Featured Absolute uncertainty in Hebrew Masoretic Text and varying Textus Receptus editions?

Variations within the Received Text Tradition

Collation of Received text readings

 

I believe an original language text can be (and usually is) inerrant within itself without reference to textual differences. The doctrine of inerrancy does not depend on textual criticism.

 

Psalms 119:89. Isaiah 55:11.
When we have at hand known variant texts we do have at issue a reading or readings which are not the original autograph.

 

I agree.

As long as there are variants, no one will be able to objectively prove, in a court of men, which ones echo the originals perfectly and which ones do not.
We're left with each of us making choices as to which reading(s) are God's actual words, and which ones are not.

No amount of discussion will ever resolve the unresolvable, and I've come to see that over the course of my time here.
There will always be differences of opinion, and those differences will continue to divide those who profess Christ from now until He comes again.

To me, it is pointless to do anything other than to state one's case ( in detail if need be ) and to let those who view those statements, then decide for themselves.

 

To answer the OP for the benefit of the reader ( since I have agreed, in unspoken terms, with the OP owner that there can, in all probability, be no resolution between us on this subject ):

Outside of making a choice in one direction or the other, all that's left is uncertainty.
Biblical inerrancy depends squarely upon deciding which underlying texts(s) are reflective of the originals, and that is where any translation work should start.

By choosing one position and going with it,
I see that "KJV-Onlyists" ( or even those who do not focus on the "KJV" as the source, like myself, but upon the underlying texts of it as being representative of the originals ), are willing to at least take a stand on what they see as that source.
They've stopped their "ball" rolling... and right or wrong, I admire them for that.

Regardless of any errors that they have made and rhetoric that they have employed ( and in my opinion some of it is fairly outlandish, some of it injurious, and some of it I happen to agree with ), I see that those who are often labeled as "KJV-Only" not only differ in their convictions, but to those on the outside, they are all lumped together...
And anyone who disagrees with all of them, is, in effect, not seeing those differences.

Be that as it may,
I also see them standing not only alone, but not faltering in that stand as long as they are convinced of their position.
No amount of "peer pressure" is going to change their minds about what they see, and no amount of ridicule and disparagement will sway them.

Standing on the sidelines for the most part, I see something that many may not....

People contending for a standard when it comes to where God's words can be found, what they are, and how seriously they should be treated,
and them paying for it by enduring constant, ongoing persecution and ridicule.
Something about all of that feels very familiar to me,
ever since the day that I was called, by the grace of God, out of darkness and into the light of His words during the preaching of them in 1978.



To each and every one of you:

May God bless you greatly in your studies in His word,
and may He grant you the privilege to see many sobering and marvelous truths in it...

Truths that will only cause you to genuinely "fear", admire and praise Him for His promises to you, and for His grace in our salvation...
without which we would all be in very serious trouble with Him.

 

You maybe right. But the undisputed text is the 100% reading. Based on that one fact which of a variant should be more likely, 99.5% or the 0.5% reading? Of course it would be on a case by case review.

 

The 99.5%.

 

That strikes me as an atrocious waste of time.

 

It's called research.

 

they are Infallible, but Inerrancy reserved just for the originals!

 

per the Kjvo, the 1611 kjv is a perfect translation made off imperfect source texts?

 

Common thread to Kjvo is the position modern versions are all corrupted and or satanic!

 

I call it his unhealthy obsession with the whole topic.

 

No, its more that he understands very clearly the errors of Kjvo!

 

Well, posting about it practically 24/7 on numerous forums for many years......seems like an obsession to me. Seems like if he's not sleeping or working....he's posting about KJVO somewhere on the internet. Kinda strange IMHO.

 

I believe he is performing a legitimate, needed function in the body of Christ. He has done more research and knows more about this issue than any other player in the field--a narrow field I admit--and I know many of the players, some personally. "To his own master he standeth or falleth" (Rom. 14:4).

 

he does a real service for the Body of Christ, as he does respect and use the Kjv himself, and is critical of the Greek critical text used for modern versions, so they cannot bash him for accepting "satanic texts"