Where is God's preserved word?

[Jordan Kurecki]

Why should anyone be asked to answer a question that you yourself appear unwilling to answer?

Why do you keep playing games?

I believe the Textus Receptus put out by F.H. Scrivener as published by the TBS is the perfect preserved word of God in the Greek. The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew.

I believe the King James Bible to be a faithful translation of these texts.

Now you're turn. answer my questions.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I believe the Textus Receptus put out by F.H. Scrivener as published by the TBS is the perfect preserved word of God in the Greek. The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew.

And you base this on?

Divine proclamation?
Opinion?
Somebody else's research?
A careful comparison with other texts?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Why do you keep playing games?

I believe the Textus Receptus put out by F.H. Scrivener as published by the TBS is the perfect preserved word of God in the Greek. The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew.

I believe the King James Bible to be a faithful translation of these texts.

Now you're turn. answer my questions.

Hi Jordan,

Which edition of the Masoretic Text do you think is the "perfect preserved" word of God? There are many of them. One of Kittel's editions? Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? I'm glad to see you use the words "faithful translation" in regard to the KJV. I too believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of the most accurate humanly-constructed composites of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures available in that time.

But you must already know that the Masoretic Text is only one branch of the textual tradition that was active in Jesus' day, and that it was imperfect before it began being preserved by the Masoretes. Jesus himself quotes from a non-Masoretic-type manuscript in Luke 4:18. I've commented on this problematic passage here. The Masoretes conducted a fairly successful campaign over the centuries to wipe out all textual streams that differed from their standardized text, but even in particulars they were unsuccessful, since traditional readings of various locales were allowed to stand in the margin of many manuscripts. In addition, by comparing parallel passages in the OT we can see where the Masoretic tradition (and even other traditions) became corrupted, and then either attempt to repair it based on other evidence that has been handed down to us or choose to leave it unrepaired (and think up cockamamie explanations how both but contradictory facts of the same event are infallible). Sometimes also the NT can help, as in the example from Luke 4:18 above.

As for the NT, I think that better composite Greek texts are available than those of, e.g., Erasmus, the Complutensian, Estienne, Bèze, or the Elzevirs. My studies have led me to think that the Robinson-Pierpont The Greek New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform is the best consensus text available today. I have devoted a little time to a website discussing the differences between this edition and the current standard GNT, the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek New Testament: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. You may see the reasons for my preferred readings of the Greek New Testament there. As for translations of this edition, there is not yet one available by a major publisher, although the World English Bible (WEB) is an attempt to render this edition faithfully.

I still think that you are barking up the wrong tree, asking questions that neither Jesus nor the apostles would have asked, subjecting the word of God to judgments that are not beneficial to building up the church. And you fail to mention even a single leader of the church during its first millennia who, from all that we know, used a "complete Bible in one place," the text of which resembles your "perfectly preserved" one exactly. This in itself casts your endeavor and the microscopic nature of your criticisms into doubt. Frankly, I think that this issue, while important, is not as important as you and your more passionate KJV-only friends make it out to be.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

 

[jonathan.borland]

I might also add that, in general, the problem is not that all copyists have preserved 97 or 98 percent of God's word (although some of them did), it's that, collectively, they have preserved 102 or 103 percent of it. Thus the need for textual criticism, to use God's gifts (just as Erasmus, Estienne, Bèze, the Elzevirs did) to arrive as close to 100 percent as possible. Do you think that this is wrong for us, as responsible Christians who love and cherish the word of God, to do?

 

[preachinjesus]

Hi Jordan,

Which edition of the Masoretic Text do you think is the "perfect preserved" word of God? There are many of them. One of Kittel's editions? Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? I'm glad to see you use the words "faithful translation" in regard to the KJV. I too believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of the most accurate humanly-constructed composites of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures available in that time.

But you must already know that the Masoretic Text is only one branch of the textual tradition that was active in Jesus' day, and that it was imperfect before it began being preserved by the Masoretes. Jesus himself quotes from a non-Masoretic-type manuscript in Luke 4:18. I've commented on this problematic passage here. The Masoretes conducted a fairly successful campaign over the centuries to wipe out all textual streams that differed from their standardized text, but even in particulars they were unsuccessful, since traditional readings of various locales were allowed to stand in the margin of many manuscripts. In addition, by comparing parallel passages in the OT we can see where the Masoretic tradition (and even other traditions) became corrupted, and then either attempt to repair it based on other evidence that has been handed down to us or choose to leave it unrepaired (and think up cockamamie explanations how both but contradictory facts of the same event are infallible). Sometimes also the NT can help, as in the example from Luke 4:18 above.

