Featured many varying KJV's; Which KJV?

scriptural or non-scriptural form of preservation

When preservation is claimed for the KJV and when KJV-only advocates claim jot and tittle preservation is the scriptural type preservation, it would mean for a translation to be properly considered preserved it would have to have a jot and tittle type preservation. There may be no jot and tittle in English but there are corresponding parts in English that would be comparable just as there are corresponding words for the original language words to be translated into.

Preservation to the point that particular Hebrew letters would be preserved would suggest that claimed preservation in a translation would be to the point that particular English letters would also be preserved. That type preservation would involve evidently involve spelling.

Where do the Scriptures teach that preservation of the Scriptures does not extent to jots and tittles?

Do you advocate some non-scriptural form of preservation for a translation such as the KJV?

You have not demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that a translation made without being part of the miracle of the giving of the Scriptures by revelation and by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be inerrant.

 

The fact that additions have to be made in translating proves that translations are actually in a different class or category than copies of the original language Scriptures. Those verses (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 relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original language Scriptures, but they cannot strictly or absolutely be applied in the making of translations as you in effect admitted.

The commands against adding or taking away may be loosely or generally applied as general principles or guidelines in the making of translations, but the strict, absolute, or literal sense of those commands will be broken in order to make translations. Therefore, that fact would demonstrate or affirm my point that translations are in a different class than copies and that translations cannot properly be claimed to be preserved in the same sense that is claimed for the Scriptures in the original languages.

Kevin Bauder wrote: “If the standard is perfect preservation (all of the words and only the words of the originals), then all true copies of the originals must contain exactly the same words. It will not be enough that two sources are similar” (One Bible Only, p. 25). Pastor Glenn Conjurske observed: “Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this [KJV-only] system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 12). Conjurske asked: “How can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881--a text which was constructed in 1881 [by Scrivener]?“ (pp. 13-14). Conjurske added: “To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not ’preservation.’ It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation” (p. 14). He asserted: “These men have filled the church of God with disputes about ‘preservation,‘ without ever understanding their own doctrine” (p. 14). Conjurske pointed out that KJV-only people have told believers that “it must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God” (p. 15). Conjurske asserted that “it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all--not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever--until Scrivener constructed it in 1881” (p. 16). Conjurske also wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43). In effect, the KJV-only view often advocates a “restored, reconstructed” translation instead of a preserved Bible in the original languages. Doug Kutilek maintained: “Some people have ‘good beyond what is written’ and have begun to require of God something that He never promised, that is, the infallible and perfect preservation of Scripture in the copying and translating processes” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 28). A consistent view of the doctrine of preservation does not actually lead to a KJV-only view. The KJV-only argument carries little weight against a consistent understanding of the overall teachings and promises of the Bible.

If the doctrine of preservation supposedly leads to a KJV-only view, it implies that preservation is only found by using the English text of the KJV. This seems to be a non sequitur claim since the conclusion of a KJV-only view does not follow from a consistent application of the evidence presented by KJV-only advocates.

 

no standard in Cambridge

What inerrant standard greater in authority than the printed editions did Cambridge have to compare all printings against?

If Cambridge had such an inerrant standard to compare all printings against, how do you explain the fact that they did not follow it and why are you unable to name and identify what that claimed standard was?

The 1611 edition was not an inerrant standard to use for comparing all printings.

It is an established fact of history that Cambridge kept changing its standard edition through the years: the 1629 Cambridge standard edition, then the 1638 Cambridge standard edition, then the 1743 Cambridge edition, then the 1762 Cambridge edition, then the 1805-1817 Cambridge edition, the 1873 Cambridge edition, the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of today or the 2005 or 2011 Cambridge edition by David Norton.

Cambridge adopted the 1769 Oxford standard for a number of years, then abandoned it with its 1805-1817 edition, then later adopted a revised version of the 1769 Oxford standard again, but then later abandoned it again with the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener.

A spokesman from Oxford speaking to a committee asserted the following in 1837: “In Cambridge I have understood at present they have no standard; but having been engaged in printing a Bible intended to be presented to the Queen, they have caused it to be carefully examined by many different editions, to form a standard. This edition, when finished, I have been given to understand, will be sent to Oxford, in order that both Universities may print not only from the same standard, but from the most correct that can be obtained” (Report from Select Committee on King’s Printers’ Patent, Vol. XIII, p. 48).


How do all these varying standard Cambridge editions of the KJV demonstrate that Cambridge had an inerrant standard to compare all printings against?

 

Are you admitting that your simply claiming that Cambridge had an inerrant standard is not proof that they had one?

If they had such an inerrant standard, why do you avoid naming or presenting what it was?

The fact of the many varying editions being used as standard editions would be sound evidence that Cambridge had no inerrant standard to compare and evaluate their printers. There are more differences between those different standard Cambridge editions than just spelling or spelling updates.

 

positive stand for truth against incorrect, false KJV-only theory

You make a false accusation. I am not tearing down the KJV as you falsely claim. Disagreeing with the opinions of men seen in a modern, man-made KJV-only theory is not tearing down the KJV. Exposing the use of fallacies and divers measures evident in a KJV-only theory is not tearing down the KJV. You again show that your reasoning is faulty.

The KJV is the main English translation of the Scriptures that I read and use. I also sometimes consult the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and later English translations of the same underlying original language texts such as the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the NKJV, or the Modern KJV.

I take the claims and assertions of KJV-only advocates and apply them consistently to see if they are valid or true. If KJV-only assertions about this issue or about other translations were true, applying them to the KJV would be one proper way to test them. If that supposedly makes the KJV look bad, I maintain it is because of the improper faulty KJV-only argument or assertion.

In effect, I am actually defending the KJV from the misrepresentations and false claims of KJV-only advocates. I attempt to provide accurate, factual information concerning the KJV. You have not demonstrated that I have made any incorrect claims concerning the KJV.

I stand for the same view of Bible translation that the KJV translators held: the view that asserts that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.

My energy is spend in a positive way, standing for the consistent truth and exposing fallacies, false claims, and unscriptural use of divers measures.

KJV-only advocates seem to spend their time trying to tear down other translations of the Scriptures through incorrect use of fallacies, divers measures [double standards], and misleading claims instead of meeting the KJV-only burden of proof and showing that their claims, assumptions, or principles are actually clearly stated or taught in the Scriptures. In contradiction to what the Scriptures teach, KJV-only advocates try to show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

Instead of answering my questions and instead of providing any sound consistent evidence for your claims that were properly challenged, you seem to want to try to change the discussion into a personal attack on me by throwing out your false accusations.

 

KJV-only false accusations

You make the false accusations and bear false witness in disobedience to the Scriptures. I stated no falsehood in what you quoted from me. I made no reference to the original autographs in my statement, but instead I clearly referred to the existing "preserved Scriptures in the original languages" as the proper standard and authority to be used for the making and trying of all translations.

I stand for the truth while you openly throw out your false accusations and misrepresentations. Your post reveals that you do not stand for the truth.

Since you cannot name or identify any one original language Old Testament manuscript that matches the KJV's OT 100% or any one original language New Testament manuscript that matches the KJV's NT 100%, you would have to hold the same view that admits the fact that there are copying errors in the existing original language manuscripts.

Acknowledging the truth that there are some copying errors in the original language manuscripts is not saying that the original language words that proceeded from the mouth of God do not exist, but only that they have to be determined from more than one manuscript.