In Latin this phrase boiled down to the textus receptus, and hence an advertising blurb became associated with the Greek texts of the Erasmus–Stephanus– Beza line so that today one will find the phrase used to describe the text from which the KJV was translated. These insertions became a part of the Textus Receptus and so on into the King James Version itself. Beza's conjectural emendation. The Textus Receptus does not equal the so-called majority text, that is, the text reconstructed by taking at any place of variation the reading found in most manuscripts. In these instances the Textus Receptus often follows Erasmus' Reuchlin manuscript (2814). 2. The Textus Receptus departs from both the Nestle-Aland Text and the Byzantine Majority Text considerably in the Book of Revelation. One is the reliable Textus Receptus (or Received Text) from Antioch, Rome. Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original. In his book, The Revision Revised (1881), he lists numerous examples of the textual errors found in both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. One of these readings is the famous I John 5:7. In fact, the Greek text of Erasmus, which was the forerunner of the Textus Receptus, actually has phrases and passages that were inserted from Jerome's Vulgate because there were blanks in the manuscripts from which he worked. I have been reading a bit deeper into the Issue about the New King James bible and why many people like the Ahos' say that it agrees with the Textus Receptus better then our 1769 King James Bible. It is extremely common for King James Only advocates to conflate the “Majority Text” (M-Text) with the “Textus Receptus” (TR), or the tradition of printed Greek texts behind the King James Version. Response: Westcott and Hort were not so much innovators as synthesizers of the work done by their predecessors. Readings based on Erasmus' supposed errors. The Textus Receptus always has the evidence on its side. The Textus Receptus (TR)and the resulting KJV reflect some Western-text errors that minimize the historically important roles of early Christian women. The TR is representative of the Byzantine (a.k.a., Syrian) family of texts The Byzantine Text family is primarily a combination of the Neutral, Alexandrian, and Western text families. Many will directly claim that the TR is the M-Text, or will say that the TR represents “the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.” Neither of these are true statements. Verse Analysis. Additionally, in a number of places, the textus receptus reading is found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from ancient translations. By Joseph Dugas . Textus Receptus Bible chapters shown in parallel with your selection of Bibles. Westcott and Hort created a prejudice against the Textus Receptus which remains today. Some modern versions of the New Testament, based primarily on the Alexandrian Text, have drawn many readings into question even though the readings are affirmed in ancient patristic compositions and are supported by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts. This is the source from which our believed 1611 King James Bible comes from! Although there have been numerous editions since the 1611 to correct typos, there have NOT been any new revisions of it. THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS IS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. Compares the 1550 Stephanus Textus Receptus with the King James Bible. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-- the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Some of their predecessors were actually very …