[button title=”Download PDF” link=”http://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Inerrancy-the-CT-MT-and-TR.pdf” target=”_blank” size=”small” background=”#cf573e” color=”#fff” text_shadow=”#8d321f”]
Inerrancy, the modern Critical Text, and the question of which edition of the Textus Receptus is Perfect
1.) In Matthew 1:7-8, the critical text (CT) affirms twice that the scribe Asaph (∆Asa¿f), rather than king Asa (∆Asa¿), was the ancestor of Christ. The Textus Receptus correctly puts king Asa in Christ’s geneology. This passage is a clear instance of errancy in the CT, while the TR is inerrant.
2.) In Matthew 1:10-11, the CT twice places the prophet Amos (Amw¿ß), rather than king Amon (Amw¿n), in the Lord Jesus’ genealogy. The Textus Receptus correctly has the Hebrew king in the line of Christ rather than the prophet Amos. Matthew 1:10-11 is another passage where the CT is evidently errant, while the TR is inerrant.
3.) In Mark 1:2, the CT affirms that “Isaiah the prophet” (twˆ◊ ∆HsaiŒaˆ twˆ◊ profh/thØ) wrote the book of Malachi (see 3:1). The Textus Receptus correctly refers to the book of Malachi as written by one of the “prophets” (toi√ß profh/taiß). Since the prophet Malachi wrote the book of Malachi, and Isaiah the prophet did not, the CT is errant, and the TR is inerrant.
4.) The TR reads Gergeshnw◊n in Matthew 8:28, referring to “the country of the Gergesenes,” and Gadarhnw◊n in Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26, 37, referring to “the country of the Gadarenes.” The CT reads Gadarhnw◊n in Matthew 8:28, referring to the town of Gadara, and Gerashnw◊n in Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26, 37, referring to the town of Gerasa. The TR references to “the country of the Gergesenes” (Mattthew 8:28) and “the country of the Gadarenes” (Mark 5:1) and “the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee” (Luke 8:26) are easily harmonized, because the towns of Gergesa and Gadara are quite close together, the one on the bank of the Sea of Galilee and the other very close to the Sea, so that the “country” (cw¿ra) of the one and the other would easily overlap. However, the CT reading Gerashnw◊n, referring to the town of Gerasa, is a clear error, since that town is 35 miles south-east of the Sea of Galilee. One simply does not take a ship across the Sea of Galilee to Gerasa, nor is Gerasa “over against Galilee.” The impossibility of the CT reading Gerashnw◊n was recognized in early church history by Origen (Commentary on John, VI, 24) and the CT reading was rejected. The TR, again, is inerrant. The CT, again, is errant.
5.) Note the readings of the following verses in the CT-based ASV:
Matthew 10:10: no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, NOR STAFF: for the laborer is worthy of his food.
Mark 6:8: and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, SAVE A STAFF ONLY; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse;
Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, NEITHER STAFF, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
In the CT, a plain contradiction exists these verses. Matthew 10:10 & Luke 9:3 have the Lord forbid taking a staff, while Mark 6:8 allows a staff. The CT is an errant, not an inerrant text.
The Textus Receptus based KJV reads:
Matthew 10:10: Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet STAVES: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Mark 6:8: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, SAVE A STAFF ONLY; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither STAVES, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
There is no contradiction in the KJV, or in the Scrivener 1891/1894 Textus Receptus published by the Trinitarian Bible Society; Christ forbids taking more than one staff.
Now this is where it gets even more interesting. All TR editions and the so-called “Majority Text” have the inerrant reading in Luke 9:3. However, in Matthew 10:10, only the Scrivener TR, following the Complutensian NT of 1514 and with the English KJV (and the modern printed representatives of the Byzantine text) have the correct reading staves; all other TR editions, including Beza 1598 and Stephanus 1550, have the errant reading staff. (This is according to the Appendix to the Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament as reprinted by Bible For Today, a reprint of the Cambridge 1908 edition, first published in 1881, where the differences among the various editions of the TR are listed). Indeed, the KJV text has the correct reading in Matthew 10:10, but the margin mentions the errant reading, saying “staves: Gr. a staff.” This error in the TR’s other than that underneath the KJV, the Scrivener/Trinitarian Bible Society TR, demonstrates that this edition is the TR that is identical with the autographs. In the tiny number of places where Beza, Stephanus, Erasmus, etc. TR’s differ from the KJV and its Greek text, the Scrivener TR is correct. The KJV and the Scrivener TR are inerrant; the CT is errant in Luke 9:3 and Matthew 10:10; editions of the TR including Beza 1598, Stephanus 1550, and the KJV margin, are errant in Matthew 10:10, although inerrant in Luke 9:3.
Historic Baptists, other fundamentalists, evangelicals, and everyone else who affirms the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures must hold to the Textus Receptus and reject the critical text. However, those who believe in an inspired Bible are monumentally inconsistent if they defend the errant Greek critical text or employ the modern English Bible versions translated from it. All who believe in a God-breathed Book revealed from heaven should reject as corrupt the Greek CT and the modern English versions translated from it. On the other hand, theological modernists and other apostates and heretics are consistent when they defend the Greek critical text and the modern Bible versions translated from it and reject the inerrant Textus Receptus and the KJV that accurately translates it into the English language.
Anyone who studies and compares the Greek of the inspired, inerrant Textus Receptus and the errant modern critical text will also notice the grammatical, syntactical, and further doctrinal errors which lace the latter.
 For example, the grammatical fact that aÓpo/ does not take the nominative; cf. Revelation 1:4, CT, aÓpo\ oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß, TR, aÓpo\ touv oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß; the syntactical fact that in Revelation 1:15 the CT reads pepurwme÷nhß, the genitive case of which agrees with absolutely nothing in the context, while the TR nominative pepurwme÷noi makes perfect sense; or, for an obvious doctrinal and syntactical error, the gender discordance that takes place when the clearest NT verse on the Trinity, the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7, is removed, and the neuter nouns pneuvma, u¢dwr, and ai–ma are associated with masculine trei√ß . . . oi˚ marturouvnteß . . . oi˚ trei√ß.