About Modern Versions compared to the KJV

I gave spoken pretty loudly on preferring formal versions such as Nasb/Nkjv, correct?

 

Another post by a guy who quotes posts without reading the content.

 

Have read.....

 

Logos1560,

Thanks for your feedback; and sorry for the delay- I was busy in other things and also I had to look up some quotes. I do not doubt the accuracy of your quotes. But acknowledge that the nature of textual criticism in that day is not what is practiced today. They believed in general ‘The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.’ (1689 Baptist confession) By “finally to appeal to them” they didn’t conceive of calling into question all manuscripts and developing a text type analysis to authenticate the oldest and presumably therefore the most reliable. James White (who sadly got embarrassed by Bart Ehrman in their debate- here) quotes Erasmus (pg56 KJ-Only Controversy) referencing the consulting of “the Greek codices”. Erasmus did not imagine manuscript family genealogies and constructing a text from among them those readings which are most intrinsically and transcriptionally probable. James White tries to argue (pg69) that the Greek the reformers appealed to was by default not choice- which agrees with the point I’m making- they didn’t have anything like modern textual criticism. The development of modern textual analysis and text types and their histories was mostly during the 1800’s:

Textual Criticism
textual criticism

I am making the claim (now and on the link I posted) that complete reconstruction of the original text by way of textual criticism is not possible and if it was it would only supply us with probability. Certainly not the certainty we read of in scripture. Plus if we rely upon these methods to anoint and give us our bible then you will rely on a view of science that does not depend upon the scripture. Also I am not affirming that this is a historical question that can be answered by pointing to this or that man or even the KJV translators. I am saying men did what they did and God omnipotently preserved his book through people who had faith not people who followed a philosophy of science independent of him.

 

According to his own words and according to the facts from the varying Greek manuscripts that he used, Erasmus engaged in textual criticism decisions. Erasmus did sometimes speculate concerning which reading he considered most probable. What Erasmus and other textual editors of the 1500's did involved actual textual criticism regardless of whether you may try to deny it. You ignore the fact that Erasmus even introduced some textual conjectures into his text, readings found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

The 1550 edition of the Greek NT text of Stephanus with its over 2,000 variant readings provides more evidence of the inconsistent, imperfect textual criticism of that day.

Edward F. Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Plain Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128).

Charles E. Hammond claimed: “The influence of prescription already shows itself in the fact that Stephens often follows the text of Erasmus, in defiance of the authority of his manuscripts” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 11). Herbert Marsh asserted that “in the margin of this [1550] edition there are more than a hundred places, in which he [Stephens] has quoted all his authorities for readings different from his own” (Course of Lectures, p. 106). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller maintained that the text of the 1550 edition “is perpetually at variance with the majority” of his fifteen Greek manuscripts and the Complutensian, “and in 119 places with them all” (Plain Introduction to the Criticism, Vol. II, p. 190). Robert B. Waltz cited “Scrivener’s report that there are 119 places where all of Stephen’s manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephens still chose to print the rendering in previous TR editions” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, p. 855). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "through its [Erasmus's Greek text] being incorporated into the third edition of Robert Estienne's Greek Testament (1550) it influenced strongly the Greek Testament of Theodore de Beza" (Vol. 2, p. 57). Scrivener noted that his “own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190, footnote 3).

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). John Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh pointed out that Robert Stephens “made use of several manuscripts which were collated by his son Henry” (Introduction to N. T., II, p. 448). Henry Baird quoted Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of all of these collations? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214). Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).

 

KJV-only reasoning in effect rejects the view of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that was held in the 1500's and 1600's, including the view held by the KJV translators. In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators themselves indicated that they considered the preserved Scriptures in the original languages to be the standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations, which would include their own.

In his 1583 book that defended the Reformation view or Protestant view of Bible translation, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) stated: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament" (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations, p. 44). Neil Rhodes maintained that Fulke “had become the official voice of English Protestantism” (English Renaissance Translation Theory, p. 22). In the preface of another book, Fulke noted: "The dissension of interpreters [translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (Confutation, p. 26). Fulke maintained: “The Greek text of the New Testament needeth no patronage of men, as that which is the very word and truth of God” (Confutation, p. 32). He observed: "We acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, adjoining here with the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by errors of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new" (A Defence, p. 78).

In another place, Fulke pointed out: "We acknowledge the Hebrew "as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive the infallible truth of God's Word of the Old Testament" (Ibid., p. 147). He also wrote: "It becometh us best in translation to follow the original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of the Holy Ghost" (Ibid., p. 214).

 

Human KJV-only reasoning or knowledge [science] has not been demonstrated to depend upon the Scriptures. The 1900's or present human reasoning used to advocate a KJV-only theory is similar to that used to advocate a Latin Vulgate-only theory in the 1500's, and the KJV translators clearly rejected that type view of one Bible translation.

