What is your point? Almah was translated in other passages in our King James Bible as: damsel, maid, virgin. Therefore the word means all three of these terms. We know from the context of all these passages that each of the women mentioned were virgins - but you are disagreeing with your Bible if you think the word almah does not also mean damsel or maid.

Word order in English does not disprove word order in Greek. Sentence structure in Greek is not linear the same way it is in English.

The point is that the King James Bible is giving the right text and translation at every particular place. By defending the Hebrew or Greek rather than the English is to say that not all the meaning is in the English, or that the English Bible is not complete alone, or that it is not the ultimate authority. In other words, it is to deny that God is restricting himself to one final book, even though it is prophesied, “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read” (Isaiah 34:16a). If that book is not the King James Bible, what is it? It cannot finally be the multitude of slightly differing copies of the “Masoretic”, “Textus Receptus” and “Protestant Bibles”. It must come to pass that it be one gathered super-successionary form, which is the Word for the world.

I already told you which edition of the Greek I defend - Scrivener's TR. It is the exact equivalent of the KJV. It neither contradicts nor corrects it. Be anti-greek if you want - but if God wrote and inspired the Greek (which He obviously did), I am not wrong to use it for studying purposes. I am not holding it above the English - just defending the mentality that teached only the English is profitable (when the Bible doesn't teach that).

Absolutely. This was what brought the world out of the dark ages into the marvelous light of God's word. Its what the reformers risked and sacrificed their lives for. God's word in every language where it is received.

I am not anti-Greek, but pro-Biblical English. I am also pro-exact truth. And this means that Scrivener's Greek finds a secondary place, because it supports or affirms the primary standard of Biblical English without being perfect itself, and it affirms or supports the truth, without being certainly the truth in every last jot and tittle itself.

This is because Scrivener's Greek differs. Perhaps it is like how the Geneva Bible or some other good Protestant foreign language Bible differs. The differences are tiny, and they are not going to hinder someone's salvation. But they are differences nonetheless, and we have a God who is perfect, and who has promised that in time there should be the revelation of one little book (see Revelation 10). There must be one final perfect standard Bible which is exactly correct.

I am not going to engage in a massive hunt of all the tiny differences between all the "good Bibles", but merely point out that these tiny differences do really exist. Scrivener lists differences between some combination of Beza, Stephanus, Erasmus, Bishops, Tyndale and the Vulgate, etc., as compared with the KJB in one of his books. If God's Word is to be exactly pure, jot and tittle perfect, there can be only one final standard of appeal of what actually is without any variation. That is, even with no variations in the spelling, punctuation or trivialities.

The Reformation gathering is now complete. Protestant learning that made the King James Bible has been irreversibly scattered. The only certainty that we can have when examining all "good Bibles" is that the King James Bible is the best, and that it is right every time and in every place.

And because of this, a translation made today even from the KJB into another language is going to fall short in the other language. Instead of wasting the money and manpower doing that, why not align with divine providence which is bringing about the global language of English. We can then use the language we know and the Bible we are certain about (since it is completely and utterly perfect) to teach to the world the true Gospel.

We could never produce any Bible as good as the KJB, and neither can we improve upon the KJB in any place. There can never be another revision of any sort, not so much as a punctuation mark, in the KJB, because we have it finalised and finished for all history now. Any change would be a corruption.

Inerrancy demands that in time there must be a perfect presentation: this was the intention at the inspiration of the Autographs, and this was the purpose of the Reformation, so that Christians would now be blessed by actually having the gathered, purified presentation of the Word of God.

In the providence of God there was no time when there failed to be a good line or family or group of manuscripts, but God was able "to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one" (as the 1611 translators said).

1) The Vulgate is a Latin Bible based on the wrong texts - so it is certainly not good to include it in a list of sound TR-based Bibles.

2) Tyndale's work was in English. So was the Bishop's Bible.

3) No one is defending every single point of Beza's, Stephanus', or Erasmus' Greek texts - but Scrivener's. You keep throwing out statements that it is undependable or unreliable compared to the KJV - show us the actual differences between it and the KJV. That is what is going to change my mind, not some blanket statements. You seem to have done a lot of research between English Bibles - show me the research behind your statements about Scrivener's text.

Then no one had a sound English Bible until at least 1769, because that was when the spelling was finished being standardized.

