Featured Final Authority and Final Canonization

Yes, I have Scripture.

I have reprints of some of the original language text editions on which the KJV was based.

I have reprints or photocopies of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

I have over 100 editions of the KJV with many differences and variations in them.

The KJV is a translation and is the word of God in the same sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision such as 1560 Geneva Bible is and in the same way and sense that later English Bibles such as the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and the NKJV are.

The word of God is not bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions or translating decisions of an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

 

You have clearly stated that your theories are as muddled as Gail Riplinger's are.

You approvingly quote Gail Riplinger but you're not a KJVO?

 

Are you aware that the original manuscripts for the KJV are lost? There are no original manuscripts for the KJV. And the KJV we have now (which I love) has many differences from the original manuscripts or even the original printing. (I have a 1611 KJV reprint.) So this argument won't fly, factually.

I don't normally participate in these arguments about the KJV, but I just thought you'd like to have the facts of the matter.

 

The first edition of the 1611 KJV had errors in it. Those errors could only be discovered and corrected by consulting some greater, independent authority such as the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Without the original text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers, how can it be determined with absolute certainty which renderings were the choice of the KJV translators and which may have been changed by the printers?

How is an edition with errors supposed to be the proper standard for later editions?

 

Were KJV translators "deceivers"?

According to a consistent application of your own words, are you claiming that the KJV translators were dishonest deceivers and untrustworthy since they referred to "the original Greek," "the Greek text," etc.?

According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“

In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

 

That's a pretty nasty attack. I lead an effort to translate the TR into modern Japanese for the very first time, but since I'm using the Greek NT as my "final authority," you think I'm a deceiver.

So do you think I should be translating from the KJV? If so, where is your scriptural basis, your "final authority" for an English Bible as source text? English did not exist when the NT was written.

 

God preserved his Word to us in the original language etxts that we use today to translate versions off from!

So originals were innerrant, original language texts are preserved to us as word of God, thus the versions off them, while not prerfect, error free, are infallible to accomplish their intended purpose!
We can freely discuss/disagree wether TR/MT/CT is best abd closest to originals, but any version off them done right would be infallible English word of God to us today!

 

Are you describing your own unproven theory based partially on the writings of Ruckman and Riplinger?

There is no need for you to keep repeating the same comments that have been answered or countered.

 

Are you attempting to attack a Japanese translation made from the Textus Receptus?

Do you think that a proper Japanese translation today should or can only be made from the KJV?

 

It is evident that you will not answer proper and learned questions that would expose the serious problems with your unproven theories, that would apply your own claims consistently, or that would show that you in effect hold what is properly known as a KJV-only theory.

Even the most extreme KJV-only advocates such as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger will claim to accept pre-1611 Bibles, but that does not suggest that they do not hold a KJV-only view.

You will not engage in serious, detailed discussion and will not deal with the sound evidence that counters your claims.