KJV only??

Okay, I'll go with your view of inspiration for the sake of discussion.

These are both opinions about which texts God preserved. Neither has any substantial proof.

 

That doesn't make any sense Roger. You can't play middle-of-the-road here. That would leave you with a position that the CT deleted some verses and the RT added some verses. IOW,it all comes out in the wash.

It's one or the other --either the RT added a number of passages not found in the originals,or the CT deleted a number of verses that were actually in the originals.

 

I have my opinion, I just don't have any proof and I can see some points from the other side. I just don't know, and in reality neither does anyone else. That is why I think we err when we are overly critical about either text body.

 

Ultimately one side is right,and the other stance is wrong. One can't maintain a neutral stance. That's like saying the contractictory statements that :1)Christ died for each and every person who has and shall live and 2) Christ died only for His elect ones. Both statements cannot be true.One is false,and the other true.

 

I have no problem with that, but I don't understand the need to choose a side based on my research an opinion. I have made a choice, but have no proof I am right since neither text body addresses the issue.

It is more like much of eschatology, I have adopted a view, but my faith will not be shaken if I am wrong.

 

But since 'to err is human and to forgive is Divine' perhaps we should recognize that WE all might be wrong, and there is an entirely different perspective that we cannot see on this side, but the Father does.

I think it is foolish to make these value judgments when we do not have the facts, Scripturally or otherwise, upon which to base them.

 

Just curious, as to IF there is such a large discrepency between the CT and the MT ?

 

Neither the CT is 100% perfect nor the TR is 100% perfect. I believe that the CT is much closer and that's the text that I believe is best. There are probably places where the CT has something that's "missing" and the TR has it. There are also probably places that the TR "added" something and the CT has it correct. Again, I believe the CT is closer, but I'm not going to say that one is perfect with 100% certainty.

With that being said, let me clear something. I believe 100% of the words have been preserved. Just because one text chooses the wrong one doesn't mean that the words have been lost. The Bible was preserved long before the TR's were ever made and long before the CT's were ever made. The Word of the Lord will stand forever.

 

FYI, I watched a newly released movie/documentary on the King James Bible last night. It was called "The KJB, the book that changed the world". It was narrated by John Ries Davies and included a lot of acting as well as information. It was very good and I wonder if anyone else has seen it? You might think about it if not.

 

Do you know of a source for it?

 

I rented it from Netflix.

 

OR there could be a third option: That neither copy is based on "the originals", but on bits and pieces of the "originals" along with the oral traditions passed from one generation to another.

People worry to much about word counts. It should be enough that we even have these very early manuscripts to refer back to, to retranslate as languages change and to compare to each other so we have access to the best translations possible. If these weren't/aren't sufficient, God would surely have seen to it we had a better source.

 

Amen to what menageriekeeper said above. We don't know what the originals recorded, and we are not even certain about which documents the Romanist copied are valid to the originals.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Ok, thanks. Unfortunately Netflix and I are out of sorts right now.

 

again, regardless if one chooses to use as their base CT/MT, that one will stay have the "word of God" for today?

That we spend time and effort discussing IF one should do that greek text or this one, but bottom line, isn't the translation made still word of God and infallible?
regardless IF NIV/Nasv/ESv/NKJV etc?

 

Depends if you hold to JUST one version being Gods word, or if also see modern versions as being such also!

 

No, not by a long shot. By 1611 there had been about 400 years of English translations.