This is not what I was saying. Anyway, the Vulgate was validly used as a source for the KJB, and the Vulgate is not totally based on the wrong texts.

I was talking about "good Bibles", meaning in any language, and also referring specifically to the list of Scrivener, who compares the sources for KJB readings, and those sources include Tyndale and other English Bibles as witnesses, and also the Vulgate.
So, you are actually claiming infallibility, inerrancy, perfection to the very jot and tittle for Scrivener’s TR, even though it differs minutely to the KJB at a number of places.

Okay. Check the following references. They are Scrivener’s list of where he thinks the KJB followed the Vulgate. Some of these will be seen to be actual differences in Scrivener’s Greek, if there is no Greek source for the KJB using a Vulgate reading.

http://bibleprotector.99k.org/S.htm

Already, I have shown that Phil. 2:21 is a real difference, for the order of "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" in the Greek should be the same in the English. So Scrivener was wrong to have "Christ Jesus" for his Greek, when the KJB actually had the order "Jesus Christ" at that place.

No, we had a sound English Bible with Tyndale. There was no impurity in the version text or translation of 1611. And standardisation of the spelling is not completely standardised in the 1769. After all, we have "soap" not "sope" and "axe" not "ax". That was finalised after 1769.

But I said, "one final standard of appeal", which must needs come to pass in history, so while it may not have been fully known at one time, it certainly is present now.

No, all you did was show your ignorance of how Greek and other languages work. There are countless passages where the Hebrew and Greek word order is not the exact same as we find in our English Bible. The Greek especially uses word order to emphasize certain things. For example, John 1:1 that states "the Word was God" actually has "God was the Word" in Greek - same meaning, but the emphasis on the whole passage was on the Deity of the Word and that is reflected in the word order. It is not an error - and the word endings are what determine the word order in English.

It is not based on the TR - so yes, it is based on the wrong texts - doesn't matter whether it is wholly or partly so.

Until I am convinced otherwise, yes. I will read your article later when I have some spare time at work or home (at work right now).

Your link above does not help me in seeing any differences between the KJV and Scrivener's TR. Do you have such a list, or a website that gives one? Thanks.

I am not going to go out of my way to delve into all the places where Scrivener's TR differs from the KJB. I have provided you with examples and a resource. You can do your own research, but I am sure that Scrivener's TR is not exactly the same as the KJB.

As for the issue at Phil. 2:21, since that the word order of the Greek of "JESUS CHRIST" versus "CHRIST JESUS", is evidently followed in the English, Scrivener's TR must be incorrect to have "CHRIST JESUS" where the KJB has at that place "Jesus Christ's".
You are assuming that the KJB NT is based on the TR, when in fact the KJB is an independent variety of the TR. This means that it rightly took in readings from the Vulgate. After all, the Vulgate is following the Traditional Text Family in various aspects. Also, Hills wrote, "There are also a few passages in which the Latin Vulgate has preserved the true reading rather than the Greek Traditional New Testament Text ... these few true Latin Vulgate readings were later incorporated into the Textus Receptus".

Hills lists differences at:
Matthew 10:8
Matthew 27:35
John 3:25
Acts 8:37
Acts 9:5
Acts 9:6
Acts 20:28
Romans 16:25-27
Revelation 22:19

He then says, "The few typographical errors which still remain in the Textus Receptus do not involve important readings."

He also says, "Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate." He gives Luke 23:42, John 8:6 and 1 John 2:23.

I would not be surprised if there was a Greek source for every single KJB reading, even if only in a few MSS. But Scrivener did not supply the rest of 1 John 2:23 in the text.

All these things indicate that while Scrivener's TR is obviously going to be good and close, it is not going to be entirely jot and tittle perfect. Our standard is in the English, not with Scrivener's TR, though it may be the best Greek that is used today. (Why is Scrivener’s better than Lloyd’s though?)

Since the translators of 1611 used a superior methodology of discerning the proper text and translating it fully, we may account that it will never be possible to have a perfect form of the Scripture in another language, because the perfect form came to pass in English, and even those translations based upon the English fail, for the complex exactness that might be found in the English. (People are largely ignorant of the subtleties in the English, because they fail to realise that swapping around merely two words has an impact.)

I said: you are actually claiming infallibility, inerrancy, perfection to the very jot and tittle for Scrivener’s TR.

