No major doctrines changed?

It is not enough to brush off mss as a "corruption" simply because it may differ at some very critical points. If that were the case, then every mss in existence would be "corrupt," because no two mss are exactly the same. This is why textual critics look at variants on a word-by-word, and verse-by-verse basis.

I have never claimed that the KJV is "inspired" (though a very few Christians do make this claim mistakenly). Only the original autographs were divinely inspired.

By the same token it is a blatant lie to claim that the KJV is "an interpretation". The King James Bible translators translated the Hebrew and Greek word-for-word faithfully (as much as it is possible given the differences of languages) and where necessary it has included explanatory words in italics. Their goal was to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. But no other English translation has been as reliable and faithful as the Authorized Version for over 400 years. Not a single conservative commentator has ever questioned its reliability and accuracy, and all the Bible study tools were based on the King James Bible. That speaks for itself.

It is only since about the start of the 20th century that people have been denigrating this Bible. But even the enemies of this translator could not help praise its excellency in the 19th century. Now go do your homework.

Not a single conservative commentator has ever questioned its reliability and accuracy, and all the Bible study tools were based on the King James Bible. That speaks for itself.

As to all the mockery of the King James Bible, the mockers and scoffers should understand that for millions of Christians for over 400 years this was (and is) the written Word of God. Those who mock, mock at their peril. These same scoffers really have no clue as to the reasons for the rejection of the critical texts and the modern versions. Chances are that not one of them has read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

It should say "in the end of the sabbaths".
RECEIVED TEXT
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθε Μαριὰ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία, θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
LITERAL INTERLINEAR
After then [the] sabbaths, it being dawn toward [the] first [day] of [the] week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the tomb.
King James Bible
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

As you can see other than the singular for "sabbath" the KJV follows the Greek text. The KJV only took the actual 7th day Sabbath into account. But the previous day was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is this an error or was it an interpretation?

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
b. plural, τά σαββάτων (for the singular) of a single sabbath, sabbath-day (the use of the plural being occasioned either by the plural names of festivals, as τά ἐγκαίνια, ἄζυμα, γενέσια, or by the Chaldaic form שַׁבָּתָא (Winers Grammar, 177 (167); Buttmann, 23 (21))): Matthew 28:1

You will notice that σαββάτων also means "week" in this verse.

As you can see other than the singular for "sabbath" the KJV follows the Greek text. The KJV only took the actual 7th day Sabbath into account. But the previous day was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is this an error or was it an interpretation?

As far as I can determine, the first day and the last day of the week of Unleavened Bread, are rest days. These rest days are similar to a sabbath rest day.

There's your answer. "Sabbaths" (plural) would include the first day of Unleavened Bread + the weekly seventh day Sabbath.

The first day of Unleavened Bread cannot be a sabbath.

Neither is it wise to base your whole scholarship on a few manuscripts and say: Yep, they're the oldest—case closed. Textual critics on the whole despise any manuscripts that don't fall into line with their minority manuscripts. If they were smart they'd look at all the evidence before making a decision.

There's a lot at stake: Bible publishers churn out Bible after Bible based on the critical text; they can't afford to have it challenged. That might upset the gravy train.

No one here is talking about a “few” manuscripts.

Simple then. What manuscripts were used in the formulation of the USB Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text? Everyone knows about Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. What others? If you don't know of the top of your head maybe you know of a website.

κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν

? "LORD of Christ" Correct?:

1Pe 3:15 "But sanctify The LORD God in your hearts..."?

So, what's the problem? Upsets the unitarian gravy train that trinitarians
"sanctify Father, SON, and Holy Spirit in our hearts"?

You already said that it can be as a day of rest!

Um.. quite a number, actually. Thousands. It really depends on the text under discussion. Some mss only contain sections of Paul, or may only contain the first few chapters of John. You'll need to be a lot more specific, because as I continue to say, text critics go word-by-word to make a determination. And sometimes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is included in the data they used to help make that determination. But the idea is to cross reference various witnesses as it pertains to a specific text.

It's not like they just default to Vaticanus or Sinaiticus simply on the basis of them being earlier. For example, in 1 Peter 3:15, UBS cites p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement in support of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν. While Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are amongst those cited, there are other witnesses that are cited as well. But if you go to another text, different witnesses may be cited, because some papyri may only contain portions of a specific book.

For example, 1 Corinthians. There are numerous amount of mss for this Pauline epistle, but each mss may (due to age) only contain part or section of the book. So everything is done on a word-by-word basis. Cross referencing the textual data one word at a time with the witnesses that have withstood the test of time.

You need to demonstrate from the text where, the first day of UB is a sabbath day rest!

First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament.

Textual criticism is such a rarified field that the vast majority of us cannot contribute much of anything other than (a lot of mostly silly) questions. But.....we don't have to become experts in that field. Not really. The heavy lifting has already been done, and IMO we only need to understand the RESULTS of the foregoing scholarship.

