Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 is definitely, certainly, surely, perfectly "virgin", and since we now have the exact presentation, we cannot allow any other possibility.

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.

And Philippians 2:21 is definitely, certainly, surely, perfectly "Jesus Christ", and since we now have the exact presentation, we cannot allow any other possibility.

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.

[bibleprotector]

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).

Originally posted by Pastor Mike. However, I also believe that it is also infallible in other languages, too.

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.

[bibleprotector]

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).

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.

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.

[bibleprotector]

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.

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.

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

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.

3) No one is defending every single point of Beza's, Stephanus', or Erasmus' Greek texts - but Scrivener's.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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, 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.

the Vulgate is not totally based on the wrong texts

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.

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.

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.

[bibleprotector]

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".

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.

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:

Until I am convinced otherwise, yes.

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.