Featured Is some Bible-correcting in effect accepted by believers?

You fail to discuss and answer what I actually stated. Your improper tactic is to try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You try to misrepresent and distort my sound, scripturally-based acceptance of all that the Scriptures teach about themselves.

The preserved Scriptures are just as trustworthy today as they were before 1611.

 

Your allegation is not true since I did not do what you allege. You also did not quote my entire statement.

You have an incorrect opinion of what it means when someone else disagrees with a claim or statement that you make and thinks that your claim may be incorrect or mistaken.

 

Can any KJV defenders here present and discuss a clear, consistent, sound, scriptural view of Bible preservation (a scripturally-based view that would be true both before and after 1611)?

As a defender of the KJV as what it actually is, I presented my scripturally-based observations concerning preservation. If any of my observations are not in agreement with what the Scriptures teach, no KJV-only advocate has demonstrated it.

Can KJV defenders demonstrate that they actually accept and apply justly what the Scriptures state and teach concerning preservation?

Without defining the term preservation and without showing that they use the term scripturally, consistently, soundly, and justly, do some KJV defenders make unproven, unjust accusations against believers who accept what the Scriptures teach concerning preservation?

Do KJV defenders consistently advocate exact-word preservation or jot-and-tittle preservation and do they in effect change the kind of preservation when they try to use the term for the KJV?

Do those who try to use the term preserved exclusively concerning one Bible translation (the KJV) in effect change or redefine Biblical preservation to a sense of "message", "thought," or "dynamic-equivalent" preservation?

 

The KJV translators acknowledged that they engaged in a process of Bible correcting [that is, making corrections, improvements, and revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles which they identified as being the word of God], and later editors/printers engaged in a process of Bible correcting in making some corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

The KJV translators maintained that if anything in a Bible translation was "not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected."

In their 1611 preface to the readers, the KJV translators wrote: "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance in one or other of other editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."

The KJV translators also asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"