Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Then no one had a sound English Bible until at least 1769, because that was when the spelling was finished being standardized.