Absolute uncertainty in Hebrew Masoretic Text and varying Textus Receptus editions?

[Logos1560]

In the Hebrew Masoretic Text and in the multiple varying Textus Receptus editions on which the KJV is based, is there absolute uncertainty according to KJV-only reasoning?

KJV-only author Charles Keesee asserted: "When you challenge them to show you any Greek or Hebrew text that is inerrant, they can't. It is hypothetical or theoretical inerrancy and absolute uncertainty" (A Subtle Apostasy, p. 191).

According to this KJV-only author's own challenge, most KJV-only advocates will not show you any one Hebrew text edition and any one Greek TR edition (on which the KJV is actually and solely based) that they assert to be perfect and inerrant. Thus, the very original-language foundation on which the KJV is based would be a "absolute uncertainty" according to a consistent application of Charles Keesee's own assertions.

By use of the fallacy of begging the question, KJV-only authors may assume and claim the KJV to be perfect and inerrant. Since they do not attempt to prove the KJV to be a perfect and inerrant translation by comparing every one of its renderings to one inerrant edition of the Hebrew OT text and any one inerrant edition of the Greek NT text and showing those renderings to be 100% correct and accurate, it suggests that they only assume their claim by use of fallacies.

 

[Conan]

Variations within the Received Text Tradition

Collation of Received text readings

 

[John of Japan]

I believe an original language text can be (and usually is) inerrant within itself without reference to textual differences. The doctrine of inerrancy does not depend on textual criticism.

 

[37818]

Psalms 119:89. Isaiah 55:11.
When we have at hand known variant texts we do have at issue a reading or readings which are not the original autograph.

 

[Dave G]

When we have at hand known variant texts we do have at issue a reading or readings which are not the original autograph.

I agree.

As long as there are variants, no one will be able to objectively prove, in a court of men, which ones echo the originals perfectly and which ones do not.
We're left with each of us making choices as to which reading(s) are God's actual words, and which ones are not.

No amount of discussion will ever resolve the unresolvable, and I've come to see that over the course of my time here.
There will always be differences of opinion, and those differences will continue to divide those who profess Christ from now until He comes again.

To me, it is pointless to do anything other than to state one's case ( in detail if need be ) and to let those who view those statements, then decide for themselves.

 

[Dave G]

To answer the OP for the benefit of the reader ( since I have agreed, in unspoken terms, with the OP owner that there can, in all probability, be no resolution between us on this subject ):

Outside of making a choice in one direction or the other, all that's left is uncertainty.
Biblical inerrancy depends squarely upon deciding which underlying texts(s) are reflective of the originals, and that is where any translation work should start.

By choosing one position and going with it,
I see that "KJV-Onlyists" ( or even those who do not focus on the "KJV" as the source, like myself, but upon the underlying texts of it as being representative of the originals ), are willing to at least take a stand on what they see as that source.
They've stopped their "ball" rolling... and right or wrong, I admire them for that.

Regardless of any errors that they have made and rhetoric that they have employed ( and in my opinion some of it is fairly outlandish, some of it injurious, and some of it I happen to agree with ), I see that those who are often labeled as "KJV-Only" not only differ in their convictions, but to those on the outside, they are all lumped together...
And anyone who disagrees with all of them, is, in effect, not seeing those differences.

Be that as it may,
I also see them standing not only alone, but not faltering in that stand as long as they are convinced of their position.
No amount of "peer pressure" is going to change their minds about what they see, and no amount of ridicule and disparagement will sway them.

Standing on the sidelines for the most part, I see something that many may not....

People contending for a standard when it comes to where God's words can be found, what they are, and how seriously they should be treated,
and them paying for it by enduring constant, ongoing persecution and ridicule.
Something about all of that feels very familiar to me,
ever since the day that I was called, by the grace of God, out of darkness and into the light of His words during the preaching of them in 1978.



To each and every one of you:

May God bless you greatly in your studies in His word,
and may He grant you the privilege to see many sobering and marvelous truths in it...

Truths that will only cause you to genuinely "fear", admire and praise Him for His promises to you, and for His grace in our salvation...
without which we would all be in very serious trouble with Him.

 

[37818]

I agree.

As long as there are variants, no one will be able to objectively prove, in a court of men, which ones echo the originals perfectly and which ones do not.
We're left with each of us making choices as to which reading(s) are God's actual words, and which ones are not.

No amount of discussion will ever resolve the unresolvable, and I've come to see that over the course of my time here.
There will always be differences of opinion, and those differences will continue to divide those who profess Christ from now until He comes again.

To me, it is pointless to do anything other than to state one's case ( in detail if need be ) and to let those who view those statements, then decide for themselves.

You maybe right. But the undisputed text is the 100% reading. Based on that one fact which of a variant should be more likely, 99.5% or the 0.5% reading? Of course it would be on a case by case review.

 

[Conan]

The 99.5%.

 

[Logos1560]

I see that those who are often labeled as "KJV-Only" not only differ in their convictions, but to those on the outside, they are all lumped together...
And anyone who disagrees with all of them, is, in effect, not seeing those differences.

I have attempted to present accurately the differences among KJV-only advocates. I have read as many as 150 books and pamphlets by varying KJV-only authors to learn their claims as accurately as possible.

Those who are soundly lumped together as KJV-only advocate some form of KJV-only reasoning or make some kind of exclusive only claim for the KJV regardless of whether they may differ in their claims or arguments that they use to reach their same basic KJV-only conclusion. Those who make an exclusive only claim for one English translation--the KJV are by definition KJV-only. KJV-only advocates have been presented as being in several varying camps or groups.