Jerry said:

Well, now we have it. Since the KJB and Scrivener's TR are found to have a jot or tittle difference here and there, and that the true King James Bible only person regards that it is the King James Bible that is the exact text, then it is clear that you cannot really believe that the KJB is perfect, because it does differ to Scrivener's Greek. You are ascribing the perfection to the Greek (and basing your doctrine upon the Greek uses) rather than on the KJB. That is the Hermetic doctrine, which means, while the English is plain and clear, you can go to some other "authority" and make it mean what you really want it to mean. This is because there is no exact standard METHODOLOGY of Greek study today. If there was, one final Greek text would have been produced long ago, and one set of meanings ascribed to it long ago. But we find that the Greek text is yet open to interpretation. e.g. "this is in the aorist sense, so it doesn't really mean that", or "this is in the neuter, not masculine, so it must mean this". This is the realm of private interpretations. If the Holy Ghost wanted us to know the “real Greek meaning” of Scripture, He would:
1. Have all Christians learn Greek,
2. Move the world towards Greek as the global language, and
3. Provide us with a standard, jot and tittle perfect Greek text in one volume.

If the KJV is not the same as the NT Greek that God originally gave, then none of us have God's Word.

You state it is different - but then can't give any differences - then you call into question my faith in the KJV. I have never corrected it or called any part of it into question. I believe my King James Bible is God's inspired Word in the English language.

Of course the KJB is the same as the “NT Greek that God originally gave”. But any extant Greek TR edition is not fully exactly the same the Autographs. However, the English Received Text, the KJB is.

It seems as if you are thinking that Scrivener’s TR is matching to the Autographs, while I am saying that the KJB is matching to the Autographs. Of course, the Autographs were not written in English, but conceptually, the KJB is the same, whereas, due to some minor issues, the Scrivener TR is not.

And I have already shown that Phil. 2:21 and 1 John 2:23 differ in Scrivener’s Greek to the KJB. And I gave you a quote from Hills which said that typographical errors exist and still remain in Greek TR editions.

I question whether your faith in Scrivener’s Greek as being equal to or superior to the King James Bible. If you have faith in Scrivener’s TR as being “the standard”, and that you use the Greek (or your understanding of it) to discern what the KJB “really means”, you are therefore imposing something upon the KJB, and holding something higher than the Word that God has provided as is in English. That would not make you King James Bible “only”, but King James Bible “best English form of the perfect Greek”. The problem is that by holding to perfection of the Greek (which is not manifestly perfect in any extant form) you are logically denying the complete perfection of the English.

You cannot consistently say that the KJB is perfect unless and until you say, “I hold the KJB to be an independent variety of the TR, and the perfect form of the TR, superior to all other TR editions.” And, “It is not required to know or use the Greek to properly understand or interpret the Word of God, which has been supplied to me perfectly in English by God’s Divine Providence.”

Is God's inspired Word in English imperfect, that is, without the full conceptual sense present in English? That seems to be what you are saying.

I do believe the KJV is a variation of the TR - and I believe Scrivener's is that TR (reconstructed).

I have his TR in my hand and it has the full verse on 1 John 2:23 - so you are wrong there. I am not defending his personal opinions or his other writings or notes - but his TR. I know enough about Greek to know word order does not change meaning - so the two points you have made have not shown me or convinced me his TR has any flaws in it. If it did, the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is KJVonly in English, would not use or defend it.

You are making the mistake in thinking that the TR exists in a finite form in Greek. The KJB is an independent variety of the Received Text that exists in English. The Scrivener TR is an edition of the TR, but not the perfect representation of the TR. That is because there is no perfect edition of the Greek TR extant today, but we have a perfect English Version of it.

The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe that the King James Bible is fully perfect, but they think that the KJB is the best presentation of the TR.

They state:

"The AV is not perfect. But a succession
of editors have done their best to translate
as exactly as possible the original
Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New
Testaments to give us the most accurate
Bible available today. There is no point,
except perhaps to aid scholars, in going
back to the 1611 AV, which is less perfect
than the AV which we already have.
In God’s good providence we have the
AV as the best and most accurate Bible
for the church and the individual
Christian."
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o.../felcencpb.pdf

To believe that the King James Bible is perfect means that you would actually believe that the full conceptual sense of the Word is present in English. As long as you have to go to any edition of the Greek TR to interpret the concepts, you are still saying that the full meaning is not independently, finally and totally fully present in English.