 

Why should I acknowledge what you do not prove? The nature or heart of textual criticism would remain the same.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies of it would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Jer. 26:2, Rev. 22:18-19) could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the perfect word of God. Would following these scriptural instructions be engaging in what could be called a form of textual criticism? Would making decisions concerning whether words are added, whether words are omitted, or whether words are changed be textual criticism decisions? These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken or given by inspiration (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:35).

It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not spoken words added by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of the LORD are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men in copying, in printing, or in translating would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It would be a sound, righteous judgment based on stated scriptural truths to maintain that any errors introduced by men are not words inspired by God. Therefore, any error introduced by a copier, editor, printer, or whomever in copies of Scripture can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken or given by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16). Just as the source would definitely have to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Would not the preserved original language Scriptures given by inspiration be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

The scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures also provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9).

KJV-only advocates have presented no consistent, sound case that Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators actually followed consistent just measures in their textual criticism decisions.

 

I do not see that you make any consistent, sound, scriptural case for any suggestion that the textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the varying Textus Receptus editions and in the making of the KJV involved any direct miracle of God.

The Scriptures do teach that the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles involved a direct miracle of the inspiration of God.

Do the Scriptures teach that the copying of the original language Scriptures involved the same process of direct inspiration so that imperfect men could not make any mistakes in their copying? Would the Scriptures support any attempts to make Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or the KJV translators be in the same basic position as the prophets and apostles who received the Scriptures by inspiration of God?

Do the Scriptures teach that the translating of the original language Scriptures was by the process of inspiration? Considering the scriptural truth concerning not adding to Scripture, how can the words added in translating by men be considered "self-authenticating"?

 

Logos1560,

Thanks again for your feedback. I really wish though you would read closely my link because I am not arguing what you appear to be refuting for the most part. But there are a couple things that I should clarify. I am not denying there are multiple Greek and Latin and multiple other sources of scripture and scripture quotations with variations. Nor that Erasmus tried to compare some to determine the original reading. Nor that Stephanus, Beza, or the KJV translators also didn't try to determine the best reading in certain spots. At this point I also want to suggest- as I posted here:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/about-modern-versions-compared-to-the-kjv.104535/page-5#post-2318551

-when the bible uses the word ‘word’ (probably every time I’ll have to double check) it means a ‘saying’ and not necessarily verbatim words and word orders and omitting the possibility of dynamic equivalents. As I say on the original post this fact will I believe account for variations of sayings in translations and over time and as languages evolve. As Douglas Wilson asked James White in an online debate “How is "Christ" instead of "Lord" a mistake?” The vast majority of variants cited have no bearing on the meaning of the ‘saying’. Compare the gospel accounts!

The ‘textual criticism’ in their day consisted in consulting the manuscripts and determining the best reading. They did not get into text type sorting and evolving and dating techniques and scribal habit theories which developed mostly in the 1800’s and where new bibles all come from. When the church ‘finally appealed unto them’ (Greek- NT, as the 1689 Baptist confessors) they did not debate on text types and ages- they believed they had final authority. Now you might argue like James White that this was by default (that’s all they had) that they chose and used the Byzantine/ Majority text type and that were Erasmus alive today he would be leading the charge in modern textual criticism- of course he might also have went apostate like Erhman.

So I am not saying Erasmus and crew had divine methods for divining the original readings. But at some point your theory must appeal to providence- where exactly do you appeal to it? In the tenacity argument? Could Erasmus have used this argument?


Tell me again why there has to be a Greek manuscript preserved for every word in the New Testament just because they may have been penned in Greek originally?


You are not following the Baptist confessors of 1689, you are following (slightly behind the Bart Ehrman’s of the world) a philosophy of empiricism subjecting the bible to it. Let me see if I can demonstrate what I mean. Can you name one whole verse that you know to be absolutely infallible? And why?
Thanks again!

 

Your allegation is not true. I advocated the use of consistent, sound, scriptural truths, and not any philosophy of empiricism as you incorrectly claim.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies of it would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Jer. 26:2, Rev. 22:18-19) could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the perfect word of God. Would following these scriptural instructions be engaging in what could be called a form of textual criticism? Would making decisions concerning whether words are added, whether words are omitted, or whether words are changed be textual criticism decisions? These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken or given by inspiration (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:35).

It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not spoken words added by men (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of the LORD are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men in copying, in printing, or in translating would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It would be a sound, righteous judgment based on stated scriptural truths to maintain that any errors introduced by men are not words inspired by God. Therefore, any error introduced by a copier, editor, printer, or whomever in copies of Scripture can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken or given by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16). Just as the source would definitely have to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Would not the preserved original language Scriptures given by inspiration be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

The scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures also provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9).

KJV-only advocates have presented no consistent, sound case that Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators actually followed consistent, sound, just measures in their human textual criticism decisions.

What are you really suggesting when you in effect assert that the textual criticism decisions of Erasmus and crew including the KJV translators and the translation decisions of this exclusive one group of men in 1611 are supposedly "self-authenticating"?

 

Are you suggesting that your KJV-only view appeals to providence?

