Chuck Missler defends the KJB / Textus Receptus

Just discovered this video series by Missler, Authenticity Codes of the Greek Text of the KJB. I've only heard a small part of it and don't know if I will be completely convinced by his argument as it goes on. He has so far pointed out that the Alexandrian Greek texts underlying the modern versions turn out to be corrupted, and that's 90% of the necessary argument right there, but Missler tends to get a bit far-out and he purports to defend the authenticity of the KJB by some kind of in-built Bible "code" he's going to go on to discuss in Part 2.

Later: Now having heard Part 2 I can say that I'm mildly impressed but as usual mostly bored with the way Missler enjoys going off into extraneous issues to make his points. In this case he's found, via the work of a 19th Century Russian mathematician, that the true Greek text of the Bible (the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James) exhibits words and letters and elements of the structure of the text in sevens and multiples of sevens. One would have to do the counting oneself to verify this claim, of course, and I'm not going to do that, but if he's right it is interesting to consider that God might leave His "signature" on His inspired text in such a way. Missler says this is specifically the case in the genealogies of Jesus, and that it authenticates the disputed last twelve verses of Mark as well. He lists many ways that sevens and multiples of sevens occur in the Greek of these two parts of scripture.

I have to allow that a certain kind of mind may find this sort of thing fascinating and even a faith-builder. For me it's kind of a ho-hum and I don't feel like listening to more of it. Great if it's true I guess, but for me it's a far more compelling argument for the last twelve verses of Mark simply to point out, as Missler also does in Part 2, that the fact church fathers of the second century quote from that passage is sufficient condemnation of the bogus Alexandrian texts which leave it out. That is, Irenaeus and Hippolytus both quote from this passage well BEFORE the dates of the Alexandrians that were foisted on the church by Westcott and Hort and are so wrongly trusted by modern scholars.

But if anyone is more excited by Missler's mathematical excursions, go for it.

Bogus "original" ending to Mark serves heretics

Bible-rejectors just LOVE the new versions because they permit them to make up all kinds of tales about how the Bible has been subjected to alteration over time. Here's one about how the supposed original absence of the last twelve verses of Mark is used to prove nefarious influences.

The evidence keeps accumulating that the modern versions are a blight on the church, yet apparently well-meaning and dedicated preachers go on supporting them nevertheless.