Textus Receptus (TR) vs. Critical Text - New Testament Textual Bases for the New Testament 

I'm mostly disappointed that there isn't a Texas Receptus.

Thanks for this video. I went to a KJV-only church and a TR-only seminary and I am very familiar with the arguments from the TR-only side. However, I read James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” back when it first came out in the mid 1990s and I think that inoculated me against much of their arguments but also allowed me to truly appreciate the “Byzantine-Priority” position coming from folks like Dr. Maurice Robinson, Art Farstad, etc. Here’s what I’ve concluded: 1. Whether you use a modern critical text or the TR, you aren’t going to get a different Christianity from either text. *All* of the essential doctrines are contained in both texts. 2. The Bible itself gives us no standard of *how* God was going to preserve his written word. The sheer number of manuscripts idea in the Majority Text position is not necessarily indicative of an original reading and that certainly isn’t a biblical standard. For instance, it appears that there was only one extant copy of the Pentateuch in Josiah’s day, yet God used that one text to bring repentance, revival, and to restore godliness to the people of Israel (2 Chronicles 34:14-21). There may have been more copies, but if there were, the Levitical priests were obviously clueless as to its existence other than this one lone re-discovered copy in the temple. 3. The KJV translators themselves expected their work to be updated and expanded upon. Their original work also had text critical footnotes indicating variations in the manuscripts, albeit much less than we have attested in our modern critical texts. 4. Finally, which TR? Erasmus produced 5 editions of his critical text of the TR, Stephanus had his edition, and Scrivner has his. None of them read the same. So which one is the preserved word of the living God? 5. Most importantly, Jesus and the apostles themselves didn’t hold to the idea common among some TR-only/KJV-only advocates that textual variation precludes inspiration (Also Bart Ehrman’s view). Instead, they sometimes freely quoted textual variations of the LXX or the Hebrew text or created paraphrases of the scriptures to suit their needs and they still considered that the inerrant word of the living God. You never get a hint from any of them that they were worried about the variations in the manuscripts that existed in their day or that the LXX they were quoting wasn’t exactly like the Hebrew passage that it was translated from. If it was good enough for the Son of God, it’s good enough for me. Truth is, we may be uncertain of various readings of God’s word here and there, for “his word is settled in heaven”, but I think a 99.5% certainty is good enough. Thanks again for your videos. You do a great job!

Very good job with this. Oh, BTW, the TX Receptus has Paul saying "The Peace of Christ be with y'all!" LOL

Everyone gets worked up about the small differences between the two texts but fail to be awed by how much they agree, the text agree far more than they disagree.

You need to have more subscribers!! Love your take on this. Your perspective doesn't degrade but encourages others. You're like a peacemaker.

Thank you for your balanced and respectful approach to this sensitive subject.

Look forward to watching. Thanks Tim

This was excellent! Thank you for making what is somewhat complicated, much easier to understand.

Great video. Really appreciate your humility in handling this topic. Thank you.

Your videos are so well done in explaining bias. Everyone has them but few can accurately break them down without bringing in their own bias.

God bless u Sir, Be Strong,Bold, and Courageous,yet discerning with humility and unconditional love

Greetings from Brazil! Thanks so much for your insights and thoughts for the Bible readers and practitioners of biblical principles ....

I like your "weirdness" - your fairness, balance, open-mindedness, compassion, realism, humility, sanity, faith. It is fresh air in our rival-tribes society. Thanks. Keep it up. subscribed.

Please keep making videos. You will reach a high subscriber count. The information you present is valuable.

What great Wisdom! Thanks for this tool & your helping me to explain it correctly to my church!🤓

Thanks for the well thought out and reasonable take on this. Great to see your even handed approach. As a fan of your Bible reviews as well, look forward to more of your content in coming months.

Great video. I love your translation discussions.

You are doing such a good job. Love your work.

Thank you, Tim for your well-reasoned arguments comparing the Textus Receptus vs. the Critical Text. A balanced approach to analysis is the key here. Your point three stressing there are no major differences between these texts means major doctrines are not impacted. For this reason, I read a balance of texts from formal equivalence to dynamic equivalent translations. These cover both categories.

You're the first person I see in my entire life to talk about the subject with such calming temper. Great video. Peace to you brother!

Great breakdown of the texts! I’ll be referencing this video a lot. I really don’t have a strength in these textual scholastic efforts, so I rely on Matt seven:17... if the text adds to my understanding, it’s a good tree, if it makes me confused or adds confusion, that’s a bad tree.

