You error (as always) lies in your presumptuous position.
Do you ignore the errors of your own very presumptuous position?
Perhaps you assume and presume some of your assertions based on use of fallacies such as begging the question.
You make no sound scriptural case for trying to suggest that God would not preserve some of the exact specific original-language words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. There are more textual variants and differences in the imperfect Latin translations than there are in the preserved Greek NT manuscripts so you do not demonstrate that the Latin translation is more trustworthy than the preserved Greek NT text.
There is sound scriptural support that preservation would concern the original-language words of Scripture.
The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are
written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17).
The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and would state something about language. Concerning Matthew 5:18, D. A. Waite noted: “This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text” (
Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 93). Steve Combs asserted: “When God made the promises of preservation, the words He promised to preserve were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words,” and he noted: “This is evident by the Scriptures themselves,” citing Matthew 5:18 (
Practical Theology, p. 43).
That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not
his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? Do KJV-only advocates avoid or ignore these internal statements in the KJV that would indicate or affirm that preservation would concern the same original-language words spoken and
written by the prophets and apostles?
A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate this scripturally-based point that Bible preservation would concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions?
These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Would the meaning of these verses have to be reduced to nothing or near nothing to try to suggest that these warnings were directly given concerning Bible translations? These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.
