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.

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

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 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.

[bibleprotector]

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

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.

then you call into question my faith in the KJV. I have never corrected it or called any part of it into question.

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.”

I believe my King James Bible is God’s inspired Word in the English language.

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.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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.”

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.

[bibleprotector]

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.)

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??

[bibleprotector]

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.

[bibleprotector]

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.

[bibleprotector]

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

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.

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.

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.

I may not know the meaning of a particular English word, and some English dictionaries may not help at all

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.

but then I look that word up in Strong's and I have the definition that fits the context.

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.

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.

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.