And this, my friends, is the perfect reply.

I was going to say something along these lines. One of the things I've encountered all too often in KJVO discussions is an absolute unawareness of OT textual criticism.

 

[saturneptune]

Don't be juvenile proph.

Reported..............

 

[Rippon]

Reported..............

Mike the reporter, despite having "put me on ignore" is back to his old ways.
Have you nothing to contribute to this thread?...I thought not.

 

[prophet]

Hi Jordan,

Which edition of the Masoretic Text do you think is the "perfect preserved" word of God? There are many of them. One of Kittel's editions? Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? I'm glad to see you use the words "faithful translation" in regard to the KJV. I too believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of the most accurate humanly-constructed composites of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures available in that time.

But you must already know that the Masoretic Text is only one branch of the textual tradition that was active in Jesus' day, and that it was imperfect before it began being preserved by the Masoretes. Jesus himself quotes from a non-Masoretic-type manuscript in Luke 4:18. I've commented on this problematic passage here. The Masoretes conducted a fairly successful campaign over the centuries to wipe out all textual streams that differed from their standardized text, but even in particulars they were unsuccessful, since traditional readings of various locales were allowed to stand in the margin of many manuscripts. In addition, by comparing parallel passages in the OT we can see where the Masoretic tradition (and even other traditions) became corrupted, and then either attempt to repair it based on other evidence that has been handed down to us or choose to leave it unrepaired (and think up cockamamie explanations how both but contradictory facts of the same event are infallible). Sometimes also the NT can help, as in the example from Luke 4:18 above.

As for the NT, I think that better composite Greek texts are available than those of, e.g., Erasmus, the Complutensian, Estienne, Bèze, or the Elzevirs. My studies have led me to think that the Robinson-Pierpont The Greek New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform is the best consensus text available today. I have devoted a little time to a website discussing the differences between this edition and the current standard GNT, the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek New Testament: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. You may see the reasons for my preferred readings of the Greek New Testament there. As for translations of this edition, there is not yet one available by a major publisher, although the World English Bible (WEB) is an attempt to render this edition faithfully.

I still think that you are barking up the wrong tree, asking questions that neither Jesus nor the apostles would have asked, subjecting the word of God to judgments that are not beneficial to building up the church. And you fail to mention even a single leader of the church during its first millennia who, from all that we know, used a "complete Bible in one place," the text of which resembles your "perfectly preserved" one exactly. This in itself casts your endeavor and the microscopic nature of your criticisms into doubt. Frankly, I think that this issue, while important, is not as important as you and your more passionate KJV-only friends make it out to be.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

" they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

 

[Dr. Bob]

" they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Only a very foolish or petulant child will not listen to those far more learned and experienced.

And take Scripture and try to make it a personal attack. Sad.

 

[prophet]

Only a very foolish or petulant child will not listen to those far more learned and experienced.

And take Scripture and try to make it a personal attack. Sad.

And "you and your more passionate KJO friends" isn't an attempt to belittle someone? But pointing out the length of a post is somehow a personal attack?

I get that you can't take sides on a versions debate, as moderator. But the attacks on those who defend the AV, in any way, by decietfully setting up the windmill strawman "KJO", and then pummeling him with Quixote's javelin, is a little overboard here. If personal attacks are banned, then ban the use of the phrases "KJVO" or "KJO", please. They are being used as slander, and are meant personally against individual believers on this board.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

" they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

wasn't this in context of prayer?

 

[jonathan.borland]

And "you and your more passionate KJO friends" isn't an attempt to belittle someone? But pointing out the length of a post is somehow a personal attack?

I get that you can't take sides on a versions debate, as moderator. But the attacks on those who defend the AV, in any way, by decietfully setting up the windmill strawman "KJO", and then pummeling him with Quixote's javelin, is a little overboard here. If personal attacks are banned, then ban the use of the phrases "KJVO" or "KJO", please. They are being used as slander, and are meant personally against individual believers on this board.

