[bibleprotector]

1. My position is that the KJB is the FINAL authority.

2. Your position is that the KJB is the ONLY authority.

1. My position is that the KJB is the FINAL authority. It is the final form of the TR.

2. It is not my position that the KJB is the ONLY authority. There is authority in other forms and places. All sufficient forms of Scripture have authority. God personally has authority. Etc.

Since the KJB is the perfect text and translation, it is best to adhere to it than to stay with works which are only secondary in authority.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I never said it was absent. If you look up 1 John 5:7 in Scrivener’s text from 1894, you will see that the typography on the words appears different there. You should be able to see that the presentation there makes a distinction. It detracts from the purity and certainty of those words.

I could care less about typography. The fact of the matter is that 1 Jn. 5:7 is there. Period. End of story.

Who cares about whether Scrivener believed it belonged there or not? If I was supposed to care about that perhaps I should also worry about what all 47 of the KJV translators believed about renderings they may have questioned in their own text. Fortunately worrying is not necessary because the fact is that these men did an honest work by simply adhering to the evidence.

Scrivener's goal as commissioned was to produce a Greek text that matches the KJV word for word. And that's what he did. And until you can provide specific examples (additions or omissions) where his text conflicts with the KJV your claim that it doesn't is false. His text is innocent until proven guilty.

The KJB does match the TR, but the KJB does not match any specific extant Greek edition exactly.

Yes it does. Scrivener's 1894 Greek NT.

What you have to understand is that the editions you point to are critical apparatuses.

Wrong. The Masoretes didn't use critical apparatuses as they believed they were copying the very words of Moses and the Prophets in Hebrew handed down from generation to generation (Ps. 78:1-8).

As such, they do not exhibit a single text, but one which may be viewed once variants and sidenotes are taken into account (or rejected).

LOL. The Masoretic text doesn't contain variants and sidenotes. (I have a copy of Bomberg's Hebrew Masoretic text.) Where do you come up with this stuff?

Bomberg’s Hebrew was not the sole basis of the KJB.

There you go again, putting words into people's mouth. Shame, shame on you. There is no single text that the KJV translators based their work on since they used a wide variety of texts for their work. That's not the point. The point is that the Bomberg Masoretic text is the Hebrew text that contains the very Hebrew words that underlie the KJV.

Scrivener’s TR was made long after the KJB was complete.

So what? Big deal. The point is that there is an edition of the TR that matches the KJV exactly and its Scrivener's text. And if this is not so all you have to do is provide specific examples where Scrivener's text conflict with the KJV. This can be done with other editions of the TR (though on very rare occasions). But not with Scrivener's since the whole purpose of his text was to produce an edition of the TR that matched the KJV exactly.

There are textual variations and various (albeit minor) issues with these single texts.

Prove it.

They are not perfect.

Prove it.

They do not perfectly and exactly match the KJB.

Prove it. Specific examples please.

They are only particular representatives in the original languages which are good, but not pure and perfect.

Got evidence?

Are you really saying that these two editions are infallible down to the jot and tittle?

You're saying they aren't. All you have to do is PROVE IT with evidence. Specific examples. Additions or deletions. What are they?

How can you explain the perfection of these editions since the KJB might be following a marginal rendering or a differing word order?

Forget about what "might be"! I want specific examples (evidence) that proves that the texts mentioned above conflict with the KJV. Give it to me.

This is besides the fact that no one can be exactly sure when, in every last place, what words the KJB men might actually have been following.

Quit speaking with ambiguities and tell me where the Hebrew and Greek texts I mentioned above conflict with the KJB. If you can't, swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.

Moreover, there are yet controversies over the meanings of words in the original languages. It is true that the KJB resolves this, but we do not actually have an identical form in the original languages for final and complete comparison.

Proof please.

Then why do you need the Hebrew and Greek, since it 100% in the English?

For the umpteenth time I NEVER SAID YOU NEEDED THE HEBREW AND GREEK TO UNDERSTAND THE KING JAMES BIBLE. What I said is that consulting the Hebrew and Greek is an option if the student wishes to do so and that he is not a Bible corrector in doing so.

