Okay, so you prefer the 'Textus Receptus' vs. Westcott-Hort or the Nestle-Aland texts. I have read Burgon's book and others who defend the 'Textus Receptus' and I have also read many books that defend the 'Majority Text'. There are valid arguments on both sides which makes it very difficult to choose between them. However, I am curious if you go further than siding with the Textus Receptus and also believe that only one of the many translations based upon the Textus Receptus is equally inspired, i.e. the translation shares the same divine authorship and the original autographa, aka: The King James Bible?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]