I was merely using the term KJV Only in its most widely known sense, namely, those who say that the KJV is the only valid translation. The term is broken down into 5 different categories even right here on the Baptistboard: Definitions of KJV Only

My intention in using the expression "more passionate KJV-only friends" was to acknowledge Jordan's apparent less hyper stance on the issue, since he said even in this thread:

"Also let me clarify that I do not believe the King James is the only bible translation period."

I even asked Jordan if this meant that he was KJV-preferred, the #1 category in the KJV Only "sticky" thread I linked to above.

Had my intention been derogatory, I should have used terms like "KJVO goons," "KJV only fanatics," "KJV only loonies," etc., but my intention was more sincere. You, however, obviously have higher combative aspirations for this thread, evidenced by every post you've made here. In fact, you've contributed little so far besides remarks many would consider trolling.

Perhaps you'd like to answer a sincere question: Do you believe that any edition of the Bible in English is letter perfect, and if so, what was the year and publisher of said edition? If you refuse to answer this question, just as Jordan has refused to answer it, then I will assume that the only ones "playing games" (Jordan's words, post #41) are you, intending to trap others with questions that you yourselves are unwilling to answer, such as the one in the first line of the OP:

"Do you believe God has preserved his words in any one place in any one Greek/Hebrew text or any translation?"

So prove me wrong and answer my question. If you do I should be glad to carry on a polite conversation with you.

 

[robycop3]

Why can you believe that God can use fallible men to give the originals yet cannot believe God would use fallible men in preserving his word through translation?

EASY!
The men who wrote the originals were directly inspired by God, or He spoke to them directly, while translators have not had that direct inspiration. The proof is that there are goofs and booboos in virtually every Bible translation. (However, most are minor.)

The scriptural authority we rest on in the fact that God has promised to preserve his word, we do not believe the critical text theories hold true to this.

"We" are basing your non-belief on opinion and guesswork, with no FACT involved.

especially considering that the flood of modern critical texts follow the theories of people like Wescott and Hort.

Actually, they've moved on from W&H a good bit, with the discoveries of many more mss. & fragments thereof.

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

And a certain "one-Version-Only" myth is as corrupt a "tree" as any.

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Have you THRORUGHLY read any definitive boox about the lives of W & H?, Or, do you merely quote excerpts which fit your agenda?

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

He was speaking of hades.

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

You have no room to talk of modern texts following W&H when YOU cite from one of the three founding boox of the KJVO myth, Which Bible? by Dr. D. O. Fuller! That book copies the plagiarism of J. J. Ray from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Fuller not only Koppie-Katted, but he was careful to not mention Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION. So, why should we believe Fuller at all?

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)


Hort called the Textus Receptus "vile and villainous" (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
- This statement was made before Hort was even learned in Greek, His textual theory was built on a bias against the Textus Receptus.

"For ourselves we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity."

In other words: They treated the bible like any other book, ignoring it's divine character and it's divine preservation.

Your modern critical texts such as Nestle Aland build on the theories of heretics and unbelievers Wescott and Hort.

A good tree cannot produce good fruit, in these last days with unbelief and compromise on the rise are people really so naive to think that coming out with a new bible translation every few months or so is really going to be good.

Consider the fruit of the Textus Receptus: The Reformation and the putting of God's word into many hands through the translations of Luther and others.

I see you have a prob with Westcott & Hort, both long-dead. I suggest you study this site...
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html

...and come back & tell us this stuff again. Your reliance upon Dr. Fuller's boog speax VOLUMES about your agenda! Remember, a certain Satanic and false myth was started by an "author" called J. J. Ray plagiarizing from a CULT OFFICIAL'S goof-filled book, that book being Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson. Then, in his turn, Dr. Fuller copied much of Ray's work in his mown book, Which Bible? Both Ray and Fuller used the power of modern media to hawk their boox, and a new false doctrine was born.

You cannot deny those above FACTS about the birth of a certain "One-Version-Only" myth. But I see you DID NOT answer MY question aster I answered yours honestly and truthfully.

But I know the reason you didn't answer...the CORRECT answer is...THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE KJVO MYTH! But, like all other KJVOs, you CANNOT bring yourself to admit that fact, so you keep on making excuses to justufy your myth in your own mind, while knowing deep inside that myth is phony as a Chevy F-150.

 

[robycop3]

I'm really just tired of people dodging the real issue, which is the flaws of the textual critical theories behind the modern Greek texts.