As a Texan I'd love to see a Texas Version! Not everyone would understand it. God's peace be with y'all!

I like this channel. Lots of good material

I like the TR and the CT. I have 5 translations that I read verses from everyday. Three of them are TR and two of them CT. They are the NLT, NKJV, CSB, KJV, GENEVA 1599.

Thanks for posting this.

Thd best translation is the one you consistently pick up, and read.

Fins fan brother! Love the channel

Awesome brother, cheers for the info 🙏❤️

This was very helpful!

Thanks for your balanced position

Thank you Tim. This is an honorable, truthful perspective on this matter. I really appreciate your leadership in the discussions of Bibles, translations etc. I have always leaned toward the TR, but I am not in the camp of those that angrily push this matter or KJV only. I have my own concerns, conclusions, and thoughts, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that our own personal bias will always come in to play. I would hope that I could be open minded enough to understand different views on these types of things. The world and the Christian faith would be such a better place if we could put our arrogance aside and understand that we are not right about all things. Shocker... others just might be right, and we just might be wrong... Wow what a thought! Thanks again.

Very well said! Thank you so much! I appreciate it.

I try to use both the ESV and the KJV side by side more for balance (although I won’t have a problem reading the NKJV in the future.)

Excellent discussion! I believe one of the key points is that we should be respectful to each other when our opinions do not align. After years of researching the subject, I have chosen the TR over the CT. However, I respect the opinions of those that disagree with my conclusions.

Thank you for this video brother

I come from a tradition where the KJV is used almost exclusively. A few years ago, I began the process of studying Biblical Textual criticism from an "armchair" perspective. Due to the differences between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus, it's an issue that pastors need to be aware of and educated on. It can damage faith regardless of which tradition one comes from unless they've been educated to what the word of God really is. I use a wide variety of translations for personal study and devotions but as the pastor of a small church with a strong KJV tradition, I'm a little careful as to what I teach and preach from. I hope to transition away from the KJV to eliminate some of the readability issues with archaic language, etc. Thanks for posting

The thing that I often run into are those who assert that the Alexandrian Text-Type is corrupt but never substantiate that claim with textual evidence. Often what is provided is a comparison of the KJV vs. any of the modern translations. Sorry, but placing the KJV on a pedestal and making it the standard of objective accuracy is not textual evidence and is simply pseudo-scholarship at best and nothing more.

