My Beliefs on the Authorized Version of the Bible
 

My purpose for posting this thread is to explain my position on the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. I believe there are going to be areas where some of you don't agree with me, where that is the case I hope you will explain why you believe I am wrong with Christian charity and kindness, I have no desire to argue with anyone here.

I have used an Authorized Version of the Bible since I was saved as a child about 33 years ago. I have only attended churches that adhear to an AVO/KJVO position and I would not be a member of any church that does not have a strict policy of only using the AV in all church related functions.

Several years ago I bought a NASB Bible, but I never felt comfortable using it or reading it, so I got rid of it after a few weeks. I do have a copy of the "Archaeological Study Bible" which only comes in the NIV Version, but I only use that for the historic and Archaeological notes and articles. All of my Bible study is done with an AV Bible.

I believe that the AV translation was blessed in a special way by God, I believe that it's popularity for the last 398 years amongst English speaking Christians of all types proves that it is special in a way that no other English translation can claim. In addition to that it was translated at a time when English as a language was at it's very height both in terms of technical precision and in terms of style. Because of that no translation of our era could hope to reach the heights of form and style that was achieved in the AV translation.

I believe that the team of scholars who were selected to translate the AV were amongst the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars who have ever lived and I find it amazing that God placed them all in the same small island nation at the same period in history.

I believe that the Majority Text manuscripts used as the basis for the translation are the perfectly and miraculously preserved Word of God. I also believe that the Minority Text manuscripts used to translate most modern versions, although older than any Majority Text manuscript, have been edited by Gnostic Christians centered in Alexandria, Egypt and as such are less trustworthy. I could spill a lot of words on why this is the case, but for the sake of this post I think it is enough to say that almost all of the Scripture quotes from the early Church Fathers adhear to the Majority text and almost all of the early fragments of Scripture that we have are Majority Text. Every Bible for the first 1850 years of Church historty was based on the Majority Text and it is only during the last 100 or so years that we have seen Minority Text Bibles embraced by Christians. If it is what the early church was using, I believe it is what we should be using now in these latter days.

I believe that the AV is the most accurate English translation of the Bible that we have and that we are unlikely to see a better translation in the future. The AV is very dear to me and I am very thankful to God for providing such an accurate (and elegant) version of His Word in my native language. Having said that, I do not believe that the AV is perfect, there are a few (very few as the case may be) things that I believe could have been translated better. There are also a few errors in translation (such as Matthew 23:24 which should read "strain out" as in "filter out" but not "strain at"). I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English. However, none of the errors that I have seen in any way changes the meaning. In other words while the AV is not perfect in word for word transmission, it is perfect as far I can tell in conveying the original intended meaning. The same can not be said for any modern version based on the Minority Text manuscripts.

I do believe that the modern versions contain the Word of God, I believe that you can lead a person to Christ with even a poor modern translation. I also believe that a Christian can grow and mature in their faith using a modern version. However, I have no doubt that these modern versions are suspect at best and in my opinion have clearly been altered by human editing of the Minority Text manuscripts. I deeply and sincerely wish that Christians would educate themselves on this issue before selecting a modern version as their primary or only Bible.

I think that many Christians have been very caviler in trading the time tested AV for one of the modern versions and I believe that the Church and the cause of Christ have suffered as a result.

My friend, your profession is a good one and I'll offer only one criticism and suggestion: Never throw any version of the Bible away, it's evidence and a study tool in refuting them. They are useful in showing someone who uses an NASB or NIV the errors in them. Over a seven year period I collected 135 versions of the Bible in English. My own brother uses an NASB, I showed his John 1:18 where it clearly teaches two Gods and he resisted it, well, according to Ezekiel 2 he was told.

The KJV was produced by order of a king of an Empire with unlimited resources without Catholic interference and the results endure. Te KJV has a total vocabulary of just under 6000 words of which after 400 years only 8 have been declared "obsolete" or "archaic" by Oxford-Cambridge University. The "industry" and the nutburgers over on the FF Forum repeat the lie that "200 million copies of the NIV have already been sold". There are not 200 million Christians in the English speaking world today, who bought them, the Red Chinese?

