many varying KJV's; Which KJV?

[Logos1560]

scriptural or non-scriptural form of preservation

That doesn't mean a translation has to be jot and tittle, in fact, that is impossible, we do not have jots and tittles in English. But the tanslation can be accurate and inerrant. You can include textual differences and still have accuracy.

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.

 

[Winman]

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.

You knew what I was saying, English has no jots and tittles. But I agree, it would extend to proper punctuation. A comma misplaced can make a difference.

But here is where you might not understand my view. I don't think the original printing of the 1611 was perfect (jot and tittle). Now, I do believe the "translation" was perfect, but not the printing.

In time, errors were spotted and corrected. This does not mean the translation was not inerrant, it means the printing had errors.

Where you misunderstand me is that you think I believe in some mythical KJB that was absolutely perfect. I do not, there were errors in the first printing, and there are errors that continue to infect KJB Bibles today. But I do believe the translators got the translation jot and tittle perfect.

That said, that doesn't mean some minor improvements could not be made, and I think they were made over time. As I have given example several times, a verse that said simply "Son" would not be error, but "Son of God" would be an improvement. It is more precise, because there is also "Son of Man". So, while "Son" is no error, again, "Son of God" is an improvement because it is more precise to the reader.

My view is similar to those who claim the seven purifications, although I don't know if there have been exactly seven. They got the translation correct, everything the KJB teaches is accurate, but there was room for improvement or purification. I believe many of the textual changes would fall under this.

I do not consider small textual additions that make the translation more precise are an addition to the scriptures. Additions MUST often be made as you know (I don't need to explain this to you) and are usually identified in italics. So, small textual additions are not adding to the word, even in a jot and tittle sense.

 

[HankD]

Winman I believe we are in agreement about a couple of things, maybe everything in general concerning the gist of this thread.

My feelings about the CT are like yours. However, for the most part a good critical text contains the full Traditional Text except that the TR variants are in the footnotes and/or the margins, so you can always (well almost always) reconstruct the Traditional Text from a CT which has a good apparatus. Of course thats what the "C" represents - Critical (of the Traditional Text) Text.

Secondly, I simply can't except the premise that any translation can be jot and tittle perfect, one must always revert to the original language texts when there is a question. However I agree with your assessment of the current KJV versions, they have been refined several times over the centuries.

Here perhaps we might disagree. - The KJV is inspired by derivation from the original language texts, only the Greek and Hebrew are the inspired words directly by God.

Also I could not think of the Hebrew text which (like the Scrivener Greek text) which is a composite of the Masora texts into a state of perfection (IMO and position of faith)- it is the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society Hebrew Text.

It was rather hard to come by but now one can easily get one if one purchases a Hebrew interlinear : The interlinear Bible (Hebrew/English) Jay P. Green, Sr., 1976.

He used the 1866 FBS as the Hebrew text.

HankD

 

[HankD]

One of our learned members of the BB put it this way.

The originals - inspiration by revelation.
mss copies - inspiration by preservation.
Translations - inspiration by derivation.

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

I do not consider small textual additions that make the translation more precise are an addition to the scriptures. Additions MUST often be made as you know (I don't need to explain this to you) and are usually identified in italics. So, small textual additions are not adding to the word, even in a jot and tittle sense.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

no standard in Cambridge

The Cambridge that says

Because they had an inerrant standard to compare all printings against.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hank, those are basically the very changes I gave a link for earlier. Those are differences, but they are not errors. Whether you spell "chestnut" or "chesnut" you have the same thing,- a chestnut! It is simply a different spelling. The English spell "colour", Americans spell "color", but neither word is wrong, they are just different ways of spelling the same word.

Most of the changes made in the King James were to update spelling which had been "standardized". A variation in spelling is no error whatsoever. Why can't folks understand this?

Slight textual changes are not necessarily errors either. A verse might have said, "Son", and was later translated "Son of God". Is "Son" an error? No, it is not an error whatsoever, but "Son of God" is more precise. But neither are errors. There have been a few changes of this nature made.

These are the types of changes folks who try to find fault with the KJB point out. They are desperate, these are not errors at all.

This is absurd, the Critical Text is a total mess. Even those who support it admit there were thousands of differences between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These were not minor spelling or textual changes, entire passages of scripture are missing, many verses, and words. To overlook this and nit-pick on whether “Idumea” or “Idumaea” is correct is ridiculous.

Pure desperation.

how can there be over 3000 verses missing from the critical text of the grrek, for you have stated that we cannot even know if the originals even existed, as we don't have any today, so how would you be able to judge what was missing or not from the bible/

And has the critical texts altered ANY Doctrines of the faith by adding or dropping those from the greek text themselves?