KJV-only advocates often label and lump together all believers who disagree with any KJV-only view as being Critical-Text only, Alexandrian Text only, non-Bible believers, or even as apostates.

KJV-only authors and TR-only advocates have not soundly distinguished the many important differences among Bible believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning or with TR-only reasoning.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have read as many as 150 books and pamphlets by varying KJV-only authors to learn their claims as accurately as possible.

That strikes me as an atrocious waste of time.

 

[Conan]

That strikes me as an atrocious waste of time.

It's called research.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe an original language text can be (and usually is) inerrant within itself without reference to textual differences. The doctrine of inerrancy does not depend on textual criticism.

they are Infallible, but Inerrancy reserved just for the originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

To answer the OP for the benefit of the reader ( since I have agreed, in unspoken terms, with the OP owner that there can, in all probability, be no resolution between us on this subject ):

Outside of making a choice in one direction or the other, all that's left is uncertainty.
Biblical inerrancy depends squarely upon deciding which underlying texts(s) are reflective of the originals, and that is where any translation work should start.

By choosing one position and going with it,
I see that "KJV-Onlyists" ( or even those who do not focus on the "KJV" as the source, like myself, but upon the underlying texts of it as being representative of the originals ), are willing to at least take a stand on what they see as that source.
They've stopped their "ball" rolling... and right or wrong, I admire them for that.

Regardless of any errors that they have made and rhetoric that they have employed ( and in my opinion some of it is fairly outlandish, some of it injurious, and some of it I happen to agree with ), I see that those who are often labeled as "KJV-Only" not only differ in their convictions, but to those on the outside, they are all lumped together...
And anyone who disagrees with all of them, is, in effect, not seeing those differences.

Be that as it may,
I also see them standing not only alone, but not faltering in that stand as long as they are convinced of their position.
No amount of "peer pressure" is going to change their minds about what they see, and no amount of ridicule and disparagement will sway them.

Standing on the sidelines for the most part, I see something that many may not....

People contending for a standard when it comes to where God's words can be found, what they are, and how seriously they should be treated,
and them paying for it by enduring constant, ongoing persecution and ridicule.
Something about all of that feels very familiar to me,
ever since the day that I was called, by the grace of God, out of darkness and into the light of His words during the preaching of them in 1978.



To each and every one of you:

May God bless you greatly in your studies in His word,
and may He grant you the privilege to see many sobering and marvelous truths in it...

Truths that will only cause you to genuinely "fear", admire and praise Him for His promises to you, and for His grace in our salvation...
without which we would all be in very serious trouble with Him.

per the Kjvo, the 1611 kjv is a perfect translation made off imperfect source texts?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have attempted to present accurately the differences among KJV-only advocates. I have read as many as 150 books and pamphlets by varying KJV-only authors to learn their claims as accurately as possible.

Those who are soundly lumped together as KJV-only advocate some form of KJV-only reasoning or make some kind of exclusive only claim for the KJV regardless of whether they may differ in their claims or arguments that they use to reach their same basic KJV-only conclusion. Those who make an exclusive only claim for one English translation--the KJV are by definition KJV-only. KJV-only advocates have been presented as being in several varying camps or groups.

KJV-only advocates often label and lump together all believers who disagree with any KJV-only view as being Critical-Text only, Alexandrian Text only, non-Bible believers, or even as apostates.

KJV-only authors and TR-only advocates have not soundly distinguished the many important differences among Bible believers who disagree with KJV-only reasoning or with TR-only reasoning.

Common thread to Kjvo is the position modern versions are all corrupted and or satanic!

 

[Baptist4life]

It's called research.

I call it his unhealthy obsession with the whole topic.

 

[Yeshua1]

I call it his unhealthy obsession with the whole topic.

No, its more that he understands very clearly the errors of Kjvo!

 

[Baptist4life]

No, its more that he understands very clearly the errors of Kjvo!

Well, posting about it practically 24/7 on numerous forums for many years......seems like an obsession to me. Seems like if he's not sleeping or working....he's posting about KJVO somewhere on the internet. Kinda strange IMHO.

 

[Logos1560]

Well, posting about it practically 24/7 on numerous forums for many years.....

You seem to be the one who may obsessed with be complaining about a reasonable, scripturally-based response to KJV-only reasoning and opinions. Are you opposed to efforts to present the truth about a topic related to the Scriptures?

It is impossible for me to be posting 24/7 so your claim is not even close to the truth.

I work 40 hours or more a week. I leave home an hour before my shift begins. I may post a little before I go to work or after I get home from work. Some days I post nothing. My posting often takes 30 minutes or less. Some days I post a little more when any KJV-only posters are making their unproven KJV-only claims.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, posting about it practically 24/7 on numerous forums for many years......seems like an obsession to me. Seems like if he's not sleeping or working....he's posting about KJVO somewhere on the internet. Kinda strange IMHO.

I believe he is performing a legitimate, needed function in the body of Christ. He has done more research and knows more about this issue than any other player in the field--a narrow field I admit--and I know many of the players, some personally. "To his own master he standeth or falleth" (Rom. 14:4).

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe he is performing a legitimate, needed function in the body of Christ. He has done more research and knows more about this issue than any other player in the field--a narrow field I admit--and I know many of the players, some personally. "To his own master he standeth or falleth" (Rom. 14:4).

he does a real service for the Body of Christ, as he does respect and use the Kjv himself, and is critical of the Greek critical text used for modern versions, so they cannot bash him for accepting "satanic texts"