Brother, you have a Sword that will never rust. Lock and load.

Grace and peace

Tony

Me too, very thankful.

I think you will find that most here are convinced there are no errors in the KJV, any error is in our understanding. This is usually going to be a sticking point on forums like this, you may want to check some of the introductory sections to get the lay of the land, so to speak.

Well that poses a bit of a problem, because what you are saying is, you always correct the Bible with something that does not exist. There are no "originals." I think you will find that most here consider our KJV Bible to be the preserved, inerrant Word of God, that requires no correction in any language.

Very true, on this we agree. :)

HowlerMonkey said, [underlining mine]HM, I would like to comment on a few of the above statements, but first, I would like to know upon what authority do you come to your conclusions referenced by "I believe"? What source material do you have that causes you to determine "error"? Your answers will help me to respond more accurately. Thanks.

P.S. The "strain at" vs "strain out" has been debated extensively on this forum and elsewhere, so I won't bother starting that up again. :)

I may not have phrased what I said very well, but I believe the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus are, line-for-line, word-for-word and letter-for-letter the perfectly preserved Word of God. Both of those documents do exist and are easy to locate.

I appreciate the replys so far, thanks for being nice!

Howlermonkey's stance
 

Dear Howler Monkey,

Thanks for sharing your stance with us all, I am quite new on this forum also.
Concerning your stance, I admire your heart but I differ with your conclusions.

The “originals” or the “Hebrew & Greek” as the final revelation of Divine authority reminds me of the arguments that the Muslims use when attributing their final, sealed & perfect revelation of God to bound up in Arabic. I don’t believe that God simply used the KJB like some secondary source of communicating the nearest that we could get to what He originally said at some point in history.
I believe that The KJB is the preserved word of God as it stands to the English speaking continents.

God doesn’t speak in Hebrew & Greek only He speaks in Spirit & I hear that in English (remember the tower of Babel? it was God who confused the languages in the first place and I believe that He speaks every one of them!)

Have you ever tried updating maths? You can’t because it is a fixed law – Neither do I believe it to be possible to update that which has been entrusted to us as stewards. I believe that we can expound what is written but we can not alter what is written.

If the motive behind the new version was really about “updating the English” as they claim, then Bible translations would have ceased at the production of the 1901 American Standard Version, or at the Latest with the NIV/Good news version.

I don’t believe for one minute that the explosion of new versions is down to a hunger to know what God really said in those long lost originals that never existed as a complete volume at any point in history. Neither is it really about updating archaic English, it is about doing away with the protestant Bible and destroying the concept of “Sola Scriptura” by subtly guiding us to back under the headship of Rome under the guise of so called “more accurate” protestant translations.

The way I see it is this; Bible correctors are using the devil’s algebra to determine what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible, (i.e. take away from it and you end up adding to it, add to it and you will end up taking away from it). The TNIV is a classic example of this (as are all the modern translations).
For more information on the TNIV I think that this guy does a great job;
http://www.elijahproject.com/

If there are words or verses that you are questioning then I am sure that there are more than enough resources available from scores of people on this site.

Before I finish I would like to say that now both of our colours are truly nailed to the mast, I am thankful for you sharing your stance & welcome you as a brother in Christ. After all this is a forum where we express ourselves to each other in love to both challenge & strengthen each other.

God Bless

PaulB

HowlerMonkey replied: (underlining mine)I understand what you are trying to express, but the reality of the situation does not match. "Original language" scholars have never fully agreed that we DO have an exact and completely accurate current edition of either the Masoretic OT or the TR NT. Many of us here believe that the KJB IS a distinct and the final edition of the "Received Text", exactly and perfectly providing us the original autographs in English.

