[bibleprotector]

Another way of saying it all is this:

With what we know about and from the Greek today (including Scrivener's TR), we have maximum certainty, that is to say, from what we do know that we can be certain about, we can be sure that the KJB is correct and faithful to the original languages, therefore, what we do not know about, (and the Autographs which no one today can see), we must take it on the logic of faith, to which reason concurs with the doctrine of the Scripture, namely, that we do indeed have the very Word of God in English. This leads to absolute maximum certainty, of which Hills and other King James Bible believers were in the providential continuum leading toward. As it was said in the Reformation, that in time God restored truth, or what we read from Daniel, that there is an unsealing of the book.

Well, I can never agree with you that the Greek is not important or that it is inferior. It was studying out the manuscripts and the history of the manuscripts behind the King James Bible that led me to be King James Bible only (plus comparisons between various versions in English). The KJV was an exact replica of the Hebrew and Greek in English - therefore I knew it was reliable and faithful, and I could trust it in all particulars.

[bibleprotector]

The Word of God in Greek has been important, indeed, the Word of God in any language is important. But the most important Bible is the King James Bible, because:
1. It is a certain text,
2. It is an exact presentation of the message that was in the Autographs, and
3. It is in the language which the world is speaking more and more.
Therefore, the most important thing is to stand for the King James Bible.

The Word of God in Greek was not inferior to the Word of God elsewhere. However, there is no perfect original Greek NT today, as there are minor variations etc. in all extant MSS and TR editions and CT editions.

But I most wholeheartedly agree that the KJB is an exact replica of the Hebrew and Greek in English, and that it is reliable and faithful, and that it should indeed be trusted in all particulars. Therefore, we have once again a witness to the world, that someone who has investigated the Greek and Hebrew, has found this to be so. Therefore, it is not required for people to investigate the Greek and Hebrew, because we have sufficient witness, including yours Jerry, that the KJB is correctly presenting the originals. Therefore, who needs to rely on the originals any more as the "standard" for checking whether the KJB is correct? No, our standard now is in receiving the Bible which divine providence has afforded to us.

Why do you keep on comparing the TR to the CT? The TR is God's preserved Word in Greek - the CT are texts that man has played around with and corrupted.

[bibleprotector]

The editions of the TR are different in nature to the editions of the CT.

However, both represent "gathered" or "critical" formations of a wider body of evidence.

We know that no single CT edition is perfect, and that each one differs to another.

(There have been many attempts by modern scholars to construct critical Greek editions, and each one differs to another one because the scholars at that time might pick to follow one B reading at one place, and then next time reverse that judgment, etc.)

No single Greek TR edition is perfect. There are differences between every edition of the TR, such as the five of Erasmus, four of Stephanus, nine of Beza, etc. And so there is no single manifest authority in Greek that was utilised by the King James Bible translators. Even today, the Greek text of Scrivener's (as presented by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not exactly perfect, though we might say that it is the "common Greek representation", though people also use Berry, and maybe Lloyd's.

By perfect, I am meaning the exact text throughout, and without any spelling or other variation. I am meaning pristine and immaculate.

However, we have the exact Received Text in the King James Bible. The KJB is going to differ slightly to any individual TR edition, but it is the super-successionary form of the TR (and TR-based translations).

Just because the KJB is in English does not make it inferior to the Greek. This is because the full conceptual accuracy has passed into English. While we could say there are multiple valid English translations (e.g. Tyndale, Geneva, etc.) there is only one exact English translation that is going to be the most fully accurate and ultimately expressive of the Holy Ghost's original message.

I am not denying that a Greek TR edition was the Word of God, I am not denying that the Tyndale or Geneva Versions were the Word of God. Clearly, even the Vulgate Bible was considered to have contained the Scripture. But what we have in the King James Bible is the end of the gathering together of the words of the Scripture into one final form and finite presentation.

Differences in editions of the King James Bible are nothing to do with, and nothing like, the textual variations issue. Once the King James Bible was formed, in the providence of God, the presentation of it was worked upon, not to alter it in substance, just to make sure that even the presentation was purified in the English (clearing up printer's errors or standardising the spelling, etc.).

Considering that the KJB is the final form of God's preserved Word for the world, we may likewise see what the erroneous CTs get turned into, which clearly is man's fooling about based upon corrupt sources, and is always going away from perfection. Thus, we have one final Bible as compared to a myriad of new so-called "bibles".

This discussion is leading also to another area: that since we do not have an exact TR, and the learning of the Greek is now deficient, and that we actually have the final form of the Bible in English, it is now much better to teach foreigners and natives English, and give them the KJB, than it is to translate into their languages. After all, providential factors are indicating that English is becoming the global language, and although Hills, Holland and Cloud etc. indicate that a revision of the KJB could take place because of changes in the English language, this is now impossible because English is essentially fixed because of its universality. Therefore, English can expand, but its core form cannot be lost. Since English has ever been conducive to the KJB, and present English is also, every indication is that the KJB shall still be in the future. Therefore, Hills' deference to divine providence in this matter is entirely correct: we are observing that the KJB is the Bible for the world.