By what basis can you judge textual criticism, were you schooled in this area?

 

[Winman]

how can there be over 3000 verses missing from the critical text of the grrek, for you have stated that we cannot even know if the originals even existed, as we don't have any today, so how would you be able to judge what was missing or not from the bible/

And has the critical texts altered ANY Doctrines of the faith by adding or dropping those from the greek text themselves?

By what basis can you judge textual criticism, were you schooled in this area?

The Critical Text has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek as compared to the Received Text. So either the CT has diminished from God's word, or the RT has added to it, but both texts cannot be the same. The word of God cannot both CONTAIN and OMIT the last 12 verses of the 16th chapter of Mark.

Now God has warned against adding or diminishing from his word, so clearly God does not want us to read a Bible that has added or diminished from his word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God gave very stern warnings to anyone who would add or subtract from his word, so it is clear he does not want us reading a Bible with words added, or words diminished. Therefore it is important to know which Bible is from the correct preserved text.

 

[Winman]

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?

Simply quoting a person who said there was no standard is not proof. You need to explain what you mean by these many different editions. All KJB people agree that the KJB was updated many times, to correct errors, standardize spelling, etc... This does not mean the translation itself was changed.

 

[Winman]

Winman I believe we are in agreement about a couple of things, maybe everything in general concerning the gist of this thread.

My feelings about the CT are like yours. However, for the most part a good critical text contains the full Traditional Text except that the TR variants are in the footnotes and/or the margins, so you can always (well almost always) reconstruct the Traditional Text from a CT which has a good apparatus. Of course thats what the "C" represents - Critical (of the Traditional Text) Text.

Secondly, I simply can't except the premise that any translation can be jot and tittle perfect, one must always revert to the original language texts when there is a question. However I agree with your assessment of the current KJV versions, they have been refined several times over the centuries.

Here perhaps we might disagree. - The KJV is inspired by derivation from the original language texts, only the Greek and Hebrew are the inspired words directly by God.

Also I could not think of the Hebrew text which (like the Scrivener Greek text) which is a composite of the Masora texts into a state of perfection (IMO and position of faith)- it is the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society Hebrew Text.

It was rather hard to come by but now one can easily get one if one purchases a Hebrew interlinear : The interlinear Bible (Hebrew/English) Jay P. Green, Sr., 1976.

He used the 1866 FBS as the Hebrew text.

HankD

Thank you so much Hank, I appreciate your very reasonable attitude.

I am generally in agreement with you, except neither text Received or Critical had the original autographs.

In fact, there has NEVER been a Bible composed of original autographs EVER, even by the Jews. When Jesus read the scriptures in Nazareth, he was reading a copy of Isaiah, not the original autographs. The originals had probably been worn out by extensive use and destroyed centuries before.

So, the scriptures have always relied on accurate copies made by believers themselves. This is how God has chosen to preserve his words.

 

[Logos1560]

Simply quoting a person who said there was no standard is not proof.

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.

Originally Posted by Winman
The Cambridge that says

Because they had an inerrant standard to compare all printings against.

 

[Winman]

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.

[/I]

Logos, I simply do not spend my entire life trying to tear down the King James Bible like you. I am sure you could show me a hundred negative quotes against the KJB that you have collected. Whether they are true or not is another matter. I certainly am not going to spend any time investigating your claims.

But I can hardly answer all these charges, I doubt many KJB scholars could answer them all. It is your obsession to tear down the KJB.

It is too bad you don't spend all your energy in a positive way.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Critical Text has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek as compared to the Received Text. So either the CT has diminished from God's word, or the RT has added to it, but both texts cannot be the same. The word of God cannot both CONTAIN and OMIT the last 12 verses of the 16th chapter of Mark.

Now God has warned against adding or diminishing from his word, so clearly God does not want us to read a Bible that has added or diminished from his word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God gave very stern warnings to anyone who would add or subtract from his word, so it is clear he does not want us reading a Bible with words added, or words diminished. Therefore it is important to know which Bible is from the correct preserved text.

You have to realise that the scholars who did the critical txt were not trying to pervert the word of God, trying to dilute it down, trying to take away from the bible!

Based upon their work and in their opinion, it just reflects to them what the original greek NT looked like!

So they do not hold that they took away from the original text,as they would see that other texts added words to them...

regardless, all the greek texts TR/MT/CT etc reflect the word of god to us today, as ALl teach essential the same, hold to same doctrines, and you can reconstruct the MT/TR from the aperatus in the CT, and get the CT from same in the MT....

 

[Logos1560]

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

Logos, I simply do not spend my entire life trying to tear down the King James Bible like you.

