[biblereader]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I may not have phrased what I said very well, but I believe the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus are, line-for-line, word-for-word and letter-for-letter the perfectly preserved Word of God. Both of those documents do exist and are easy to locate.

I appreciate the replys so far, thanks for being nice!

Howler Monkey, how do you explain the Textus Receptus's authenticity, to a lost person, who is challenging/arguing with you, about it's reliability, and about God preserving every word, during translation?

Originally Posted by Jassy

God promised that he would not only PROVIDE His Word but that He would PRESERVE it forever. Now which translation of the Bible has done that? One can ONLY uphold the AV/KJB as having done that - and it is still doing that today!

God is all-powerful and He is certainly capable of both PROVIDING and PRESERVING His Word.

I, for one, feel very blessed to be able to hold in my hands, the inerrant Word of God in the AV/KJB, and know that I can trust in God - that He certainly was able to PROVIDE and PRESERVE His Word for me!

Jassy

well said Jassy...

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

HowlerMonkey said, [underlining mine]
HM, I would like to comment on a few of the above statements, but first, I would like to know upon what authority do you come to your conclusions referenced by "I believe"? What source material do you have that causes you to determine "error"? Your answers will help me to respond more accurately. Thanks.

P.S. The "strain at" vs "strain out" has been debated extensively on this forum and elsewhere, so I won't bother starting that up again.

OK, there are a lot of comments/questions here since I left for work early this morning. I'll try my best to respond/answer as best I can, if I overlook anyone I am not intending to ignore or slight you, but you may have to remind me if you feel I have overlooked something important.

First I want to be very clear that I am in no way, shape or form an AV basher, I love God's Word and I love the AV, I spend time in it every day and I would not trade my old AV for a truck-load of any modern versions, I defend the AV against the attacks of modern scholars and those who believe that modern versions are better. I believe that the AV is THE English version that God has shown has His special blessing.

As far as source material, I have read a lot about this issue from both sides. I have come to believe that the claims of those who support use of the Critical Text manuscripts just don't hold water and thus I believe that ANY translation based on CT manuscripts will be flawed on that basis alone regardless of how good the translators might be.

I don't know a word of Hebrew, so I am in no position to comment in any meaningful way about the translation of the OT. I do know a little Koine Greek and I do have a Textus Receptus, I'm no Greek expert (far from it), but I do often compare the English of the AV with the Greek of the Textus Receptus. I hope that answers your question, but if not let me know and I'll try my best to expand on what I have said.

The “originals” or the “Hebrew & Greek” as the final revelation of Divine authority reminds me of the arguments that the Muslims use when attributing their final, sealed & perfect revelation of God to bound up in Arabic.

I believe that God's written revelation to man was closed in c. AD 95 when John the Apsotle finished his writings, so based on that I see it as only logical that anything which came after that is not inspired by God. It may have God's blessing, as I believe the AV does, but it is not inspired. Because of that I conclude that the Hebrew and Greek are in fact the final authority.

Of course that is not to say that the AV isn't an amazingly accurate translation, clearly God's hand was upon the translators as they worked.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

HowlerMonkey replied: (underlining mine)I understand what you are trying to express, but the reality of the situation does not match. "Original language" scholars have never fully agreed that we DO have an exact and completely accurate current edition of either the Masoretic OT or the TR NT. Many of us here believe that the KJB IS a distinct and the final edition of the "Received Text", exactly and perfectly providing us the original autographs in English.

Hi Tim, With all due respect and I am not trying to insult anyone's work, but I just don't place a lot of stock in the opinions of most modern "original language scholars." Many of these people are more secular than Christian and many of the would have us trade the Majority Text that has been used by 95% of Christians for the last 1850 years and exists in countless thousands of manuscripts in favor of two very suspect manuscripts that (in my humble opinion) show signs of Gnostic tampering. I just don't agree with that modern secular view.

If I had to point to one specific edition of the Textus Receptus as being the perfectly preserved Word of God, I would suggest the 1598 Beza Edition which was the primary manuscript used by King James' team of translators.

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

I assume that you've been "trained" into your position. I won't speculate beyond that statement, but your beliefs match those of several preachers I know that are affiliated with certain schools, etc. Most are good preachers, and I've seen the Lord use them.

I am not sure what you mean by "trained into my position." I am a simple lay person, never been to Bible school or taken any formal clases on the subject. I do love God's Word and I have always been very interested in how God has preserved it and transmitted it down to us, so I have read a lot on the subject. However, my position comes from comparing the Textus Receptus with the AV and from what the AV translators wrote in their intro to the AV.

Greetings brother and welcome to the Forum,

This is certainly the place to bring up any doubts or questions that you might have about the AV/KJB.

Thank you for your kindness Jassy (and all the rest of you). I also think this is the right place to bounce my opinions off of others. Based on what I have read here so far I have a lot of respect for most of the people here and I am very open to learning from all of you, my mind is open on this issue.

Originally Posted by biblereader

Howler Monkey, how do you explain the Textus Receptus's authenticity, to a lost person, who is challenging/arguing with you, about it's reliability, and about God preserving every word, during translation?

My position is that any manuscript, even the Critical Text manuscripts and any translation, even the poor ones, teach salvation through the Blood of Christ alone, by faith alone and completely without works.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I don't know a word of Hebrew, so I am in no position to comment in any meaningful way about the translation of the OT.

Well there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight.
Why would you use the Hebrew to pass judgment on our KJV when you don't even understand a word of Hebrew...?

This follows your earlier position where you stated:

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey
I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English.

Now please don't get offended brother, I sense you may be here for the right reasons. But you have to understand—this kind of thing comes up a lot here, and you have to see the problem with what I just confronted you with. It was not meant to derail you, again I suggest you tread softly here for a while and research the introductory areas before you proceed.

[bibleprotector]

If someone says

I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English

they had better have perfect copies of the originals, or a sure method of finding out the actual Hebrew and Greek, and what they mean.

Even the translators of the King James Bible talked about the diversity of senses, and laboured to present a correct text rendering (rubbed, polished and perfected), so that they would present the Word of God in English. If it is sound (their word) and exact (their word) in Engish, how can it be altered?

If the originals are always correcting the English, when will the English be correct? The choice is either 1611 onward or never.