Going back to the Greek is denying that the full Scripture could be perfectly present in English, as 1 Peter 1:23, 25 and Matthew 24:14 and other verses teach. (Furthermore, I think having one final perfect Bible for everyone, the King James Bible, is the ultimate fulfilment of these prophecies.)

What are you talking about here? Full Scripture, full conceptual sense of the Word??

What I am talking about when I say the full Scripture or the full conceptual sense is that 100% of the sense was able to be taken from the original language into English by translation. By this I mean that no meaning of the Scripture was left behind. Nor has anything been added in the King James Bible. What I am saying is that the KJB is not only a sufficient form of the perfect Word of God is manifest in English, but that the Word of God is as perfect in English as it was when it was inspired in the original languages. That is why we do not need to look at the Greek or Hebrew as a primary source still. This is because proper doctrine is (able to be) derived from the Scripture in English without recourse to the original languages.

There are two separate but related issues:
1. That there is no extant perfect form of the entire NT or OT in the original languages, but that the KJB is the perfect version text form, and is presented as a whole, that is, one perfect book.
2. That the full meaning of what was intended and given at the inspiration of the Autographs was preserved through copies, and has by translation come into English, not only well (as may be said for various translations) but perfectly, so that the full same message that was there in the original is present in the King James Bible which is set up as God’s perfect Word for the whole world in the latter days.

Going out in concentric circles from this is the view that correct text is yet present in some Greek form, and also that the English may not quite have the exact concepts of the original because of the error that "no translation can ever get it all perfectly the same". This is a step nearer the view that there is no certain Word of God.

I fully believe that everything that was in the original Hebrew and Greek is now in the English of our King James Bible - nothing is missing. However, our understanding of the English language - and the meaning of the words that were used 400 years ago - oftentimes is lacking, which is why I use Webster's 1828 Dictionary and Strong's Concordance to show me what the words in my KJV mean.

There is no problem with looking at places (e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary) to find the meaning of English words. But it is really difficult to using Strong's like this, because his work is not a dictionary, but a lexicon which gives definitions of the original words which may in part or fully contradict the King James Bible.

Claiming that the full meaning is in English does not answer the reason why you have to consult the grammatical structure of the originals. Using the meanings of words from a lexicon to "shed light" on the words or grammar of the King James Bible contradicts the idea that the full truth is in the King James Bible. If you are not sure of the meaning of a word or sentence, it is the proper method to study the English Bible, and to find out the Biblical grammar and word-meaning. It is highly recommended to study the King James Bible alone to find this out, but it is quite acceptable to look at a good English dictionaries and English grammar books too.

Of course, consulting commentators, other TR-based translations and so on to "see opinions" is permissible as long as this does not take the place of being "the final form of the Word of God in English", nor should these things be treated as infallible and immutable guides which direct how we understand the King James Bible. There are a lot of good guides around, such as preachers and teachers, and their materials, but everything is good as it agrees and aligns with the King James Bible. Thus, we judge the goodness of the Geneva Version on how much it agrees with the King James Bible. On this basis, Strong’s lexicon is very untrustworthy.

Strong's Lexicon does not contradict or disagree with the King James Bible.

Round and round we go - you have a problem with using Strong's, I don't. I don't use it to correct the Bible, and I have found it better than any English dictionary that doesn't help understand the word used in the KJV. Because the English of the KJV is the exact equivalent of the underlying manuscripts, I can look up the meaning of the words there, and I have found the meanings of the words used in my KJV - because they have the exact same meaning. I may not know the meaning of a particular English word, and some English dictionaries may not help at all - but then I look that word up in Strong's and I have the definition that fits the context. Later, when I find a good English dictionary definition of that word as used 400 years ago, I find the definitions were exactly the same. Therefore I will keep using Strong's.

I gave a list of ten or so grave problems with Strong's, including that the word "Hebrew" in John 19:17 does not mean "Hebrew" according to Strong's (Gk. 1147).

If you are using this lexicon, which does correct the sense of the Bible words, then you are complicitly correcting the Bible if you are consulting and agreeing with the lexicon portion.

