Clarifying KJVO

Logos1560,
I address that in the post. I invite you to read it with an open mind not answering a matter before you've heard it.
http://concealathing.blogspot.com/2017/04/kjv-impossibilityof-contrary.html
The "textual criticism" of the 1600's was not like the exalted empiricism taking place in the mid to late 1800's after Darwinism infected scholarship. Our modern bibles are the result of empiricism applied to preservation; where the King James Version predated this unequal yoking. The Authorized Version sought to revise and diligently compare the former translations in other languages to produce a more exact translation in English. They did not create a new text based upon analyzing probable scribal habits and dating Greek manuscript ages. There was no classification of text types during this time (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Caesarian, Western). The dedication of the Authorized Version states- “that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us” they would produce “one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue”. The new bibles are translating texts newly assembled from the latest advances in scribal habit analysis.
Modern "textual criticism" starts with science (falsely so called), presupposing a non-Christian view of science, and concluding with varying texts. In other words instead of the fear of the LORD being the beginning of knowledge- knowledge leads to a fear of the LORD. It reverses what the bible actually states. The new bibles are all founded upon this contradiction.

 

I would invite you to be consistent with your standards. I could say the "scholarship only myth can't be found in Scripture at all, and is therefore false". You need a biblical view of preservation of scripture and translations. Jesus instructed translation in Matt.28:19-20. Teaching all nations what he commanded. Use just weights and measures here.

 

The KJV has no more/less scriptural authority then the Nas/Nkjv/Esv etc!

 

The scholars who actually make the translation decisions on Nas/Esv/Niv et all do hold to the full and plenary inspiration of the Bible, correct?

 

You fail to demonstrate that you use just weights and measures since your claims suggest that you use different weights and measures for the actual textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the textually-vary Textus Receptus editions.

Do you ignore the fact that the TR editions have some readings added from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate by Erasmus and have some conjectures made by Erasmus or Beza which are found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

Can you list any actual consistent just textual measures used by the textual critics/editors who made the textually-varying TR editions?

The makers of the KJV did not follow 100% any one of the printed TR editions available to them.

 

So the Critical Greek text has no scripture support for it then? Any and all modern versions translated off it are dubious and suspect?

 

Those involved with using the CT would say that is indeed the word of the Lord being preserved to us for today!

 

A KJV-only view including your form of it has not been soundly and justly demonstrated to be a consistent scripturally-based view of preservation of Scripture and of Bible translations.

 

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

 

No I don't ignore this information. I don't think variations in some wording constitutes errors. I don't think it is mandatory that a Greek manuscript must always take precedent over other languages. I doubt accuracy of their dating methods. And I don't think historians can answer the question of the text of scripture. All of the above presupposes empiricism over scripture. Again read the post in full with an open mind.

 

There is no perfect Greek source text, or any perfect English translation!

 

That would really apply towards KJVO!