Another possible form of an argument from experience or empiricism could be an argument from providence. If subjective experience, biased observation, or claimed providence were actually the Scriptural standard for determining the best translation or for claiming a translation should be assumed to be self-authenticating, the KJV would have never been used in the first place. Any claims concerning God's providential use of any translation can only be made many years after the translation is made. God was using or blessing the use of the accepted and loved Geneva Bible before the KJV was ever made so would there have been any need for the KJV according to an appeal to providence? God's use of a translation in the past and even in the present does not mean that He will not use a different translation in the present and in the future. If the number of years of a claim of providential use of a translation was the determining factor for which Bible believers should use, the Latin Vulgate-only theory would win over the KJV-only theory.

Charles Spurgeon observed: "If you make apparent providence your guide, you will make a thousand mistakes, but if you follow 'It is written' your steps will be wisely ordered" (The Infallible Word, p. 40). Spurgeon pointed out: "Too many direct their ways by what they call providences" (Ibid.). Spurgeon continued: "I wonder whether Jonah, when he went down to Joppa to flee to Tarshish, considered it a providence that a ship was about to sail. If so, he was like too many now-a-days, who seek to lay their guilt upon God by declaring that they felt bound to act as they did, for providence suggested it. Our Lord was not guided as to what he should do by the circumstances around him" (Ibid.). Samuel Rutherford asserted: “God’s providence, as providence without precept or promise, can conclude a thing is done, or may be done, but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully or warrantably done, else you might say that the selling of Joseph, the crucifying of Christ, the spoiling of Job, were lawfully done” (Lex, Rex, p. 49).

 

How so?

 

Logos1560,

Just to find out where you are coming from, because I fear we are wasting our time talking past each other here.
Can I conclude that you presume Rev. 22:18-19 for example is absolutely infallible? Why? (this will assist explaining the empiricism philosophy)

“Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators actually followed consistent, sound, just measures in their human textual criticism decisions.”- your quote
Can you give an example of a divine textual criticism decision?

Also when you speak of adding to God’s words do you preclude all “human textual criticism decisions” and dynamic equivalents in translation and conjectural emendations?

My point on providence is that your theory of preservation is based on it ultimately. Is your theory ‘the tenacity of the NT text’?

 

For the most part, you do not answer questions that you have been asked so you do not practice what you demand. For the most part, you do not clearly explain your own KJV-only position and present no case for it in your own words. Presenting links to other web sites unless they are your own is not presenting your own view. You do not clearly present where you are coming from. The discussion thus far seems one-sided. I have attempted to explain where I am coming from and what I believe concerning Bible translations and why. Instead of actually discussing what I have stated, you have attempted to misrepresent and distort my position.

In addition, you have not backed up your extreme [non-balanced] KJV-only claim that suggested that the KJV is supposedly self-authenticating. In my opinion, the claim that the KJV is "self-authenticating" would be just as extreme as Ruckman's claim that "mistakes in the KJV are advanced revelation" since any mistakes in a self-authenticating translation would have to be blindly accepted and could not be corrected. Bible translations are not independent and underived. How does it make sense to try to suggest that something that is dependent upon something else for its derived authority is self-authenticating? Would you suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were self-authenticating?

I think that the Scriptures make it clear that the doctrine of preservation concerns the exact, specific, original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The instructions or commands concerning not adding to, not subtracting from, and not changing the word of God would have to concern the original language words of Scripture and would be scriptural support for considering preservation to concern those original language words.

Translators sometimes have to add words in translating, and thus would be violating these scriptural instructions if the commands were intended to be given concerning Bible translations. Human textual criticism decisions in deciding whether words may have been added, may have been omitted, or may have been changed would not involve the process of the miracle of inspiration of God that was involved in the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles. I have not seen any consistent, sound, scriptural case for any suggestion that copies of the original language Scriptures were copied by inspiration or that translations of Scripture are made by inspiration.
I did not suggest that there were any divine textual criticism decisions. What I suggested was that following the scriptural instructions would result in the need for textual criticism decisions on the part of men [once actual variations were found in existing copies].

 

The 1611 translators NEVER claimed that they were inspired, nor that they had made a perfect translation, for they were aware that others would build upon their work and improve it going forward!

 

Logos1560,
I apologize, we really are not communicating well. The link I sent to the blog here is what I wrote and suggested you read to know where I am coming from. Maybe you can do that and we can have a more fruitful discussion.
I don't believe I have misrepresented your position- I believe you would agree with J.W. Montgomery explaining (lower) textual criticism in a minute and half here. Agreed?
Also if you do not feel I have sufficiently answered you please clarify what I missed and i'll try again.

I would say accounting for the changing English language and variations of 'sayings' (as I indicted and indicate in the link) that yes there could exist pre-1611 English (or other Language) bibles. Languages can become more perfect and translations likewise can. Again I think reading what I wrote will clear up my position which is not precisely what other KJV-Onlyists are arguing (or what you appear to think I am arguing). I am giving a presuppositional perspective on the subject.

 

Yeshua1,
I agree.