Would God hide his word for 1500 years?

Unbound68

Well-known member
Having recently begun reading David W. Daniels’s second book on Sinaiticus, Who Faked the World’s Oldest Bible?, I can’t help but chuckle every time he makes some form of the plea that is the title of this thread (and I’m only 66 pages in!).

So here’s my first question:

How many manuscripts were actually used to compile the TR?


And my second question:

When did the discovery of other manuscripts that agreed with the readings of the manuscripts used to compile the TR start to occur?
 
Last edited:
Likely less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts and perhaps less than 50 Greek NT manuscripts were incompletely and imperfectly collated for the varying editions of the Textus Receptus. John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of Stephens, the two possessed by Beza, and allow ten for the Complutensian, there were only thirty-two in all” (Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 253). Even if Erasmus partially checked a few more than the main five to eight that he used, it would still likely be less than 50 in all that were used to compile the varying TR editions.
 
Likely less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts and perhaps less than 50 Greek NT manuscripts were incompletely and imperfectly collated for the varying editions of the Textus Receptus. John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of Stephens, the two possessed by Beza, and allow ten for the Complutensian, there were only thirty-two in all” (Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 253). Even if Erasmus partially checked a few more than the main five to eight that he used, it would still likely be less than 50 in all that were used to compile the varying TR editions.
Ok. My third question:

Were any of them older than the 10th century?
 
Daniels asks: “Would God hide his word for 1500 years?”


Where was this “received text” in the centuries leading up to Erasmus (who only used about half a dozen manuscripts)?


Would God hide his “pure” word from Christian’s for 500 years? A thousand years?


According to Daniels’s, HE DID!


The Lollards, Albigenses, Henricians, Waldenses, Paulicians, Hussites, Petrobrussians and other ancient sects of Christians didn’t have any received text, as Daniels defines it.


Yet they believed and cherished the scriptures they had, even dying for them…..despite the fact that what they had was incomplete and translated from the Latin.


They had more of a “faith-building Bible” than Daniels could ever know.


The nerve of Daniels to put believers of the KJV on a pedestal, in light of the fact that millions who never had a “received text” gave their lives believing God’s word anyway.


Maybe the TR was faked?
 
Last edited:
Having recently begun reading David W. Daniels’s second book on Sinaiticus, Who Faked the World’s Oldest Bible?, I can’t help but chuckle every time he makes some form of the plea that is the title of this thread (and I’m only 66 pages in!).

"Jesus doesn't hide His words. Nor does he expect them to be hidden."
"...did God intend to hide it in a desert monastery for 1500 years, away from Christians who just wanted to be faithful to God?"

"Would he hide it with people who were not even saved?"

These are neither new nor original rhetorical questions:

1) "Jesus doesn't hide His words. Nor does he expect them to be hidden."

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes

"...the Bible itself reveals that there have been occasions when there has been a famine or dearth of the Word of God. One thinks, for example, of the days of Josiah (II Kings 22:8ff.) when apparently the Scriptures were reduced to one copy. Nevertheless, it still could be said that God's Word was preserved."
(Harry Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 1984: 41-2.


2) "...did God intend to hide it in a desert monastery for 1500 years, away from Christians who just wanted to be faithful to God?"

a) see point one
b) St. Catherine's is the oldest continually inhabited CHRISTIAN monastery in the world.

Who is David Daniels to decide this?

3) "Would he hide it with people who were not even saved?"

Is Daniels actually suggesting - after Pontius Pilate or Caiaphas - that God cannot use the unsaved to accomplish His purposes?
My goodness, the entire OT was for a people by and large still unsaved (cf. Romans 3).

====================

So here’s my first question:

How many manuscripts were actually used to compile the TR?
Define TR.

Depending on the source one reads, Erasmus used somewhere between 5 (the lowest I've read) and 11 (the highest I've ever seen in a source) manuscripts for the original. Granted, the other TRs used, well, "some" manuscripts. But nobody should be under the delusion that the KJV guys had a computer available with every reading imaginable from CSNTM, either.

When did the discovery of other manuscripts that agreed with the readings of the manuscripts used to compile the TR start to occur?

I'm not sure what this question means.

