What is the difference between a "Textus Receptus Man" and a "King James
A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from
Under Question #8 concerning Alexandria and Antioch it was pointed out
that we derive two things from each of these locations. We derive
manuscripts and an ideology through which we
judge those manuscripts.
From Alexandria we receive corrupted manuscripts, tainted by the
critical hand of Origen. We also receive an ideology that believes the
Bible to be divine, but not perfect, not without error.
From Antioch we receive the pure line of manuscripts culminating in
what is known as the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus. We also receive
the ideology that the Bible is not only Divine, but perfect, without
1. Most Bible critics do not believe that the Bible
is perfect (The Alexandrian Ideology). They usually also accept the
Alexandrian manuscripts as superior to those of Antioch.
2. A King James Bible believer accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or
Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. They also accept the
Antiochian Ideology in that they accept the Bible as infallible and do not
believe it contains any errors or mistranslations and that it
cannot be improved.
3. A Textus Receptus man also accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or
Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. But a Textus Receptus man
accepts the Antiochian manuscripts yet he views them with the Alexandrian
He does not accept any translation as perfect and without error. He
generally feels that the King James is the best
translation but can be improved. He usually stumbles at Acts 12:4 and
states that it is a mistranslation.
This contradiction is NOT the result of a bad or
dishonest heart so much as it is the result of a bad education. Most
Textus Receptus men have been taught by others who have been deceived into
accepting, unconsciously, the Alexandrian Ideology.