Thus, the trend of diminishing of learning and knowledge of Greek is accelerating, the factors which are causing the diminishing of all TR-based Bibles is likewise of God, for one purpose, that there is only one central Bible used by all true Christians in the whole world, the King James Bible. And even more specifically, one edition, the Pure Cambridge Edition. Considering that this has already been occurring without our conscious effort of believers, now we should allow for a conscious laying aside of other things, and adherence to one, with those other things retaining some secondary place. (Just as the Geneva Bible today is in some secondary place.)

“All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.” (Isaiah 18:3).

You are certainly entitled to your views - but that won't stop me or any serious/diligent Bible student from using sound Bible study tools, such as Strong's Concordance to understand our King James Bible better. Regardless of some people's loss of understanding, his Concordance is still in use and still gives the standard definition of Bible words - so it is still a reliable tool. I don't try to use it to retranslate the KJV, but to find out the meaning of the words as used in the KJV.

From my own study of this issue, the 1769 edition is how the 1611 was intended. The editions weren't revisions, they correcting spelling and other printing-press problems.

Some people think that because the translators didn't say their work was inspired or perfect doen't mean it wasn't. Look at 1st Corinthinas 7. Paul said that he sometimes spoke from direct commandment from the Lord, at other times he was just giving his judgment. Does that mean the things he said by his own judment weren't inspired Scripture? Peter said in 2nd Peter 3:16 that what Paul wrote was Scripture.

This brings up another question: Paul wrote a lot more letters than what is preserved in the Bible. Somehow God was able to get the right things into the holy Scriptures. By that reckoning, those who don't believe a translation can be inspired have a serious gap in their reasoning. They believe God inspired the "originals". They believe God was able to get the correct books and epistles into the canon of Scripture, but somehow couldn't see to it the Bible was translated correctly. So the question might be asked, "Why did it take 158 years to get the "bugs" out?" Simple: Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them...This also answers the question about "Where was the English Bible before 1611?" I honestly believe God worked with Tyndale. I don't believe God worked with any of the modern translators. I don't see any proof of it, especially since the "errors" are intentional and deliberate.

Again I ask, if the KJB isn't God's Word preserved in English, which one of the over 300 English versions is? They all say different things. They can't all be right. I believe the AV1611 has Proven itself over and over again. What the opponents of this belief offer is nothing, because to them, there is no perfect English Bible.

Originally Posted by Pastor Mikie

Look at 1st Corinthinas 7. Paul said that he sometimes spoke from direct commandment from the Lord, at other times he was just giving his judgment. Does that mean the things he said by his own judment weren't inspired Scripture? Peter said in 2nd Peter 3:16 that what Paul wrote was Scripture.

Consider this: Paul did not give personal opinions - but declared whether what he was stating was something Jesus addressed previously or not during His public ministry. All that he said in 1 Corinthians was Scripture inspired directly by God - but not all that he dealt with was previously addressed in the Gospels.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (ie. not by previous commands given in Jesus' sermons/discourses)

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (Jesus previously addressed the issue of divorce and remarriage)

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (Now he is given new instruction, not previously addressed by Jesus.)

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. (Jesus never addressed this during His public ministry)

1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. (Peter confirms that all that Paul wrote was given by God)

The rest of Paul's statements in that chapter would fit under either category (either giving new revelation or building upon something the Lord had already addressed publicly)

Even today, the Greek text of Scrivener's (as presented by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not exactly perfect,

Not being pushy, but this is still an unsubstantiated claim on your part. You may be right. I honestly do not know. But the project was a good one and he may have actually accomplished it. I'll continue to assume he was successful until you show me a case of his Greek that CANNOT under any circumstances be translated from the KJV the way he did.

Just because the KJB is in English does not make it inferior to the Greek.

This is quite true and is the lesson that all modern bible correctors need to learn. Equally true, however, is just because the Scrivener TR is in greek doesn't make it inferior to the english.

This discussion is leading also to another area: that since we do not have an exact TR, and the learning of the Greek is now deficient,

Again, this is your claim. You have not as yet proved your claim.

it is now much better to teach foreigners and natives English, and give them the KJB, than it is to translate into their languages.

I believe this to be a false extreme. Its better to do for them what Tyndale did for us. . .translate the Scripture into their languages. You may do well to translate the KJV into other languages (this is all Scrivener did for his TR). Others will do well to translate their bibles into other languages.

You may do well to translate the KJV into other languages (this is all Scrivener did for his TR).

My understanding is that he found the manuscripts that corresponded to each part of the KJV - not creating a Greek text, but compiling one/revising one from the editions of the TR at his hand.