chayyim published a second edition of the OT text that would become known as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. The translators of the King James seem to have followed both, the First Rabbinc Bible (1517-1518), edited by Felix Pratensis, because the first edition includes Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68, whereas the second edition does not include these verses; and the second edition (1524-1525), for other than these two passages, the text aligns with the Ben Cheyyim text.

As a note, the “Ben Asher Masoretic Text, is the Hebrew text that is used as the underlying text for nearly every modern Bible version. Even though the first two editions (1906 and 1912) of “Biblia Hebaica” by Rudolph Kittel were based on the Ben Chayyim text, for his 1937 edition Kittel used the Ben Asher text. While the text that the Ben Asher text is based upon (the Leningrad Manuscript [B19a, or L]) which is thought to be older (dated 1008 A.D.), I believe he fell victim to German Rationalism, and textual criticism.

God used (and guided) the Masoretes until the 16th century, at which time He had the OT text published in two editions, which would be used by the King James translators, to give us our English Bible.
We now move to the term “Textus Receptus”. Note: The name Elzevir is not part of the lineage of the King James Bible, however, they 'coined' a 'name' that would be forever 'attached' to the King James. The second edition of the Elzevir Greek New Testament from which the name “Textus Receptus” originated, came AFTER the KJV was already published, but the title refers to the entire body of Greek texts that stand behind the King James Bible.

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textumand 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 the others.[10]”

Tall73,
This is the reason many are confused as to the differences between the MT, and the TR. 1) The TR came out of the MT; 2) the Elzevir TR is not where the KJV came from (as history shows).
I will in the future share more info; but I think this post is long enough.

Jack