Oh, HM, we're not so different, you and I! If only that quote meant for you what it does for me.:amen:

I assume that you've been "trained" into your position. I won't speculate beyond that statement, but your beliefs match those of several preachers I know that are affiliated with certain schools, etc. Most are good preachers, and I've seen the Lord use them.

Recently, we held special services at our church and the preacher was of your "conviction" in regards to the Book. He used the AV, even defended it against modern perversions, but did not believe it was in fact the pure and preserved words of God. He would "correct" the Book from time to time during his preaching, and even purposely misquote certain verses (because he doubted their validity in translation).

It was tough to pray for the man and the meetings until the Lord gave me peace about it. (I was frustrated that this man was in our pulpit correcting God's perfect Book in front of our people.) Nevertheless he was a nice man and a good brother, but he was trained to find errors (and "fix" them) in a flawless Book.

All I could think about saying to the man was , Do you actually think that you're smarter than the men that translated the AV? (My confidence in not in those men, yet I don't mind putting you and anyone else today up against them!) C'mon, that Book is the real deal!

Mt*7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mt*7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mt*7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mt*7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mt*7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mt*7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Lu*6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Lu*6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Lu*6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

How are we to receive the word of God?

1Th*2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As Christians receive the word of God more and more "as the word of men", the effectiveness of the word of God in their hearts wanes.

Greetings brother and welcome to the Forum,

This is certainly the place to bring up any doubts or questions that you might have about the AV/KJB.

God PROVIDED His Word to us.

2 Peter 1
19 - We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well when ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now if God is capable of PROVIDING His Word to us, is He not capable of PRESERVING that Word?

Psalm 12
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.

Jeremiah 32:
17 - Ah Lord God, behold thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee...
27 - Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

God promised that he would not only PROVIDE His Word but that He would PRESERVE it forever. Now which translation of the Bible has done that? One can ONLY uphold the AV/KJB as having done that - and it is still doing that today!

God is all-powerful and He is certainly capable of both PROVIDING and PRESERVING His Word.

I, for one, feel very blessed to be able to hold in my hands, the inerrant Word of God in the AV/KJB, and know that I can trust in God - that He certainly was able to PROVIDE and PRESERVE His Word for me!

Jassy

Howler Monkey, how do you explain the Textus Receptus's authenticity, to a lost person, who is challenging/arguing with you, about it's reliability, and about God preserving every word, during translation?

:amen: well said Jassy...

OK, there are a lot of comments/questions here since I left for work early this morning. I'll try my best to respond/answer as best I can, if I overlook anyone I am not intending to ignore or slight you, but you may have to remind me if you feel I have overlooked something important.

First I want to be very clear that I am in no way, shape or form an AV basher, I love God's Word and I love the AV, I spend time in it every day and I would not trade my old AV for a truck-load of any modern versions, I defend the AV against the attacks of modern scholars and those who believe that modern versions are better. I believe that the AV is THE English version that God has shown has His special blessing.

As far as source material, I have read a lot about this issue from both sides. I have come to believe that the claims of those who support use of the Critical Text manuscripts just don't hold water and thus I believe that ANY translation based on CT manuscripts will be flawed on that basis alone regardless of how good the translators might be.

I don't know a word of Hebrew, so I am in no position to comment in any meaningful way about the translation of the OT. I do know a little Koine Greek and I do have a Textus Receptus, I'm no Greek expert (far from it), but I do often compare the English of the AV with the Greek of the Textus Receptus. I hope that answers your question, but if not let me know and I'll try my best to expand on what I have said.

I believe that God's written revelation to man was closed in c. AD 95 when John the Apsotle finished his writings, so based on that I see it as only logical that anything which came after that is not inspired by God. It may have God's blessing, as I believe the AV does, but it is not inspired. Because of that I conclude that the Hebrew and Greek are in fact the final authority.

Of course that is not to say that the AV isn't an amazingly accurate translation, clearly God's hand was upon the translators as they worked.