By correcting the Bible, I do not mean that you are changing the wording. But you are changing the words because you changing the conceptual set, that is, the meaning, connected to a word. Thus, we will all read the same words, but because of this imposing "interpreter", you will have a different view of the meanings of those words. So, you are not correcting the text, but you are correcting the translation, because you are going against the proper, clear and intended meaning of the Scripture.

The KJB as a text is not fully the same as any other extant document in the world. Moreover, in the lexicon, the meaning of the English words is going to be different to the meanings supplied (in English) to the original words given there. If you were consistent, you would have to read the definition in Greek to the Greek words (which still could be wrong), but you don't, you read English definitions which are different to the King James Bible, and these are then used (on various occasions) to alter the meaning of the English words.

The full Oxford English Dictionary has all the Bible words in it and a full record of its historical meaning. This is going to help.

This is even more in the realm of interpretation. Strong's does not give the context as such. The way it works is you choose out the variety of definitions the one that best suits what you think it is. This is private interpretation. For example, Strong's cannot distinguish for you when the word "wine" means alcoholic and when it means non-alcoholic.

The meaning of English words has not been lost, and has not changed. Yes, even with the word "gay". No matter what, you still have to define words Biblically. Dictionaries are only tools, and are not infallible. And despite Strong's matching a dictionary in some respects, Strong's is designed to give multiple English meanings or a varied English meaning to what the Bible word means: at various times an English word will have a single or particular meaning out of other possible meanings. You won't be able to find out which meaning is right from Strong's. You can only find this out from looking at the context in the Bible. And sometimes Strong's will be completely wrong. That’s the real problem, that you won’t know when you are being mislead, because you will be deceived into thinking that you now understand what the KJB means.

And running to some secular dictionary magically gives you absolute 100% certainty of what every word in the KJV means? I think not.

Turning to Strong's is like a form of magic. It is utilising powers to change the meaning of the words of Scripture. The right thing is to study the Scripture itself: 100% certainty is not being withheld by the Holy Ghost.

I agree- study the Bible itself. But what do you do with all the words you don't understand? Use extra-biblical resources to discern their meanings. It is your opinion or preference to what kind of resource you use - it does not make all others bad (unless they are corrupt in themselves, such as a lexicon based on the wrong manuscripts or put together by a heretic/apostate).

Maybe Brandon doesn't care whether you debate this issue - but I can guarantee a man that includes Strong's in his Bible program and sends out emails about how important a resource Strong's is in understanding the Bible does not agree with your anti-Strong's viewpoint/opinion/preference.

It is an excellent resource, despite your bias against it.

Strong's is a tool, like any other. I do think it's one of the better tools. I haven't had as much time to engage in discussion here as I'd like, though I am reading all the posts.

I agree with you about using dictionaries. I can't find a way to divine the definitions of words out of my Bible. The quality of the dictionary is certainly important -- the unabridged Oxford English is probably the best, but it's not a practical resources for most of us because of its cost. For determining the definitions of the words in the Bible, I have long recommended Webster's 1828. Strong's is also very useful. However, for determining the meanings of the words, we have to compare Scripture with Scripture. But we have to have some beginning point for our understanding of our language. That's what dictionaries are for.

Strong's isn't always right, though. Strong's seems to take issue with the word "unicorn" and also gives an incorrect pronunciation of Jehovah.

I am not anti-Strong's, I am just against the fact that in some places Strong's lexicon definitions are wrong. If people understand how to use these tools in subjection to the Bible, that is the proper Biblical approach.

Let me illustrate how I have used these tools: I had already written defending the use of the word "flieth" in the Cambridge Edition at Nahum 3:16, because "fleeth" is in the Oxford Edition at that place, and I was curious to know what the same Hebrew word had been translated as in other places. I looked up Strong's and found that the word was translated "fly" and "flieth" elsewhere. I know some people have looked up the Webster's, where they may see that "fleeth" means "flieth" or vice versa, and they use this to justify that neither reading is wrong. (But how can the two words which have slightly different meanings both be fully correct.) However, the context speaks of the cankerworm, and since it is part of the lifecycle of the insect to turn to a flying creature, clearly, from the King James Bible alone "flieth" is the proper reading. I have also looked up "cankerworm" in the encyclopaedia to see that cankerworms belong to a type of moth which are abundant worldwide. Thus, if we start out with the truth from Scripture, our proper use of tools is going to help us and may be used to strengthen the case for the truth, which exists despite what the lexicons, dictionaries and encyclopaedias say.

