[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

And what better sources to consult than the Received Texts in the original languages themselves, of which I would recommend the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text for Hebrew, and Scrivener's text for Greek since his is the only edition of the Greek TR text that was produced to match up with the KJV word for word.

The problem is not in using these things as secondary sources. The problem is the wrong idea that Scrivener’s Greek matches the KJB. It doesn’t exactly. Likewise, Bomberg’s Hebrew does not match the KJB either. The KJB being an INDEPENDENT form of the Received Text will not be matched up by any traditional or recent re-construction in the original languages.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

I would think that Bible Believers who know the history of how their KJB came about would understand from the example set by the King James translators the importance of consulting several sources FOR LINGUISTIC PURPOSES in the process of translating.

Once the KJB translators had consulted a variety of translations, and made “one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue” are we to deny this finality, and say that our KJB is only an independent variety of the Received Text, but not the final translation, presenting the exact text in the English tongue? The problem here is the denial that the KJB contains the final and full sense-for-sense essence in the English, so that consolation of other translations is not required (though not forbidden). Unless we understand that the complete meaning is right here, there will always be a loophole for running to the original languages etc. to find out what the KJB really means in this or that place. That is the wrong approach for studying the Scripture itself.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

The Great Commission is not introducing "Anglo-phone Protestant culture" (whatever that is) to the world and to force everyone to learn English.

That is a misunderstanding on the part of my accuser. When I referred to Anglophone culture, I was talking about the basis for our evangelisation of the world, not to turn every nation into a British or American colony or something (as is the implication of the above accusation).

Let me explain it more: the highest level of revelation and the greatest progress of the Church is with the Anglo-Protestant spirit in several nations. If anyone should, and if anyone is going to evangelise widely, it should and must be people from this tradition. Not Eastern Orthodox Church of Greece. Not the Luthern Church of Denmark. But the highest and best form of Christian doctrine which comes out of the Anglo-Protestant tradition.

Let’s put it all together:

1. We know where the best doctrinal progression is (the advance of truth of Anglo-Protestantism in Anglophone nations),
2. We know what the best Bible is in all the world (the KJB), and
3. We know what language is global, and fast going everywhere (English).

Therefore, it must be that God has raised up the Church in England, America and Australia; that God has raised up the KJB; and that God’s providential purposes are behind the dominion of the English language.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19a, 20.)

Nations are to be taught to observe the very words of Christ. The only place where all His words are fully gathered and accurately given is in the KJB. Now Christ has been able to speak by many translations, it is true, but we have not seen a wholesale teaching of nations the truth since the Reformation. We have seen some degree of it, but we must see it yet. The most effective way to reach nations (plural) is with one Bible in one language. The fact that Christ is with us in the end must mean that Christ is with us as we turn ourselves into alignment with this ideal before the end.