Are the Textus Receptus and King James Version based on a mere handful of late Greek manuscripts?  In the previous several parts of my review videos about the James White / Thomas Ross debate, we examined James R. White’s astonishingly historically uninformed claims that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side, and the side of modern Bible versions, in our debate over the preservation of Scripture. In part 13 reviewing the James White / Thomas Ross debate on:

“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”

I examine Dr. White’s amazing assertions that modern versions like the Legacy Standard Bible “utiliz[e] far, far more manuscript evidence than was even dreamed of by the KJV translators,” (16:00) while the King James Version and the Textus Receptus is “based upon a handful of manuscripts.”  Indeed, Dr. White said that the LSB had “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament.”  Are these claims valid? They are simply false, and they redound upon his own minority text, which is ACTUALLY based upon a handful of manuscripts—and sometimes far less than a handful!—far more than they are effective against the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible.  Find out more by watching the thirteenth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:

Lord willing, after looking at all the variants in an entire chapter of Scripture to evaluate how the Received Text and the Textus Rejectus do in them in review video #14, we will then move on to evaluate James White’s arguments against the KJV and TR from Acts 5:30, after which we will continue to his arguments from Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 in subsequent review videos.

–TDR