Here is an article that answers a question someone had about Hebrews 10:23 in the Greek TR and how it is translated into the KJV:

Hebrews 10:23 - "profession of our faith"

Yes, I believe that it is likely that all places where people say that the KJB does not follow the Greek, that either:
1. The KJB is the proper translation of the Greek at that place, or
2. The KJB is following some Greek text for that place, even if there are only 3 or 6 Greek witnesses for that reading.

Regardless of how many EXTANT readings there are of a particular verse, word or phrase - we know that the KJV exactly reflects in English the Scriptures as God gave them in the original languages/manuscripts.

That is exactly correct. While we cannot see any flawlessly perfect originals, we know by faith that we have it right in English.

There is grace for "errors" (like typo's, spelling, transpositions and things forgotten accidently). However, the modern versions make their changes deliberately. That's wrong.

So, if there is a KJV out there with "honest mistakes", it is still flawless and infallible. The fact God does anything perfect through an imperfect human is miraculous. God's Word is perfect and He preserves it perfect, and He oversees "cleansing" if they need to happen.

We all make tpyos.

That is why modern versions cannot be cleansed, whereas the KJB has never been lost in history, nor corrupted to a state from whence it could not be recovered. However, we have been observing more and more deliberate and wrong changes being made in isolated editions of the King James Bible, such as, Webster's 1833, American Revisions of the 1850s, Scrivener's 1873, "The Bible Designed to be Read as Literature", KJ21, recent seemingly ordinary KJBs from certain American companies like World and Nelson, Norton's Cambridge revision, and so on. These all exhibit deliberate corruption of the King James Bible.

As for "honest mistakes", the King James Bible text is now available (thanks to computer software), free from any typographical errors at all.

Scrivener's TR - a tool of limited textual significance
 

No such thing as a perfect English version.
 

The reason is very obvious. In Spanish one says that the sneaky deal was done under the water, but in English one says the sneaky deal was done under the table. They both mean the same, but the Spanish person understands the phrase if you use "under the water", and the English speaker understands the phrase if you use "under the table". If you translate the Spanish literally word for word into English, it won't be comprehended by English readers. So translating from one language to another is problematic. Word for word leaves much that is unintelligible, and thought for thought leaves doubt as to which is the correct thought precisely. The Hebrew word Chesed is translated mercy, but the word means more than a single English word can capture. Another thing the King James does is translate the same Greek word using a variety of English words. For example, In Romans 4, logizomai is translated counted, reckoned, imputed depending on the context. Correct translation in every one of those verses should have been consistent, whether Counted or Imputed or Reckoned, just one of those should have been used. In Greek there is only one word used for those verses. King James is my beloved study Bible along with a whole host of Greek and Hebrew helps, but I can not say it is perfect and remain honest. However, I believe it beats anything out there. :)

For human-authored works, it may be acceptable to re-phrase during translation, but we're talking about God-inspired Scripture.

The English language is full of Hebrew phrases precisely because the first English translations of the Bible took a strict functional equivalency approach to Bible translation. The book Crowned With Glory has a section on just this topic.

Regarding pshdsa's post...

But there is no perfect flawless manuscript extant in Greek or Hebrew... how then can it be true that the Word of God is said to be present to the return of Christ (e.g. the Gospel that Christ said was to be preached before the end)?

Where is the Word of God in Greek or Hebrew, perfect in one volume? (Or, when will this occur before the end, and by what sure method can this occur?)

When are the inhabitants of the Earth going to hear this? (Will all nations have to learn Hebrew and Greek to hear and know the perfect truth of God?)

How can the perfect, all-powerful God fail to give the full sense of the Scripture to the Gentiles, and is God really so petty as to limit Himself to Hebrew and Greek, and really so weak as if He is unable to provide His Word perfectly, fully and utterly in English today?

Is sin, problems, imprecision really more powerful than God and His Word? Is the Word merely under man's control? Has Satan won, ensuring that the Word is not or cannot be sure, perfect, exact, flawless and right to the uttermost jot, tittle and sense in English today?

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4).