I would be willing to abandon the perfection of my King James translation and hold to a T.R. only position way before I would EVER consider using one of the Critical Text Translations.

Also let me clarify that I do not believe the King James is the only bible translation period. I believe that it is the most accurate for ENGLISH speaking people. While you may use the NIV or the ESV, that is your choice and you have the soul liberty to choose to and to be fully persuaded in your own mind. But It is my conviction that there is no need or reason to when God has providentially provided us the King James. Why ride a bike when you have access to a car?

I am well aware that there are other languages that may not have a perfect complete bible because God in his providence and wisdom has not provided them one, they should use whatever they can get their hands on, However if you look at the translation method behind the King James and the character and ability of many of the learned scholars and all of the fruit from the King James I have a hard time understanding how people cannot see God's hand behind the King James.

First, we have pointed out several goofs and booboos in the KJV, so it's NOT perfect. Second, we believe GOD is behind EVERY valid Bible translation, old or new. Third, THICH TR EDITION is the "official" one? it's only been revised some thirty times. Even Dean Burgon wrote it could still stand a thorough revision.

 

[robycop3]

Psa 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words:as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
(WCV) Webster

Psa 12:6-7
6 The words of Jehovah are pure words, silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou, Jehovah, wilt keep them, thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.
(Darby)

Psa 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;
you will guard us from this generation forever.
(ESV)

Full circle.

The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie' has been discussed ad nauseam here and found to be FALSE. It is taken DIRECTLY FROM DR. WILKINSON'S BOOK, and is more proof of the dependence of KJVOs upon that CULT OFFICIAL'S book.

 

[robycop3]

And "you and your more passionate KJO friends" isn't an attempt to belittle someone? But pointing out the length of a post is somehow a personal attack?

I get that you can't take sides on a versions debate, as moderator. But the attacks on those who defend the AV, in any way, by decietfully setting up the windmill strawman "KJO", and then pummeling him with Quixote's javelin, is a little overboard here. If personal attacks are banned, then ban the use of the phrases "KJVO" or "KJO", please. They are being used as slander, and are meant personally against individual believers on this board.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

The acronym "KJVO" stands for "King James Version Onlyists" and is pretty well universally used. It's not meant as a slur at all, no more than is "IFB" for "Independent Fundamentalist Baptists".

 

[Logos1560]

I believe the Textus Receptus put out by F.H. Scrivener as published by the TBS is the perfect preserved word of God in the Greek.

That late 1800's edition was not available for use by the makers of the KJV. They used or consulted several textually varying editions of the Greek NT text. The makers of the KJV did not use one text found in one place. The KJV translators made use of and consulted textually different sources.

The process for the making of the KJV does not fall in line with your argument concerning what is necessary for preservation of the Scriptures.

Scrivener's edition was made to match the KJV, and not made to match the majority readings of the Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew.

Are you aware of the fact that the KJV does not match 100% faithfully the text of any one edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text?

For example, the 1524-1525 Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayim that KJV-only authors assert was the basis for the KJV's Old Testament did not have three whole verse [Joshua 21:36-37, Nehemiah 7:68] that are found in the KJV.

There are places where the makers of the KJV followed the marginal reading of the Masoretic Text instead of the actual reading in the text.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Put this way makes it sound like you are KJV-preferred, not KJV-only. Is this accurate?

It depends on what you mean I suppose.
I use only the King James, If I was pastoring a church I would never allow anyone to teach or preach from anything other than the KJV. If you use a NIV or ESV I will certainly try to persuade you from using them, But I am not going to necesarily rake someone over the head about it.

My conviction is that the other ones are less accurate, that does not mean that God cannot use the other bibles. When i was newly saved I read from the NIV for a few weeks.

The KJV has much more meat.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

EASY!
The men who wrote the originals were directly inspired by God, or He spoke to them directly, while translators have not had that direct inspiration. The proof is that there are goofs and booboos in virtually every Bible translation. (However, most are minor.)

"We" are basing your non-belief on opinion and guesswork, with no FACT involved.

Actually, they've moved on from W&H a good bit, with the discoveries of many more mss. & fragments thereof.

And a certain "one-Version-Only" myth is as corrupt a "tree" as any.


Have you THRORUGHLY read any definitive boox about the lives of W & H?, Or, do you merely quote excerpts which fit your agenda?

