MUST we have only one text?

Though we have no accounts of Christians drinking poison, we do have the account of Paul being bitten by a venomous viper and not being harmed (Acts 28:3-6).

This supports the KJB text.

 

Except the KJB says the apostles will pick up serpents and says nothing about them being venomous or being harmed by the serpents.

 

It is implied, as it is said in the same sentence with drinking any "deadly" thing. All the other signs are demonstrated later in scripture, casting out devils, speaking in tongues, and healing the sick. Scripture supports the last 12 verses of Mark.

 

Last time I checked II Kings 4:38ff ("Death in the Pot!") was "somewhere else in the Bible".

 

Actually, better suppoprts the common held belief that the emding of Gospel of mark was short/abrupt, and when copied for circulation, there was an effort to "smooth it over" make it seem more extended, and the example that you cited was scribe looking back to that known event to have it incorporated as an ending...
Not saying that was what happened, but just as plausible as what you are saying!

 

Mark 16:18

The pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision do not agree completely with the KJV's rendering "take up serpents."

The old 1380's Wycliffe's Bible has "do away serpents."
The 1534 Tyndale's and 1537 Matthew's Bible have "shall kill serpents."
The 1535 Coverdale's, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles have "shall drive away serpents." The 1557 Whittingham's and 1560 Geneva Bible have "shall take away serpents."

 

Which of the ten to twenty varying editions of the Textus Receptus do you claim is "the preserved and accurate text"? The KJV translators did not follow 100% any one of the printed editions of the Textus Receptus that was available to them.

How can you claim that some added readings in the TR that are not found in any Greek manuscripts and that were added by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome are preserved?

Do the Scriptures suggest that faith is blind to the truth? Biblical faith is not asserting that something must be true because I have blindly taken the stand that I believe it.

 

You know the answer thet'll give: "The KJV (they'll use "KJB") corrects all of this."

Of course, some of them even say the KJB corrects the Greek and Hebrew. That would mean that these copies of originals we have are being corrected, and that the original wordings were also corrected since these copies record the original words themselves.

So the KJB to them ultimately corrects Gods words.

The fact that these propagate such nonsense is quite sad.

 

No, the scriptures themselves tell us Jesus did so many things that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. (Jn 21:25)

Nevertheless, Jesus said we should live by every word, and the scriptures repeatedly warn not to add or diminish God's word. This can be understood to mean the written scriptures. The scriptures imply that the complete text can be known, else how could one know if he added or diminished from it?

So, I believe this tells us the preserved text can be known and identified.

But two different texts cannot both be correct. It is not possible that Mark 16 both contain and omit the last 12 verses.

If you believe both endings error, then you have no preserved text. This is why I said you either have one, or else you have none.

 

Why could not the TR be correct in some readings (say, the ending of Mark) but incorrect in other places? Why could not the CT have the original reading sometimes, the MT the original some others, and the TR yet in other places?

 

That is possible, but then both texts would be corrupt. So, you either have one preserved text, or you have none.

I don't believe God would allow his word to become all mixed up like this. It's not like the children's book game "Where's Waldo?"

No, I believe God loves us and wants us to know him. He is not going to hide his word, or confuse it by mixing it up in various texts. If we have to figure out which words are his, and which words Satan added or omitted to confuse us, we are all in big trouble.

It is certain the so-called scholars cannot figure it out.

No, I believe God preserved his word, and that preserved word was the text used for the KJB.

 

Fine, but as you have said before the only basis for this belief is your own opinion.

 

They all mention serpents though where the Ct doesn't so somebody is wrong.

 

This is my view also. I don't understand how anyone can say that two versions of the Bible, one having the last 12 verses of Mark 16, the other not having them, are BOTH the same. One is right, the other is wrong. Believing which one is right is a personal choice, but expecting someone to believe, even arguing over it, that both are the same is ridiculous. Common sense should tell you that.

 

Yet, your KJV-only theory suggests that God did allow His word to become all mixed up before 1611. It is the KJV-only view that implies that there was no one preserved original language text before 1611 and that it is the 1611 KJV that newly establishes what the proper non-preserved text is now to be. In contradiction to what the Scriptures indicate, it is the KJV-only view that suggests that God failed to preserve the original language words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. It is the KJV-only view that in effect implies that some words were not preserved in the original languages but were preserved in the Latin translations [for example, the readings that Erasmus added to the New Testament by translating them from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and that are not found in any Greek manuscripts]. It is the KJV-only theory that implies an inconsistent view of preservation.

 

In the minds of those holding to KJVO...
Did preserve the TR as Greek text to translate off from, or is it the KJV itself?

is the TR than exactly same as the original Koine Greek manuscripts penned by the Apostles themselves?