Jack Koons said:
Tall,
Im not seeing where youre coming from. Here is why. The Greek text that underlies the KJV were collations of several Greek texts, of the Byzantine text type (which make up what we call the MT).
Agreed.
However, the majority text is not monolithic. And while there is generally stronger agreement between the various manuscripts in the Byzantine than there would be manuscripts in the Western (for those who hold to it) or the Caesarean (for those who hold to it) or the Alexandrian, there are still readings within the majority text that are themselves minority readings.
the KJV has several passages which retain minority readings. While the manuscripts are late and generally from the majority text type, some of the readings are not majority readings at all and do not therefore represent the Greek Scriptures that folks had been using the most.
There are a number of examples that we could cite. For ease of argument at this point let's simply use I John 5:7. I have read your thread regarding it, and other literature regarding it. I have a copy of Metzgers textual commentary as well which I have read on the point. Since we have a pretty good idea of what textual witnesses include it, this is the most convenient to refer to.
So here is the simple point. The comma is NOT a majority reading. Please note, I am not here arguing whether it belongs in the Scriptures or not. For the purpose of this conversation that is a separate point, and there are arguments for both sides. Whatever position you come to on the point, the verse is not a majority reading.
For now I will simply quote your own post from the earlier conversation:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7766479-4/#post64096505
Jack Koons said:
GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.
1) 61 (late 15th century) (Aland's Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)
2) 629 (14th century) (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)L3) 918 (Aland's; 3rd ed., p. 824)
4) 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
5) 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
6) 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
7) 636, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
8) 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
9) 429, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
10) Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
11) 635, margin (Holland)
12) Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)
13) Dr. Waite lists 10 other Greek MSS that are unconfirmed as yet.
Let us for the moment include the 10 other unconfirmed MSS that could contain the verse. So far we are looking at around 21 or so manuscripts it would appear that include the verse. Some of these only include it in the margin.
Earlier in the discussion you said the following in response to the assertions of Doug Kutilek
Doug said:
1) "Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers."
I have already stated that while the above statement is true, it also insinuates that the Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5 that do not contain the comma are from a much earlier date; of course, this however is not true. Again, this at best is misleading; at worst it is deliberately deceitful.
The reason for quoting these two excerpts from the previous conversation is to note that you agree with the statement that there are around 300 MSS known to preserve I John.
It also establishes that at best, as we know it now anyway, only 21 of those 300 preserve the reading of the comma, and some of those only in the margin.
That would by default then be a minority reading.
So now to the point I was making. The majority text as a whole was the text used predominantly by the church over the centuries. As such, I would consider it God's word to those churches, still preserved in the Greek language.
Yet the majority of these disagree with the underlying text for the KJV, and the English translation of the KJV, in that they do not have the comma.
So again the question, how can both be God's word? Or do you assert that the KJV is God's word, but that the majority of the Majority text are not? If so, then preservation seems quite different than what we might think.