It is your obsession to tear down the KJB.

It is too bad you don't spend all your energy in a positive way.

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.

 

[Winman]

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.

You can repeat this a thousand times, and all you are saying is that you take a stand for NOTHING. There are no original autographs in the world and you know that.

You do not believe the scriptures are preserved whatsoever, because the original autographs are not preserved, they disappeared centuries ago and you know that.

So, your statement is a falsehood.

I also read Will Kenny's review of your book, he seems to believe you indeed attack the King James Bible.

Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".

This sure sounds like you are tearing down the KJB to me.

Again, you must be a very talented person, too bad you are not using it for positive purposes.

 

[jbh28]

You can repeat this a thousand times, and all you are saying is that you take a stand for NOTHING. There are no original autographs in the world and you know that.

You do not believe the scriptures are preserved whatsoever, because the original autographs are not preserved, they disappeared centuries ago and you know that.

How many times are you going to repeat this falsehood about a brother in Christ? Shame on you winman. Logos1560 very much believes(as do I) that the words of God have been preserved. BTW, he didn't say anything about original autographs in his statement, so you didn't read it too well. Nobody, at least nobody I know, believes the original autographs are still around today. The words that were on those autographs are inspired. They were copied many times over the years. We know we still have those words because God said he would preserve his words. We have over 5800 Greek NT manuscripts. We have overwhelming evidence of God preserving his word.

So please stop lying about others and saying they don't believe God preserved his word. I's one thing to disagree, it's another to lie about someone else in your argument.

BTW, you still have not answered my question. Either you missed it twice, or just refuse to answer it.

"Was there a perfect text, manuscript or translation in 1610?"

 

[Winman]

How many times are you going to repeat this falsehood about a brother in Christ? Shame on you winman. Logos1560 very much believes(as do I) that the words of God have been preserved. BTW, he didn't say anything about original autographs in his statement, so you didn't read it too well. Nobody, at least nobody I know, believes the original autographs are still around today. The words that were on those autographs are inspired. They were copied many times over the years. We know we still have those words because God said he would preserve his words. We have over 5800 Greek NT manuscripts. We have overwhelming evidence of God preserving his word.

So please stop lying about others and saying they don't believe God preserved his word. I's one thing to disagree, it's another to lie about someone else in your argument.

BTW, you still have not answered my question. Either you missed it twice, or just refuse to answer it.

"Was there a perfect text, manuscript or translation in 1610?"

Ask him for yourself and you will be told ALL COPIES CONTAIN ERRORS. Go ahead and see for yourself. I saw the clever way he worded his statement, but I am not fooled, he believes only the original autographs are inerrant, and they have not existed for nearly 2000 years.

I can see why you like him though, you are another person who very carefully crafts your statements to mislead. You know you can't fool me.

 

[jbh28]

Ask him for yourself and you will be told ALL COPIES CONTAIN ERRORS.

That's a true statement. there are no two manuscripts that read a like.

Go ahead and see for yourself. I saw the clever way he worded his statement, but I am not fooled, he believes only the original autographs are inerrant, and they have not existed for nearly 2000 years.

True, God never promised that a copyist would be kept from error. God promised to preserve his words, not keep every copy free from error or any translation free from error.

I can see why you like him though, you are another person who very carefully crafts your statements to mislead. You know you can't fool me.

You still haven't answered the question. do you not want to answer it for any particular reason?

"Was there a perfect text, manuscript or translation in 1610?"

 

[Deacon]

Edgar Goodspeed's thesis on the Preface to the King James Version, 1611 [LINK]

"It is to be regretted," wrote John Stoughton (Our English Bible), "that while the dedication appears in all the editions, the address to the readers is inserted in very few. It would be good alteration to cancel the former and universally introduce the latter."

This is no idle demand of a few savants and specialists, in the interests of mere erudition, but a crying need of present-day religion, of which the King James Bible is undeniably still the chief stay.

That that edition should continue to sink into greater and greater misconception and misrepresentation, when much of it might be prevented by the simple and obvious device of restoring the Preface, is intolerable. That version is too deeply freighted with religious values to be left at the mercy of every charlatan to exploit. Its Preface is a great monument of sound biblical learning and method. Its readers need it as they have never needed it before. It lies ready to our hands, enfolding in itself the very correctives modern vagaries about the King James Bible so sadly need.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only false accusations

Originally Posted by Logos1560
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.

You can repeat this a thousand times, and all you are saying is that you take a stand for NOTHING. There are no original autographs in the world and you know that.

You do not believe the scriptures are preserved whatsoever, because the original autographs are not preserved, they disappeared centuries ago and you know that.

So, your statement is a falsehood.

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.