thank you so much for this

As someone who is like the average person meaning I am not qualified to debate people on Greek text being I am not qualified to translate it accurately, what I and others can do is however look at the best arguments from all sides and why some people choose one text over another For myself currently I have chosen to stick to the NKJV and I almost went with buying a NASB, I was VERY close to buying a NASB. I am not claiming my position is correct or that others are inferior as I already pointed out I like most other people are not qualified to translate Greek even if we know a few Greek words First of all, the reason I was wanting to buy a NASB to have with my NKJV and other bibles was because of the claim it is the "most literal" and because I figured why not have it to compare it to the NKJV whenever I feel like it However this is what changed my mind to not buy one and stick to the NKJV Let me explain From my limited research and watching a few debates and videos as well as simply Google researching What I first was told in studying the Alexandrian text (critical) is that most people was claiming the manuscripts were older than that used of the textus receptus and/or majority text (Byzantine) This is one reason I was about to buy a NASB because I thought if this was true then I should at least have a Bible with those manuscripts to compare the two text types However upon researching more I found something that personally changed my mind and made me want to stick to my NKJV and not even bother getting a NASB These were the two reasons Reason number 1 was that I have seen that early church father's quoted from the text that are NOT in the critical text (Alexandrian) Well if it is true that they quoted from these text that are supposed to NOT be old then it proves they are actually older then people are claiming and would seem to be a lie to say the textus receptus is not old when you have ante Nicene father's quoting from the text From what I seen it seemed like it was true that the early church father's did quote from some of the text NOT found in the critical text which if true proves those texts were around back then This is the first reason why mimd changed because that blows the argument away for me that the Alexandrian text are older and that the textus receptus doesn't go back that far Well if early church father's are quoting from verses found in the NKJV but not the critical text then the critical text cannot use the "I'm older" as a argument From what I seen yes the manuscripts of the critical text are older, yes that is true, but the early church father's quoted from verses NOT found in the critical text which would prove the textus receptus is older than what they date the manuscripts as So one of the strengths of getting a critical text Bible seemed to get destoryed by this fact, so without that as a argument it leaves me little reason to say I MUST go with the older critical text manuscripts when the early church father's quoted from the textus receptus verses which make them just as old and older That was the first thing that changed my mind The second thing was reading 1st Corinthians today I compared the verses and context of my NKJV to the NASB and realized the NASB uses the word "immorality" instead of "sexual immorality" as in the NKJV And this same difference happened over and over within the letter from Paul Why this matter is because I read the verses and said what is the context? Well Paul keeps talking about sexual immorality SPECIFICLLY to where he is even talking about people sinning against their own body and people wanting to have sex with their fathers wives In the NKJV it uses the word sexual immorality and in the NASB it only says immorality Immorality can mean anything immoral where sexual immorality is specific to the immoral action Now while I agree immorality can still make sense The point is the NKJV is more accurate in the context Paul is talking about These two reasons made me stick with the NKJV and not even care to get a NASB If early church father's are quoting from the verses NOT in the critical text then I see no reason to want a NASB if that proves the textus receptus goes back that far As well as the NKJV seeming to be more accurate in saying sexual immorality which is the content and not immorality The NKJV also has notes which tells me what the critical text versions say which means there is even more reason to not bother getting a NASB for me It updates all the old English from the KJV into modern English and translate certain context better such as saying the word Hades instead of hell where as the KJV calls Hades hell which from what I studied is not accurate and it is indeed Hades I'm certain passages So with all this said The NKJV seems to have too much going for it based on my research as a person who isn't qualified to debate Greek I see little reason why to use a NASB over it because the whole "older manuscripts" argument doesn't work after I seen early church father's quote from the textus receptus verses This is my opinion based on limited research I've read the new Testament once and I am half way through my second run I've noticed nothing major really changed when comparing verses however there are some small changes that bug me such as the immorality vs sexually immorality difference I believe just reading the Bible is more important I believe anyone can come away understanding the gospel from most of those translations I just wanted to give my reason why I am sticking with the NKJV I am not saying the NKJV is the only version to be saved from I'm not like KJVO people I could be wrong, it just seems from my perspective the NKJV seems like the best of all worlds and doesn't sacrifice anything much and keeps a cool poetic/majestic feel when reading it I think the NKJV is for me But hey we are all Christians who believe Jesus is the savior and that only through faith alone are we saved by his grace and not of works And also the original Greek language is what the 100% accurate word of God was spoken in, I know it wasn't spoken in English so I don't expect every word to translate properly I expect though that translators get it as close as possible so that the word of God is clear and we know we have the word of God in our bibles I would not say anyone using a NASB, ESV has a less superior version then me I just see little reason to switch over to one when the biggest strength of the critical text isn't even a real strength The critical text claims to be older yet early church father's quote from verses not found in those text but from text in the textus receptus That takes the strength that the critical text was supposed to have away in my opinion because it shows the verses in the NKJV were very old if early church father's quoted them I going to study the ante niece church father's to see if they really did quote from it But what I seen online seemed creditable that they in fact did If they I'm fact did then the major strength of the critical text seems to like of get destoryed no offense to anyone Anyways, do your own research I am fallible This is just my current understanding All of us should choose what we think is the most accurate and best for us What's most important is to not waste our time arguing all day about it when we could be reading it God bless to all, feel free to disagree I admit it, on team NKJV right now 🔥 but team Jesus is what all of us Christians are on

Tim... I took notes,, because I will be sttending s Bible study this spring...and this subject will probablu come up.

I loved your video on the “Texas Receptus”. It “must needs” to happen.

Informative, thank you very much, brother. May Yahweh richly bless you and may you walk in the light of Yahshua the Messiah.

Something I think a lot of people overlook is that practically all English translations consult previous English translations. From Tyndale's Bible, to the Great Bible, to the Geneva Bible, to the Bishop's Bible, to the KJV, to the RSV, to the ASV, to the NASB which is a revision of the ASV; it makes perfect sense that scholars consider the work of other scholars when formulating their opinions about how to translate. I think it's a mistake to pick one or the other of the TR or CT when you can have both.

This video really helps. I go to LCMS and we have churches that are identical in beliefs but one uses ESV and Another uses NKJV. I think CT and TR, we should probably own both bibles.