He was speaking of hades.

You have no room to talk of modern texts following W&H when YOU cite from one of the three founding boox of the KJVO myth, Which Bible? by Dr. D. O. Fuller! That book copies the plagiarism of J. J. Ray from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Fuller not only Koppie-Katted, but he was careful to not mention Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION. So, why should we believe Fuller at all?

I see you have a prob with Westcott & Hort, both long-dead. I suggest you study this site...
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html

...and come back & tell us this stuff again. Your reliance upon Dr. Fuller's boog speax VOLUMES about your agenda! Remember, a certain Satanic and false myth was started by an "author" called J. J. Ray plagiarizing from a CULT OFFICIAL'S goof-filled book, that book being Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson. Then, in his turn, Dr. Fuller copied much of Ray's work in his mown book, Which Bible? Both Ray and Fuller used the power of modern media to hawk their boox, and a new false doctrine was born.

You cannot deny those above FACTS about the birth of a certain "One-Version-Only" myth. But I see you DID NOT answer MY question aster I answered yours honestly and truthfully.

But I know the reason you didn't answer...the CORRECT answer is...THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE KJVO MYTH! But, like all other KJVOs, you CANNOT bring yourself to admit that fact, so you keep on making excuses to justufy your myth in your own mind, while knowing deep inside that myth is phony as a Chevy F-150.

a. 1914--The Testimony of Herman Hoskier.
"The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as `the true text,' and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text." [Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies--a Study and an Indictment, (1914), Vol I, p. 468 (>DBS#1643 for a GIFT of $45.00 + $5.00 for S&H)].

b. 1964--The Testimony of J. H. Greenlee.
"The textual theories of W-H [Westcott & Hort] underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism." [J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (1964), p. 78]

c. 1979--The Testimony of D. A. Carson.
"The theories of Westcott and Hort . . . [are] almost universally accepted today. . . . Subsequent textual critical work [since 1881] accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt." [D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, (1979), p. 75]

d. 1980--The Testimony of Wilbur N. Pickering.
"The two most popular manual editions of the text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W-H [Westcott & Hort] text." [Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (1980), pp. 42 (>DBS#556 for a gift of $12.00 + $4.00 S&H)].

e. 1987--The Testimony of John R. Kohlenberger.
"Westcott and Hort . . . all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present . . . have adopted their basic approach . . . [and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text." [John R. Kohlenberger, Words About the Word, (1987) p. 42]

f. 1990--The Testimony of Philip W. Comfort.
"But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory . . . this has troubled certain textual scholars. " [Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament, (1990), p. 21]

g. 1990--The Testimony of Bruce Metzger.
In 1990, Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, a Baptist Pastor, wrote to Dr. Bruce Metzger about how he and the other members of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Committee began their work on their New Testament Greek Texts. Dr. Metzger replied to him as follows:

"We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort (1881) and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence."

 

[jonathan.borland]

It depends on what you mean I suppose.
I use only the King James, If I was pastoring a church I would never allow anyone to teach or preach from anything other than the KJV. If you use a NIV or ESV I will certainly try to persuade you from using them, But I am not going to necesarily rake someone over the head about it.

My conviction is that the other ones are less accurate, that does not mean that God cannot use the other bibles. When i was newly saved I read from the NIV for a few weeks.

The KJV has much more meat.

Hi Jordan,

I'm still trying to figure out your view. Will you please help me out by answering the questions directly?

Which of Scrivener's several GNTs is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? (publisher and date)

Which edition of the Masoretic Text holds the same status for you as Scrivener's edition above? (publisher and date)

When and by which publisher were both of these editions first put "in any one place" (your words)?

As you said that "the King James Bible" is a faithful translation of the above texts (one of which [MT edition] we still don't know and the other of which is anachronistic since Scrivener's editions were published more than 250 years after the KJV translators' work), which edition (year and publisher) of the KJV is letter perfect?

Last, you said earlier:

I would be willing to abandon the perfection of my King James translation and hold to a T.R. only position way before I would EVER consider using one of the Critical Text Translations.

This makes it seem like you are questioning whether any one edition of the KJV is letter perfect. Is that right?

Thanks for helping us understand your view better, and for being forthright enough to answer your own questions to the same degree that you expect from everyone else.

Sincerely,

Jonathan