Hi Tim, With all due respect and I am not trying to insult anyone's work, but I just don't place a lot of stock in the opinions of most modern "original language scholars." Many of these people are more secular than Christian and many of the would have us trade the Majority Text that has been used by 95% of Christians for the last 1850 years and exists in countless thousands of manuscripts in favor of two very suspect manuscripts that (in my humble opinion) show signs of Gnostic tampering. I just don't agree with that modern secular view.

If I had to point to one specific edition of the Textus Receptus as being the perfectly preserved Word of God, I would suggest the 1598 Beza Edition which was the primary manuscript used by King James' team of translators.

I am not sure what you mean by "trained into my position." I am a simple lay person, never been to Bible school or taken any formal clases on the subject. I do love God's Word and I have always been very interested in how God has preserved it and transmitted it down to us, so I have read a lot on the subject. However, my position comes from comparing the Textus Receptus with the AV and from what the AV translators wrote in their intro to the AV.

Thank you for your kindness Jassy (and all the rest of you). I also think this is the right place to bounce my opinions off of others. Based on what I have read here so far I have a lot of respect for most of the people here and I am very open to learning from all of you, my mind is open on this issue.

My position is that any manuscript, even the Critical Text manuscripts and any translation, even the poor ones, teach salvation through the Blood of Christ alone, by faith alone and completely without works.

Well there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight.
Why would you use the Hebrew to pass judgment on our KJV when you don't even understand a word of Hebrew...? :rolleyes:

This follows your earlier position where you stated:

Now please don't get offended brother, I sense you may be here for the right reasons. But you have to understand—this kind of thing comes up a lot here, and you have to see the problem with what I just confronted you with. It was not meant to derail you, again I suggest you tread softly here for a while and research the introductory areas before you proceed. :)

If someone says

they had better have perfect copies of the originals, or a sure method of finding out the actual Hebrew and Greek, and what they mean.

Even the translators of the King James Bible talked about the diversity of senses, and laboured to present a correct text rendering (rubbed, polished and perfected), so that they would present the Word of God in English. If it is sound (their word) and exact (their word) in Engish, how can it be altered?

If the originals are always correcting the English, when will the English be correct? The choice is either 1611 onward or never.

I think you bring up a good point BroParrish and I am not offended at all. I am being honest in stating my position and in stating what I do know and what I don't know. I know a little Greek and not a word of Hebrew, so you are correct in pointing out that my position at least in reagrd to the OT is not one that comes from my own experience, but I was in no way suggesting otherwise.

I am saying that the Hebrew corrects the English, not that I use the Hebrew to correct the English.

At this point it might be wise of me to respectfully ask if you believe that the Greek and Hebrew are the perfect Word of God?

Are you suggesting that we don't possess perfect copies of the Hebrew and Greek texts? I would think that for God to have preserved His Word we would have to have perfect examples in Greek and Hebrew. Am I wrong?

When I say that the Hebrew and Greek correct the English, what I am suggesting is that where they differ (Matthew 23:24 for example) the Greek is correct and the English is not. I often use my Textus Receptus to be sure that I am correctly understanding the wording of the AV.

HM responded to Matthew(BibleProtector):Brother Howler, you earlier discredited (and rightly so) modern scholars. Do you not understand that you have just put yourself in that position, only with no formal training with which to establish your opinions?

Who are the ones who have told you that the English is wrong for Matthew 23:24? Is it not the same "scholars" that you have just discredited? Do you consider yourself qualified with your Greek skills to go up against men whose abilities with the original languages were the most superior in the world of their day? The best that you can do, based on your own testimony of your training and skills, is to open up some textbook or reference book, often written by men who do not hold to the perfection of ANY manuscript, and take for granted what that book claims.

Regarding the TR that you use, are you aware that it is not considered even by faithful TR men to be absolutely perfect?