Good video. I use the NKJV and only use other translations when I cannot understand something. I do however read the study notes and commentary from *ANY* translation. Some people are zealous about which Bible translation to use. This is bad because it creates conflict between brothers and sisters. I always recommend the NKJV, but if they find it hard to read then I recommend the NIV. What I find interesting is that most English speakers use the NIV, and most Spanish speakers use the Reina Valera 1960.

I definitely lean on the side of the Critical Text simply because it allows more recently and potentially older manuscripts and fragments that have been discovered in recent times to contribute to the godly work of piecing together a 2000 year old anthology; that is the New Testament. I believe with my 2 cent opinion that calling this work finished in the form of the TR would be ignorant. I believe this to especially be true because the TR itself was a critical text of it’s day. Compiling what manuscripts Erasmus had available to him which unfortunately wasn’t nearly the amount of manuscripts we have available to us. I don’t believe Erasmus thought his work was done either since he had multiple editions of his critical text. He would gladly update it today if he were alive and had access to what we have. Much love and respect to my brothers and sisters who love the TR though.

Nice study .God bless

Great video, people that divide over this issue should probably read their Bible some more and become more like what it says of being Christ like! Love the video man, and let’s never divide over such translation issues and then claim to call ourselves CHRISTians. Love it man! I personally used both NKJV, ESV and NASB as my current personal Bibles! Mainly used NKJV and ESV currently. But I will never ever devide with brothers over such issues and claim to call myself Christ like. This is what the devil wants, us to devide over such things. Satin is the accuser of the brethren. Let’s be loving and Christ like for one another! Let’s always operate in love and in what the Bible it self teaches us on how to love each other as dear brethren in our Lord Jesus Christ! God bless you all! Love you all dear brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord!

Good assessment. Personally the lord has blessed me with the ability to acquire just about every major translation that's out there. yes, I have my preferences and the ones I carry to Church and rely on, but it is a great blessing to possess all these other translations for comparison sake and just for a change of pace once in a while. If you feel a Bible has compromised the word of god, do your research and only listen to trust sources. If I find a bible to generally water down or confuse truth, then I get rid of it.

The Critical Text is based in large measure on the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest New Testament manuscript that we have. It was written in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 4th century AD. However, it is in remarkably good condition, - indicating that it was not used much. It has no known antecedents or descendants, indicating that scribes at the time did not think it was worth copying. Also, it is about 1200 words shorter than the Byzantine/ Western/ Syriac manuscripts. There are approximately 12000 differences compared to the majority texts, which agree wiith each other 99%. I should say here that there are no contradictions or doctrinal differences. If we only had the Codex Sinaiticus, would we still have the Gospel and the essential Christian doctrines? Yes, we would. If we only had one manuscript, from the Byzantine texts, would we miss the Codex Sinaiticus? Not at all. Why is the CT pushed so hard? Because it is copyrighted and it makes the owners of the copyright and also the publishers of the Bibles lots of money. There is no such restriction on the TR or the KJV.

Tim, Please see my response below to Gary Thomas. I hope it is an encouragement to your spirit. Oh yes...I am a Bills fan, but I am praying for you.

I like having the differences in the footnotes (NKJV excellent here, my ESV is pretty good here too).

Are not most modern New Testament versions based on the translations of Westscott and Hort from two Greek texts, the Vatincanus and the Sinaticus which were corrupted with gnostic leanings? Older doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. You are doing a great job with this channel. Thanks.

I like both.

Very nice video. Mostly balanced. Mostly neutral. However, it would have been academically informative to mention this: the critical text is based on older manuscripts (by several centuries) that are much closer to the original writings, versus the manuscripts used by the textus receptus (TR). That’s not being argumentative (even if some TR lovers don’t like hearing it). It’s just a fact. Otherwise, very nice video.

Great video on this brother. The diehard KJV only people can be very mean in their argument. I’m sure the same as the other side. My biggest thing is, whether is TR or critical, I want it to be formal equivalent. I like a word for word. So I like NKJV and NASB.

Very helpful, thanks. I like the KJV but struggle with it when reading the major prophets.

Thanks for this video,as I listen to you I can't help but recall my experience as a kid playing cards with pictures of superheroes on it.A playmate asked which group is my favorite the DC superheroes or the Marvel superheroes and when I said I liked the Marvel,he stop playing with me.I still meet him from time to time this guy and when I remind him about the incident he told me he didn't change but I'm still his friend and he treated me to a snack..For me its a matter of preference.I mean is our salvation or entranced to heaven dependent on whether I like the TR or the Critical text?Just a thought.