Great little paper here. I would appreciate if you could endorse the contents. I think it is an excellent primer.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

"We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago.

No joke."

"What “Textual Variants”? How Bad Are They?
Fortunately, they just aren’t that bad. We can broadly class all Textual Variants into two classes.

• Meaningful Variants. These textual variants have an impact on what the text means. For example, if one manuscript said “Jesus was happy” and another says “Jesus was sad”, that’s a meaningful variant because it changes the meaning of the text.
• Viable Variants. These Textual Variants have a decent chance of having the wording of the original document. Some variants appear in only a single (late) manuscript, and thus the chances of them being in the original text are extremely low.

From those two options, we can create a list of four types of Textual Variant.

1. Neither meaningful nor viable (they don’t change the meaning and have no chance of being original)
2. Viable but not meaningful (they don’t change the meaning and have a chance of being original)
3. Meaningful but Not viable (they do change the meaning, but have no chance of being original)
4. Both Viable and meaningful (they do change the meaning and do have a chance of being original)"

"Summary Of The Critical Text Vs. The Majority Text Vs. The Textus Receptus
First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament. The core message of the gospel isn’t compromised in any of these documents. Some lesser, non-salvation related doctrines are affected, but many of those are arcane topics that rarely – if ever – touch on the Christian life. Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus, but no major, central part of the gospel is affected."

"Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus, but no major, central part of the gospel is affected."

του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου
our God and our Savior Jesus Christ

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. (Exodus 12:15,16)

God called the first and seventh days "holy convocations" and no work was permitted other than the preparation of food. For all intents and purposes those two days were sabbaths (days of total rest). So what did "holy convocation" mean? It meant "a sacred assembly" or "a religious gathering". So in fact those two days were of even greater significance than the ordinary weekly Sabbath.

BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS
1 convocation, sacred assembly Isaiah 1:13 (after קְרֹא), Isaiah 4:5; usually explicitly קֹדֶשׁ ׳מ, technical term in P for religious gathering on Sabbath and certain sacred days, Exodus 12:16 (twice in verse) + 14 t. Leviticus 23; Numbers 28:1; Numbers 29, + (plural) Leviticus 23:2,4,37.

I do think the overall gist of the article is accurate. To be honest, when I read it, i immediately thought it was penned by Dan Wallace. It certainly sounds an awful lot like Dan Wallace; I can hear his voice reverberating in the background. However, there is probably only one sentence I disagree with, and that is where the author says,



The first part of the sentence ("Some doctrines are certainly strengthened in the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus") may or may not be entirely correct. The more accurate thing to say is that the "critical text" is as equally reciprocal. For example, consider the deity of the Lord Jesus. There are texts (1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 3:16, etc.) that are exclusive to the Byzantine tradition. But likewise, there are examples exclusive to the "critical text" (1 Pet. 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:1, Jn. 14:14, Jude 5) that are just as (if not moreso) pungeant. Take Jn. 14:14 for example. p66 p75 א B all include a little word ("Me") that shifts the direction of our prayer to Jesus, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." This doesn't mean the KJ doesn't also attribute prayer to Jesus, but that it is just one more text to add to the arsenal.

In 2 Peter 1:1, the TR (under the influence of Beza's Greek apparatus), reads this way:



If you look at the NA27, however:



Where Beza's apparatus (and thereby, the TR) places an additional ημων ("our") after σωτηρος ("Savior"), the NA27 does not. The implications of this are huge. Whereas the NA27 refers to Jesus Christ as "our God and Savior," Beza's apparatus (and thereby, the TR) speaks of "our God and our Savior" as two distinct individuals. Further, there are no known mss that feature the additional ημων as found in Beza's text, and so the TR has no textual support for its inclusion. From a stylistic standpoint, Beza's apparatus does not hold water. In every occasion where ημων is used throughout 2 Peter, it is always placed in apposition with an articular substantive,

• του θεου ημων (2 Peter 1:1)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:2)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:8)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:11)
• ο κυριος ημων (2 Peter 1:14)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 1:16)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 3:15)
• του κυριου ημων (2 Peter 3:18)

That Beza's apparatus places ημων in apposition to an anarthrous substantive (2 Peter 1:1), when in every other occasion ημων is placed in apposition to an articular substantive, goes to support the idea that Beza's text (particularly at 2 Peter 1:1) is not consistent with how the author used ημων elsewhere. Further, following the NA27's rendering, the very same grammatical structure is used in:

• 2 Peter 1:1 - τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")
• 2 Peter 1:11 - τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ("the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")
• 2 Peter 2:20 - τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)
• 2 Peter 3:18 - τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”)

So while the KJV has variants that the "critical text" doesn't, it is likewise true that the "critical text" also has variants that the KJV doesn't, and are just as strong (if not stronger).

That is not accurate at all. See The Revision Revised.