Please do not take my questions as criticism or an attack upon you, Brother. Many have approached the textual issue as you have, trying to reach a middle ground between the wild-eyed KJBO's who will bite the head off anyone who disagrees with them, and the academic egghead who lines his walls with his degrees, and looks down his nose at any who would question his abilities. The simple fact remains that there is no firm middle ground. It is full of potholes.

I am not merely suggesting, I am saying that this is a fact. All manuscripts differ slightly. All printed Textus Receptus editions differ slightly. The modern texts are revised often. There is no perfect single text of either Testament.

Moreover, scholars to this day differ on what words mean, that is, on how they should be translated.

God never promised to preserve intact copies that were perfect. There are variations, copying errors and issues (such as missing leaves) in all copies.

The only solution is to critically gather from all sources and witnesses an absolute copy. Attempts to do this by Erasmus and others made great progress. But the final form of such workings has been the King James Bible. It is the final form of the Received Text.

The thing is, you won't find a perfect Hebrew or Greek Testament, but you can find a whole Bible, and the sense is accessible there too, because it is in the global language.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

This is a promise that English would be used.

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Which nations have been converted to Christianity, or obedient by using Hebrew?

This is a mistake on your part, for the wording in English is correct, and does give the sense of the Greek. A while ago on this forum, this issue was shown very thoroughly. Just look up "strain" or something to find it.

1. Which Textus Receptus? Every edition differs and none is perfect in itself.
2. The KJB is in English, how can a past language be giving light on English?
3. The wording of the KJB is sure, because it is God's Word. That does not require another Bible to interpret it.
4. How can you be sure and know the meaning of every last Greek word with certainty anyway? What is the authority of Greek meanings?

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read:

Notice it is a book, not a book with other books, or book requiring a foreign interpreter. Where is the “book” singular in Hebrew? Or in Greek?

You guys are killing me! Too many posts and too much to respond to in the way I would like, but I do thank you for taking the time to talk with me and for being kind as you do. I was a bit worried about the reaction this post would receive, being new here, but my concerns appear to have been without merit (by the way, I reserve the right to revise this opinion if one of you has me for dinner later):hungry:

Tim, I am not looking for a middle ground, I am not trying to make both camps happy with what I believe (or even either camp). I am just after the truth. I know that I don't have all the answers, but I never claimed to either.

God has placed all of us in a position where we have to search His Word, use the wisdon He has given us and make up our own mind. In that regard I have to be my own Biblical scholar (and I pray God will guide me) even thought I am trained in other areas. That is all I am trying to do, well that and I enjoy talking about Biblical issues with other Christians.

BP, thank you for your reply, it is obvious from your posts that you have a passion and depth of knowledge for this issue.

I am afraid I don't understand your position though. How can the AV be perfect if the mss that it was translated from are not perfect?

I have the feeling that I am about to learn something, but at this point you have me totally lost.

HM, your answer is reasonable, however I doubt that any true believers, regardless of their textual position, would say any differently. The problem is that what you claim to believe, that is, that there is a single, easy-to-find, perfect Greek text, cannot be proven. The best that can be claimed by a TRO (who have basically your same belief) is that within the collection of TRs is contained the complete text. Look up "Trinitarian Bible Society" and "Dean Burgon Society" for examples of this.

Tim, I do know about Trinitarian Bible Society, I love to shop on their website and I have also enjoyed many of the articles I have read there. As an asside, I have a passion for well bound Bibles that use high quality materials like goatskin and calfskin, I have even had two Bibles rebound in PQ leathers like Nigerian goatskin. Trinitarian Bible Society puts out some very high quality Bibles at very fair prices.

I have not heard the term TRO, but I do thing that fits me pretty well to be honest. I'll also check out the Dean Burgon site.

Many thanks!

Brother Howler, Your first and last statement here are in direct contradiction. First you say that YOU "believe that God's written revelation to man was CLOSED in c. AD 95.... so based on what I see it is only LOGICAL that anything which came after that is not inspired by God." How can something "have God's blessing" but not be "inspired"? [Emphasis mine.]