Does the KJV/NKJV differ substantially from NIV,ESV etc? I read an article that scared me a lot. I adore my nkjv and it’s how i connect most to God. I read an article that basically said it’s based on a corrupt set of manuscripts and differs “significantly and substantially” from all other bibles. Yet I’ve never ran into any issues at Bible study where we all come up with different ideas of what scripture said. Is any major doctrine different in the KJV VS other translations?

Stop pretending the kjv and the niv are the same book. They have major differences.

Just wondering if the different translations ever contradict doctrine? Or is it mostly smaller things?

I was in the same camp, Like you say in this video, there are no major differences between the different manuscripts. But the Mark 7:19b addition can massively impact theology. For in the addition, it says Jesus made all food clean. But without this addition, it could be argued that God still deams food clean and unclean.

At last! This topic!!!!!!!

Thanks for this video.I like your comparison regarding the received text and the critical text in that you get emotional and critical of personalities and label them as compromisers or liberal or even supporters of corrupt Bibles that are produced primarily to make money.Pardon me for saying this things because that kind of talk is what I hear from a "one Bible version only" group.I hope this video would help those people like me who need a balance treatment of this issues.

The reason I’m biased towards favorite TR is because to me it sounds a lot more like divinely made Paths regular than human made paths with cut and paste philosophy like Sinaticus…

Nice channel! Have you ever thought of using green screen in your video editing software? You could be on top of a mountain or something ⛰

Hey Tim, Ive heard different people say that the later ending of Mark is missing in the majority of texts but the Textus Receptus is considered the majority text. I have then heard to blame the Alexandrian text for removing parts of scripture including the later ending of Mark. So I am confused

I began to do a study of the Greek Text behind the translations and discovered the Critical Text was the minority text and the Antiochian Text was the majority text. Most modern bibles come from the Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus. The Byzantine Text or the Antiochian Text come from over 5000 MS that have existed for over 1500 years. I did my own research because I was desperate for the truth. The Critical Text and the Byzantine cannot both be right because they oppose one another in many places.

TR was one guy with few texts. CT is thousands of texts and scholarly committees.

Dude! A Miami Dolphins fan! Awesome!

We shouldn’t stand on a verse or passage not found in both, right?

Well said.

On your point that there are no major differences, there may be one: the ending of Mark. IF (capitalized, not trying to start any fights here) the ending does not belong, most of it can be found in the other gospels. However, not all, such as the part about snakes that has led to an entire movement (and deaths). I guess most critical text base translations include the long ending of Mark technically, but then say it shouldn’t really be there in the footnotes. The NLT actually includes all three endings to Mark. I believe the ending of Mark is perhaps one of the toughest things for a believer to wrestle with.

A verse you abused in this video says (Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: But you added the word alone after the word "faith". Didn't satan add one word to Eve and totally condemned mankind? There is one verse that uses this type of word you added and it is (Jas 2:24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Hopefully this clarifies why your position has errors throughout.

We called the hoagies, too! I’m from the Cincinnati area.. Subway Has brought “sub” to our lexicon 😊

If you define traditional as more ancient or older or closer to the time that the New Testament was actually written then technically the critical text is more traditional. This is because it makes use of the papyrus manuscripts which date from centuries earlier than the manuscripts that the King James Version used. When the KJV was translated they did not have these papyrus manuscripts.

I dont watch football anymore, i used to be a "die hard" raiders fan i would watch every game but after i repented in Nov. 2021 the Lord convicted me of it being Idolatry so i dont wear jwrseys with another mans name on the back nor do i wear any raiders fan merchandise and i dont cheer for anyone but Jesus.

In the end..,. The best. Bible is the one you will read...and don’t sweat the small stuff...

Those sandwiches on a long roll... growing up we always called them "grinders." I guess it's a regional thing. 😁

I used to live in Paulsboro and Clarksboro. ✌️

The TR, the MT and the CT are each done by scholars, which I suppose are good scholars. Is there a fair way to judge the quality of these people and compare the quality of the original language text by the quality of the scholarship?

Isnt fasting a major issue? Please compare modern translations with KJV Matt 17:21 Mark 9:29 Acts 10:30 1 Cor 7:5 This is just 1 issue.

Hey Tim, I wish some of these translations in their footnotes would not use the words omit and add. It looks like there was malice on both. I wish they would say things like more ancient manuscripts do not contain this word or phrase or verse. Then on the other hand they could say more recent manuscripts contain this word or phrase or verse. Just my opinion. It looks less bias that way.

