In a effort to make sure the text of the Bible was the most accurate it could be a movement began in the middle ages to get away from the Latin text and create a pure Greek text. Erasmus (1469-1536) published the Textus Receptus Greek version in 1516. This text was based only on 6 manuscripts ranging from the 10th to the 15th centuries, and there was no text for the last 6 verses of Revelation so he translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek to finish the text. It was based on the best manuscript evidence they had at the time. But since then we have found two whole Bibles dated around 350AD, and hundreds of manuscripts from that time and before.

Today we have some who believe that the KJV (based on the Textus Receptus) is the only inspired Bible translation. All the rest are greatly inferior.

But, if the KJV, created in 1611, is based only on 6 manuscripts from the 10th century and the NIV, created in 1982, was based on hundreds of other manuscripts over a millennia earlier (labeled the Critical Text), then logic will dictate that would rely on the oldest manuscript evidence, not the inferior KJV text.

We would only choose the (KJV) Textus Receptus over the (NIV) Critical Text if:

1. It could be proven the Critical Text was corrupted (tampered with)
   1. Early church testimony that there was tampering.
   2. Even earlier manuscripts that agree with the Textus Receptus over the Critical Text.
      1. There is none.

2. It could be proven that the translators of the KJV were inspired by God.
   1. Historical records of Miracles or other phenomenon of the translators.
      1. There is none.

Compared Verses:
In 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV says "God" was manifested in the flesh. The NIV says "He" was manifested in the flesh. Some KJV-only people say this means the NIV is denying the divinity of Jesus. There are over 20 other references to his divinity in the KJV that are also in the NIV, so that can't be the case. The only real debate is if the writer wanted to say "God" or "He." Since Jesus was both God and Man there really is no problem. We would only have a problem if someone found a manuscript that said "She."

Not only does the NIV have all the other verses on the Deity of Jesus but it adds at least three more. Now I have to ask, does that mean the KJV is trying to deny the Deity of Jesus? Of course not. All it shows is inferior late manuscripts.

In the above verses do we really want to say the KJV is trying to do away with Passover for pagan Easter or is attacking the cross?

In reality no matter which set of Greek manuscript you use (Textus Receptus for KJV and NKJV) or Critical Text for NIV, NASB, RSV, ect) there are no changes in any major doctrine. (if some one can prove this wrong please let me know.) So the KJV only debate is Just a rouse from Satan to try to divide Christians and make Christianity look Stupid. Lets not let that happen!

Notes:
The 6 manuscripts the Textus Receptus (KJV) is based on are:

1eap - 11th Century 1r     - 11th Century 2ae   - 11th Century

2e    - 12th Century 4ap  - 14th Century 7p   - 10th Century

The 1611 KJV also contained the Apocrypha. If the KJV is inspired then you must accept the Apocrypha as inspired, right? The 1611 bible was revised in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, 1827, and 1850, so which one of the 12 KJV's is the correct one?

Related Articles:

The Canon of the Bible,