Now until you can provide specific examples to prove your claim that the Bomberg Masoretic text and Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus doesn't line up with the KJV 100% of the time this conversation between you and me is over. God bless.

[bibleprotector]

I could care less about typography.

Jesus does. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

Scrivener's goal as commissioned was to produce a Greek text that matches the KJV word for word. And that's what he did.

This is naïveté. Scrivener’s text only closely underlies the KJB, which he made by constructing a supposed Greek text which lays underneath the KJB. Yet, in reality the KJB men drew from many sources and witnesses.

His text is innocent until proven guilty.

His text shall be judged by the standard of the KJB itself. There cannot be two standards. But we have to see why Scrivener’s Greek is not “the standard”. The reasons include that the world does not know Greek, and that controversy covers the exact content of the Greek. (Why would God providentially raise up Scrivener’s Greek since he turned the globe to English anyway?!!)

Of course, it is not up to me to show every last problem with Scrivener (though they may be few and slight), but to lift up the perfect standard of the pure KJB.

Yes it does. Scrivener's 1894 Greek NT.

No it doesn’t.

One example I know of is Philippians 2:21 which Scrivener has made, in his Greek, “Christ Jesus”. When in fact the proper rendering is “Jesus Christ’s”. Now people can say that the word order is different in Greek, but in reality, the order of “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” is right in the KJB, and seems to match to the KJB in other passages.

Wrong. The Masoretes didn't use critical apparatuses as they believed they were copying the very words of Moses and the Prophets in Hebrew handed down from generation to generation (Ps. 78:1-8).

I don’t doubt that they were accurate, but they certainly used NOTES which form a critical apparatus in the traditional sense.

a. The Masoretic text gets its name from the notes. Holland says, “Masoretic comes from the Hebrew word masora, referring to the marginal notes added by Jewish scribes and scholars of the Middle Ages (known as the Masoretes).”

b. Scrivener says, “Where the variation in the reading was brought prominently into view by the Masoretic notes ... Respecting the Hebrew text which they [1611] followed, it would be hard to identify any particular edition, inasmuch as the differences between early printed Bibles are but few. The Complutensian Polyglot ... was of course at hand, and we seem to trace its influence at some places, e.g. in 2 Chron. 1:5 ... Job 22:6 ... 1 Chron. 6:57 ... Ps. 64:6 ... In Job 30:11, 22 the Authorized Version prefers Keri to Chetiv.

c. Hills says:
"Along side the text, called kethibh (written), the Jewish scribes had placed in the margin of their Old Testament manuscripts certain variant readings, which they called keri (read). Some of these keri appear in the margin of the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 100:3 the King James text gives the kethibh, It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves, but the King James margin gives the keri, It is He that hath made us, and His we are. And sometimes the keri is placed in the King James text (16 times, according to Scrivener). For example, in Micah 1:10 the King James text gives the keri, in the house of Aphrah roll thyself in the dust. The Hebrew kethibh, however, is, in the house of Aphrah I have rolled myself in the dust.

"Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King James text reads, O Jacob, with the Hebrew kethibh but the King James margin reads, O God of Jacob, which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ."

LOL. The Masoretic text doesn't contain variants and sidenotes. (I have a copy of Bomberg's Hebrew Masoretic text.) Where do you come up with this stuff?

Bomberg certainly has more than just Scripture printed on each page.

The point is that the Bomberg Masoretic text is the Hebrew text that contains the very Hebrew words that underlie the KJV.

This implicitly denies the possibility of using the Vulgate, LXX, Chaldee etc. as sources. The KJB men were not locked to a witness printed in 1525.

The 1611 men themselves said: “Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin; no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch”. And of course the former English Bibles. This means they were not Bomberg-onlyists!

The point is that there is an edition of the TR that matches the KJV exactly and its Scrivener's text.

Except it doesn’t.

This is what Burgon said, which may shed some light on the issue: “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”

Moreover, “But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’”

Prove it.

There are textual variations and various (albeit minor) issues with these single texts.

With the NT this is easy to point out: the editions of Erasmus all differ to each other, as do the editions of Stephanus and Beza. And Scrivener’s TR differs also. The Vulgate differs to them all, NT and OT. With the OT the Complutensian differs to the Bomberg. So which edition of these is the right one? ANSWER: THE KJB!

