A great book showing 2 histories of the Bible by 2 different streams, the northern stream from Antioch, and the southern stream from Alexandria Egypt (Origen's Old Testament and Apocyrpha) is by David Daniels and illustrated by Jack Chick called Did The Roman Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? I let a guy I work with read it, and I could hardly get it back because several other people wanted to read it, its very well done. You can get it from Chick Publications or Amazon.

[bibleprotector]

I'd like to know what standard of Received Text you believe your Bible is based on

There is no final standard authority in the original languages that may be observed in one extant volume. What the 1611 translators did was gather from various sources, primarily TR editions (for the NT), but also in conference with other witness, e.g. the Vulgate. This means that the KJB text, which is a judicial gathering of the originals, and exactly correct throughout, is therefore better than any particular original manuscript or TR edition that can be produced or shown today.

and clarification on "no final authority in original languages".

Since there are slight wording and spelling differences in the TR editions, not is perfectly flawless.

Is the Bible you read based on a faulty text?

No, because the translators of 1611 discerned the correct text from various sources, and translated it into English.

If not, what principles of textual criticism was used to arrive at this conclusion?

Textual criticism is a recent name for recent methodology. Such a name cannot be exactly applied with the same meanings to any (I suppose) pre-Enlightenment work in regard to editing, criticism or selection of correct readings. Also, true believers defer to divine providence and its manifestation through tradition which is received and kept by the universal priesthood of true Christian believers.

It was disturbing as your wording makes the comparison of the TR to the W+H, with the TR just not disagreeing "more so".

The W&H methodology is bad. And the result is bad. The TR methodology is good, but this does not guarantee that any Greek edition today is either perfectly flawless, or exactly correct. Moreover, the TRs have been superseded by the English Bible for exactness, perfection, flawlessness and purity.

Are you also claiming double inspiration?

No, the TR editions were not made by inspiration, and the final form of the Received Text, which is the KJB, was not made by inspiration from 1604-1611.

In summary, I am indicating that every correct reading is fully without addition or subtraction in the King James Bible. Moreover, every word in English is the exact translation of the original languages, fully to the sense and concepts thereof, and finally that every word in the King James Bible is so certain and sure, true and right, that so much as the distinction between “among” and “amongst” is entirely intended by God’s providential outworking, and study into these things would yield all the fullness of meaning and revelation, and that the Word of God in English is now alone the authority.

Why, as an English speaking person, do I need to care about the Hebrew or Greek? If I believe God will preserve His Word, do I really need to "check up" on Him? Since I don't speak those languages, how can I verify anything in regards to "the original says...". I have to take someone's word for it. God already took care of it for me. I'm satisfied with my KJB.

[bibleprotector]

Bible Greek and Bible Hebrew are vital, important or even a bit helpful in evangelising which country?

I am satisified that God can and does use the KJB to reach the world.

[Debau]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Bible Greek and Bible Hebrew are vital, important or even a bit helpful in evangelising which country?

I am satisified that God can and does use the KJB to reach the world.

In English alone?

Why not? However, ther are KJB equivalence in other languages, many of which were translated from the KJB, and not "the original..."

[ziggy2sound4u]

cody1611,
I had read many of these same "errors" before.
Actually, they are not errors at all, but interpretations by non-Bible believing heretics.
There are of course some "watered-down" Christians who have so squashed the Holy Ghost, as too no longer have any discernment.

Take for instance, my personal favorite, for the answer is right there for anyone to see; Acts 12:4., but one MUST go back to 12:3, to find the answer!

"And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (THEN WERE THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.)
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; INTENDING AFTER EASTER TO BRING HIM FORTH TO THE PEOPLE." (Acts 12:3-4)

Actually, the correct term is indeed "Easter" as the "Passover" had done past, the Jews were already in the "Days of unleavened bread,"which comes after the Passover. This rendering is also found in the TR based Bibles before the KJV.

"Strictly speaking the Passover only applied to the paschal supper and the feast of unleavened bread followed."-Peloubet's Bible Dictionary,(p.486)

In fact, Herod was not even a Jew, but an Edomite, and had a long association with the pagan religion of Babylonian(something Catholics also are involved with, either knowingly or unknowingly). I suggest you read Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons for interesting info. on pagan religions and how it pertains to EASTER.

I doubt you will ever convince anyone, however the Bible is pretty well self explanatory.

God bless!

[bibleprotector]

In English alone?

The key here is "when?"

God did not use English to reach the world until about now. Already the King James Bible itself has gone forth to many places, and the English language now widely spoken, so this is all preperation for the next step.

And I am not saying that the Word of God was in English alone. I am talking about "around now".

[Debau]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The key here is "when?"

God did not use English to reach the world until about now. Already the King James Bible itself has gone forth to many places, and the English language now widely spoken, so this is all preperation for the next step.

And I am not saying that the Word of God was in English alone. I am talking about "around now".

What of the folks who have labored to bring accurate faithful translations to other languages NOW, and the folks who have received it? (e.g., the RVG Spanish Bible)

[bibleprotector]

Since those Spanish folks have, are or will be learning English...

And since there is no entirely correct translation into Spanish, though some better than others...

It is obviously the best, and in line with God's providence, to yet yield to them a greater thing to be received, namely, the Word of God in English. There is a need for people to see that they are being called into the restitution of the "old ways".

While it was not a waste of time and wealth for the Word of God to be preached in Spanish, things are moving in the direction whereby it is now becoming a waste, in the big picture, because there really needs to be one unified Church in the world which agrees on doctrine and uses one Bible. If this is only possible in the Millennium, then the Gospel of Christ is weak.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19a, 20a).

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

“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).