You mention one phrase appearing multiple times, here’s one: Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, *who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”* Verse 4, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, *who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”* Notice the phrase at the end of both verses in the King James? That’s a dittograph. Here’s another one from the King James, Acts 23:9, “And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, *let us not fight against God.”* That last part is actually located in Acts 5:39, “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply *ye be found even to fight against God.”* I get what you’re saying though, the later scribes wanted the gospels to harmonize with each other so they would take a marginal note and pull into the text, that’s why verses like Matthew 17:21 in the KJV sound just like Mark 9:29, etc. Sorry if this looks like a run on sentence, I’m writing this from the app on my iPad.

It is fascinating to note that TR has the gospel of Matthew recording Christ as saying that "pestilences" - ie like the Corona virus! - will be a sign of the endtimes. .while other critical texts have no mention of "pestilences" in their version of Matthew. .Both the TR and other critical texts have Luke mentioning Jesus as saying "pestilences" as endtimes signs. Since it is likely that Luke used an early copy of Matthew's gospel it is likely that Jesus did actually say "pestilences" recorded accurately by Matthew. The TR gets it right this time although that doesn't necessarily mean it is all faultless.

The KJV has at least 4114 words, phrases, obsolete words, or words that are not in use today.

I think it's useful to have different translations, especially when studying in depth. Not only do you see where the differences in translation come in, but in the vast majority of cases you will see how incredibly similar they are. It's hard for me to accept that someone like John MacArthur for instance is wrong because he uses the NASB. He teaches sound doctrine. Or R.C. Sproul who used the ESV. That's where I part company with KJVO advocates. My primary bible for devotional study is the KJV version. I love the language and cherish it. But when I study more in depth, I like to use NASB, KJV and the NLT and compare. I haven't found where any of those translations were heretical in any way with regard to sound doctrine. But of course, it's our responsibility to use discernment with any of these matters as usual.

A Frisch Perspective, in one of your videos, you wondered if, "Without a Cause" in Mt 5: 22 was added, in the KJV, NKJV Textus Receptus. The answer is, it wasn't added, it was in the Greek texts. If it wasn't, it would have been in italics. It's the modern translations that added it in.

id compare the esv, nasb and nkjv

Textus Receptus and Majority Text aren't the same thing!

To me for instance the end of Mark claiming that ends where the critical text claims doesn’t even make sense it’s like that gospel completely omits the ascension of Christ! just doesn’t make sense to me….

at first i thought why are you not picking a team. at the end of the video i understood why you are not picking a team 😁

i have the textus receceptus and some modern versions and i have no problem with them but i am not a notmal person lolz

If your only language is English, and you want two Bibles that show alternative readings of various manuscripts, why don't you study the New King James Version and then the Holeman Christian Standard Bible? You probably won't miss out on much that way. They don't leave anything out, and they don't demand ONLY one manuscript tradition at the expense of discarding another. And ask the Holy Spirit to guide your study of God's word. Oh ! ,....., wait...... I should have listened to the full video before saying basically the same thing as Tim. So then, I will add this: Tim talks about that he desires to have as much information as possible. This is a trend of those who have grown up in the I.P.G. = the Information Processing Generation . Many people, who seem intelligent, fall back on valuing more information = better scholarship. But then you get people living in the age of information who gather so much information that they don't necessarily gain wisdom. Discernment is also necessary. The Bible warns against those who are always increasing in knowledge, but never gaining understanding. We are not to equally weight all data as equally valid. The church today needs to follow wisdom (good Bible exegesis and what it is actually teaching.) and grow closer to God and His word.

The AV aka KJV is the word of God preserved in English.....

*HA!* Funny you brought up "subs" and "hogies". In Mass. where I grew up, we called them "grinders". Why? I dunno. After 13 years in Florida and now 15 in Virginia, they're subs.

Also I wonder if the people that scream that bibles based on critical texts are heresy know that the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha (there is a lot of anti-Catholic attitude often with KJV only people...yes I am generalizing) which Protestants do not accept as canonical. Not only that but they also made use of Latin manuscripts and not just Greek.

I know I'm opening a can of worms here but what about the argument concerning corrupted manuscripts (critical text)?

I'm glad Psalm 23 does not say, "I shall not want a hoagie", because that is never going to be true unless I just consumed a hoagie. That is fact.

In my experience it has always been the KJV only people who support the Textus Receptus. I’ve not encountered anyone outside that group who supports the TR over the modern critical text.