You brethren are very silly. The King James Bible is the Word of God. So are the Spanish Bibles, the Russian Bibles, the Chinese Bibles, the modern Bibles, the traditional Bibles, the Geneva Bible, the Septuagent. Now no one insists that the Septuagent is a perfect translation of the Jewish Old Testament into Greek, but it was the Word of God for a long long time. In modern times the Geneva Bible was the odds on favorite of the people. Then the King James supplanted that. Now modern Bibles based on the questionable critical text are easier to read. Yet they are all the Word of God and God uses all the versions to convict, bring to repentance, and give us desires to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which is true faith in Him. And God desires all men to be saved (1Tim 2:4)
and He uses all the versions to get the job done by his servants who do not spend their time arguing which version is the best. Instead they are on their knees praying for a Church that needs repentance and a world that needs saving. I want people to read the version they find easy to read so they can be saved. So as the Lord sends me into the streets of my town, I make it simple for them. My Spanish Gospels of John are the NVI, and the English are the New King James. Privately I prefer the King James but I never grieve the Spirit by making an issue of it. Heck, the Word of God is so intricate and clever, that you can even lead someone to Christ with a Jehovah Witness Bible. But oh how I pray for revival in our churches. The fire is gone. And oh how the Spirit desires to save people. Leave off of these wranglings and get out in the street and carry your cross following our Lord.

Which Christ?

Who is doing the "wrangling"? Was it not pshda who said, "The Hebrew word Chesed is translated mercy, but the word means more than a single English word can capture. Another thing the King James does is translate the same Greek word using a variety of English words. For example, In Romans 4, logizomai is translated counted, reckoned, imputed depending on the context. Correct translation in every one of those verses should have been consistent, whether Counted or Imputed or Reckoned, just one of those should have been used. In Greek there is only one word used for those verses."?!?

The real problem, Steve, is that Scrivener was establishing the text followed by the KJV 1611 not the KJV 1769 or beyond. He started with the Beza 1598 Greek text as his base text, and took all the printed editions that would have been available to the King James translators and compared them to the KJV of 1611, and where Beza 1598 was the best match he left it there and where it was not, he replaced it with Stephanus 1550 or whatever matched better. Thus he established the Greek text followed the 1611. But the 1769 is a revision of the 1611 that brought our modern KJVs into conformity with the Stephanus 1550 in various verses where previously they didn't agree exactly with that text, and as the italics were changed to reflect English words that don't exist in Stephanus as being italicized. Hence in comparing the modern KJV to Scrivener's text you will have a hard time in some passages, but no in comparing the actual 1611 to Scrivener. And of course, the one issue that KJVOs who really love to dog on Scrivener's text always complain about saying Scrivener messed up royally is that his text of Hebrews 10:23 says "hope" whereas the KJV says "faith." But all Greek text say faith, and this is not really a textual issue but translational. Hope and faith are synonyms in some contexts and this is not a verse for anyone to complain about for any reason.

Scrivener's text being referred to is a re-construction of the text followed by the KJV of 1611, not an opinionated "these are the verses that I like" type of text like Nestle-Aland, so your objection here is a lie. Now, what you say may be true in one sense, but it is a lie in another because you are implying that Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" leaves out Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma, which of course it does not.

This all brings us back to the question that started the thread, 1611 or 1769? The name of this board is "AV1611 Bible Forums" and indeed most KJVO websites, forums, publications and whatever have themselves named something to do with AV1611 or 1611 KJV or KJV 1611, but do they really bash the 1611 in favor of the 1769? The 1611 did not have "amen" at the end of Ephesians. I have seen Steven Avery in the past bash Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" for leaving out "amen' at the end of Ephesians. He said something like (paraphrase from memory) "Scrivener really botched up when he left 'amen' out of the last verse of Ephesians. Go look at your KJV! It has 'amen' there! But Scivener who was trying to back-engineer the Greek text followed by the KJV left out the word 'amen' from the end of Ephesians." Ummm. You are mistaken. The 1611 of the KJV, the AV1611 after which this forum is named, that's what left out 'amen' at the end of Ephesians, and Scrivener in establish "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" (note that last bit there, "of 1611", and note well that it says "of 1611", and once again that is "of 1611," because it says "of 1611) left it out because the 1611 left it out. So, if leaving out 'amen' at the end of Ephesians is an error, then it is not Scrivener but the King James version of 1611 that made it. And so we go back and forth now, 1611 or 1769? How about either one is fine with me, and so is Scivener's text and any accurate translation based on it? Just curious here, but everyone who agrees with that position, raise your hand.