jw: However, the KJV is not perfect, nor could any translation be, given the nature of translation, not to mention the nature of man.
And of course that is not what Bentley was claiming.
However, the KJVO contingent continually harps on the issue that the MSS in Timothy's hands were "not the originals" (and for them, that is ok, since it eliminates the usual conservative appeals to the no longer extant "autographs").
But then, by a total leap of illogic, they then argue that the same type of non-autograph copies *in Greek* "cannot be trusted" from any point after the time of Timothy -- not until their being fixed in a 16th century TR printed form and then "corrected" by finally being "Englished" in the KJV of the 17th century.
In contrast, Bentley's point carries the whole matter consistently, and what he says regarding the Greek can then be applied with reference to any English translation that faithfully reproduces such underlying Greek.
And of course that is not what Bentley was claiming.
However, the KJVO contingent continually harps on the issue that the MSS in Timothy's hands were "not the originals" (and for them, that is ok, since it eliminates the usual conservative appeals to the no longer extant "autographs").
But then, by a total leap of illogic, they then argue that the same type of non-autograph copies *in Greek* "cannot be trusted" from any point after the time of Timothy -- not until their being fixed in a 16th century TR printed form and then "corrected" by finally being "Englished" in the KJV of the 17th century.
In contrast, Bentley's point carries the whole matter consistently, and what he says regarding the Greek can then be applied with reference to any English translation that faithfully reproduces such underlying Greek.