Prove it. Specific examples please.

They differ one to another. They differ to the KJB. Therefore no extant edition in the originals is perfect.

Forget about what "might be"! I want specific examples (evidence) that proves that the texts mentioned above conflict with the KJV. Give it to me.

The KJB is standard. The KJB is different to these editions. Therefore the KJB is perfect.

Quit speaking with ambiguities and tell me where the Hebrew and Greek texts I mentioned above conflict with the KJB. If you can't, swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.

I have not made an exhaustive inquiry into all the defects of the Scrivener TR, but I suggest that some of the problems with it could be found in the listings I have at http://bibleprotector.99k.org/S.htm

The issue is this:

I am saying the KJB is primary, final, total authority.

You are saying that Bomberg and Scrivener are equal with the KJB.

I am pointing out that NO Bible OR any original language document is equal to the KJB today. None of them match the exactness and perfection of the KJB. They exhibit textual, translational, presentational and (in various individual cases) conceptual variations.

[Brother Tim]

Manny, one question that I have had about Scrivener's edition is that since it was produced well after the KJB, and was "retrofitted" to the KJB, if Scrivener referred to the KJB for matching wording, then the KJB takes authority over his Greek edition. If Scrivener used other sources to produce his edition, then those sources become the authority. Which direction did he follow? (I have a copy from Dr. Waite, but it is Greek to me. [sorry] )

[bibleprotector]

How can Scrivener's Greek be jot and tittle perfect?

Scrivener was not infallible. So why should some think that his TR is? At least with the 1611 men, we can successfully argue that the providence of God was there at work to gather a whole group of the right men with access to the right materials to make the right result.

In their words, to make "one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures in the English tongue".

Why should "exactness" be with Scrivener's work? There seems to be a mist over men's minds when it comes to the Greek. Somehow it is more sanctimonious and scientific if it is Greek.

Burgon shows something really interesting about the English, "If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English."

[bibleprotector]

http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/Re...ffrey_Khoo.doc

Although I do not agree with James Price, he points out some failings in the TRO view.

By having the KJB alone as standard, and knowing what is the correct edition, this effectively answers Price's attacks in this regard.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

After saying "forgetaboutit" and a reference to the Godfather, you must be an Italian.

Actually brother, I'm Appalachian-American. A little Shawnee, a little Cherokee, just enough to make me mean. I did maintain a casual friendship with a man who was Italian who loaned money at exorbitant interest rates, along with other aspects of what is known as The Underground Economy. After asking me to work for him I politely declined, pointing out I am not Italian. He said(because I was once a mortician) that was true, but he could at least give me my street name of Tony Bones, friend of "Donnie".

My mother's family is Irish-American Indian, Dad's goes back through North Carolina to England and then Scotland, and I am a direct descendant of Bloody Mary and her brother, Charles, the Pretender to the throne, according to a friend who had a subscription to Ancestry.com. Soon as my finances are better I think I will return and reclaim the throne of Scotland, as a former mortician, I will be fighting under the name of Graveheart. My lineage disappears after the Bourbon *hick* kings of France.

Grace and peace brother

Tony, Spleen Of Scots

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Manny, one question that I have had about Scrivener's edition is that since it was produced well after the KJB, and was "retrofitted" to the KJB, if Scrivener referred to the KJB for matching wording, then the KJB takes authority over his Greek edition. If Scrivener used other sources to produce his edition, then those sources become the authority. Which direction did he follow? (I have a copy from Dr. Waite, but it is Greek to me. [sorry] )

Bro. Tim, Scrivener used the KJV as the standard (since the goal was to produce the exact Greek words that underlie the KJV in order to compare it to Westcott & Hort's text which underlied the RV 1881). He simply collated 18 different editions of the Greek TR to find the Greek word that matches the KJV. The end result was the reading in Greek that matches the KJV.