Then you say "Of course that is not to say that the AV isn't an amazingly accurate translation, clearly God's hand was upon the translators as they worked."

Well, hmmmmm - how does the Bible DEFINE the Holy Spirit as being involved in something? Isn't that the "hand of God"?

2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Notice: "...MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST."

Do you actually doubt God's ability to provide His Holy Spirit to ensure accurate and dependable - INERRANT - translation of the Bible? That is what we have in the AV/KJV. It is a great blessing! And I won't take away from that fact!

Jassy

I have a Bible that was my father's favorite. It is a PCE*. It badly needs retreading. What's your suggestion for someone who can rebind it? It is priceless as a text.

* check out BibleProtector's site for explanation of this term.

I am glad that you have joined here and I hope that you won't be feeling brushed-off by us here at the Forum. We do welcome inquiries. I'm no expert myself - I still have to be one who "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts. 17:11) - but the important thing is that we DO that and that we remember 2 Peter 1:10 - "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

Jassy

Pretty easy as I see it. I can write a letter to someone telling them how to receive Christ as their Savior, God can take my letter to a friend and bless it and use it to reach the friend that I have written to, but God's blessing on my effort does not make my letter "inspired."

Suppose you have three copies made by school children who wrote down what they observed written in chalk in a classroom:

One says, "ABCDEFGHIJ...LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ."
Another says, "ABCDEFGH...JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
Another one says, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY..."

The chalk was rubbed away long ago, but you have the three paper copies. You would be able to construct correctly what was written in chalk, even though it might now be some time later.

That is a very simple illustration of how the KJB is compared to the present copies and editions we have of Hebrew and Greek.

Thanks to this forum, I know what the PCE is and even went out and bought one. I have the great good fortune of having a KJVO bookshop here in my town, I sort of collect Bibles and they have gotten used to me coming in and spending a lot of time looking at their Bibles, sniffing the leather and asking questions like "do you know what kind of goatskin this is?" The PCE that I found there was one of the older Cambridge Bibles that comes in the King's College box and slipcase, these were bound in England and are good quality, but the newer ones in the pale blue box are often bound in third-world countries, those are just not up to the standards of the older Cambridge Bibles.

I have yet to use Leonard's Book Binders, but from what I have seen they are very good at what they do and their prices are much lower than the English binder I have used for my last two rebinding jobs. They also seem a lot less grumpy than the English guy, who can be a real chore at times (so I won't name him).

http://www.leonardsbooks.com/bible_rebinding.htm

I'll have to start a thread about rebinding if you think others here might be interested.

Thank you, I am enjoying the fellowship and I don't feel slighted at all.

I am used to being the Authorized Version defender against the modern versions in most debates, so this current thread feels a bit odd to me, but I really am having fun talking to all of you.

That is not where I thought you were going. I was afraid you were going to say that the translation of 1611 was a new revelation or some such.

Correct me if I am wrong, do you believe that God has preserved His Word in full in the original languages, but that that preservation is spread amongst various manuscripts so that no single manuscript contains the perfect Word of God in full? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to better understand your position.

Hold on, stop the wagon brother.
How do you know the Hebrew corrects anything, when you already stated you don't know one word of Hebrew...? Just trying to get you to think this through...

The Hebrew was God-breathed, the English was man-translated. For me not knowing Hebrew, this is a matter of faith I guess. Matthew 5:18 says:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

There are no jots or tittles in English, so Jesus must be talking about the originals.

Yes, I agree with you there, it's a matter of faith.
So, what do you have? You have faith enough to stand up and proclaim that there is a "perfect" text which can be used to correct your KJV BIBLE, (and ours) but that "perfect" text is a text you CANNOT UNDERSTAND, DO NOT HAVE, AND CANNOT EVEN READ. This by your own admission is your final authority. That strikes me as a weak position, brother. You need to think that through. I think you have to at least consider the possibility that your faith on this issue might be in the hot air of scholars. :)