The key point in the history of manuscripts is the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most manuscripts prior to then were confined to churches or monasteries, and the average churchgoer simply didn't have his own copy of the text. It was the liberation of such manuscripts that showed the differences (a lot of them anyway) of which we are now aware. In essence, most of the manuscripts in possession we had both then and now LARGELY advocate the KJV readings - simply because we're talking about a disagreement over (again - depending on the count) 2-7% of the WORDS of the text (not the meaning).

That Aleph shows some differences in readings (as well as the Alexandrian text-type) is indisputable; the question is the degree to which one views it as a representative of a more local type of text as opposed to whether it's original or not.

The KJVO folks don't really like to admit the move away from the TR actually preceded Westcott-Hort, they just happened to have new "older" manuscripts in front of them to make their case.
 
Probably not a good question since it's the age of the TEXT not the age of the MANUSCRIPT that carries weight. 1739 is a prime example.
And even less important because textual critics realize most important textual varients came into existence in the 2nd century.
 
And even less important because textual critics realize most important textual varients came into existence in the 2nd century.

This is what has always puzzled me about the KJVOs.

They want to say that Aleph and B are unreliable:
a) because they're early AND
b) all the corruption was early

Fine and dandy - but how in the world do you postulate KJV manuscripts were somehow miraculously preserved from corruption, particularly since the different TRs vary as well?
 
And even less important because textual critics realize most important textual varients came into existence in the 2nd century.

True of the NT. The OT has at least 3 variant "streams" of texts predating the time of Jesus Christ. I personally believe there are probably more. Which is why the NT is so vitally important. It shows us what the apostles themselves chose to carry.
 

Would God hide his word for 1500 years?​

As the cold of snow in the time of harvest,
so is a faithful messenger to them that send him:
for he refresheth the soul of his masters
.

Job 38:22
Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?
or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble,
against the day of battle and war?

As the cold of snow in the time of harvest,

he has many things hidden he will bring forth
at the appreciate time
 
It is sad that David Daniels had been grossly misrepresented in the opening and subsequent posts. David Daniels does not teach that God hid His words for 1500 years.

To learn and know about what David Daniels actually teaches and talks about, simply get the book for yourself, as well as YouTube search David Daniel's vlogs on the subject of Sinaiticus via the Chick Tracks YouTube channel.

The Sinaiticus Timeline Playlist
Chick Tracts Official YouTube Channel
 
It is sad that David Daniels had been grossly misrepresented in the opening and subsequent posts. David Daniels does not teach that God hid His words for 1500 years.
Why not read the 3 or 4 threads that have dealt with Daniels, Sinaiticus, and Simonides over the past few months, get up to speed on the facts, and then tell us who's misrepresenting whom?







To learn and know about what David Daniels actually teaches and talks about, simply get the book for yourself,
It's funny that you think I don't own both of them.
 
Last edited:
I'm certain that you put a smile on the Pope's face. :rolleyes:
Us non-KJVOs aren’t the ones pushing for a “one world translation” to be forced upon the world by your fabled future antichrist.

You and Daniels (if you’re not one and the same), on the other hand, are the ones trying to get all manuscripts like Sinaiticus discredited as forgeries, hoping that by so doing all the modern versions get discredited and abandoned….leaving the KJV as the last and only Bible left standing.

The KJV is your “one world Bible.”

Does the phrase “self-fulfilling prophecy” mean anything to you?
 
I'm certain that you put a smile on the Pope's face. :rolleyes:
You were wrong. So what does that say about when you are certain about something? That you are often wrong? Perhaps if you were less certain you would be not wrong as much?

Are you aware that the KJV Translators consulted and used the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament when they made their revision of the previous English Versions?

 
Last edited:
To learn and know about what David Daniels actually teaches and talks about, simply get the book for yourself,
So give me the page number in any of his books where he tells all of his duped supporters that he (a trinitarian) had help with the “research” for his books and has willfully aligned himself with whom he knows is a non-trinitarian.

Given the opportunity to explain himself at a DBS meeting, he played the hypocrite and coward.

You KJVOs are big on getting everyone to use a single version for (supposedly) the sake of all of us having the same doctrine, but between Daniels, Riplinger, Ruckman, and Cloud, all I see is that KJVOism turns people into LIARS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top