The following is something I wrote that has yet to be published:

First off, Scrivener’s Annotated Greek NT is not necessarily a “new Textus Receptus”. According to Scrivener’s own testimony (see the preface of Scrivener’s Greek NT), his text is basically Beza’s 5th edition (1598) save in 190 places. For these 190 places, Scrivener replaced those readings with Greek renderings that matched the KJV more closely. But these replacements were not new TR readings nor were they a back-translation of the English into Greek as some have suggested. These renderings already existed in prior editions of the TR and were borrowed from those editions to replace the 190 instances in Beza’s 5th edition which did not match up as closely with the KJV. So there is really nothing new about Scrivener’s TR text. It is simply an edited version of Beza’s text in just 190 places with renderings that already existed in prior TR texts.

The following is the statement by the Trinitarian Bible Society:

“F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorized Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.” The Received Text: A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus by G.W. & D.E. Anderson

The following is a statement by Dr. Edward Hill's:

“The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God’s special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. … But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949. In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society. We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students."

[Brother Tim]

Thanks, Brother Manny, for the information that you gathered. Reading between the lines (so to speak), it seems to me that there is nothing truly gained by returning to the original languages, the GNT in particular, when the final authority reverts back to the KJB anyhow.

One small part of me agrees that any enlightenment of a word or phrase would be beneficial in finding the intimate details of the message, and that includes seeing from what Greek word (I'll stay with the more disputed NT for now) the particular English word was derived. That same small part of me wants to go to the commentaries and see how some "scholar" (that is, someone able to produce a book and then gain a following) explains the passage, since that person must have a better intellectual skill than I.

That small part of me is shrinking more and more as I find that these methods of understanding push me away from prayerful and intense comparison of Scripture with Scripture. Most commentaries are written by men who themselves question the purity of our present Bible. Further, to seek out the nuance of some word written in an ancient and no longer active language, one must depend again on men whose belief in a pure Bible is virtually non-existent.

If it were possible to be someone who was so steeped in the language as to be able to function completely within that language, then I might agree that using the original could be accomplished without possible seepage of unbelief, but that is extremely rare. Dr. Waite once told me that he did not believe that there were five such men alive today who could qualify. What we are left with is dependence on some "scholar"s lexicon, dictionary, Greek textbook, or such, to be used as our "authority" on the meaning and nuance of the word.

As for me, I will trust that God accomplished all the meaning and nuance needed with that group of men divinely selected to produce the AV1611 and those editors whose later reviews and minor alterations brought about the Bible which I hold as I study and preach.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Thanks, Brother Manny, for the information that you gathered. Reading between the lines (so to speak), it seems to me that there is nothing truly gained by returning to the original languages, the GNT in particular, when the final authority reverts back to the KJB anyhow.

One small part of me agrees that any enlightenment of a word or phrase would be beneficial in finding the intimate details of the message, and that includes seeing from what Greek word (I'll stay with the more disputed NT for now) the particular English word was derived. That same small part of me wants to go to the commentaries and see how some "scholar" (that is, someone able to produce a book and then gain a following) explains the passage, since that person must have a better intellectual skill than I.

That small part of me is shrinking more and more as I find that these methods of understanding push me away from prayerful and intense comparison of Scripture with Scripture. Most commentaries are written by men who themselves question the purity of our present Bible. Further, to seek out the nuance of some word written in an ancient and no longer active language, one must depend again on men whose belief in a pure Bible is virtually non-existent.

If it were possible to be someone who was so steeped in the language as to be able to function completely within that language, then I might agree that using the original could be accomplished without possible seepage of unbelief, but that is extremely rare. Dr. Waite once told me that he did not believe that there were five such men alive today who could qualify. What we are left with is dependence on some "scholar"s lexicon, dictionary, Greek textbook, or such, to be used as our "authority" on the meaning and nuance of the word.

As for me, I will trust that God accomplished all the meaning and nuance needed with that group of men divinely selected to produce the AV1611 and those editors whose later reviews and minor alterations brought about the Bible which I hold as I study and preach.

Amen Bro. Tim. The goal of any Bible student should be to be in tune with the Lord enough that we can go to the Scriptures and simply let God speak to us. Thank God for good commentaries and study aids that help us who are children in understanding. But God's guidance as we compare scripture with scripture is so much better.