A VERY challenging question
 

You can read these two articles to learn about the differences between the 1611 and the 1769:

Myth Of Early Revisions - by David Reagan
What About Those Printing Errors In The 1611 Holy Bible? - by Will Kinney

Those are both good articles. There are three points I want to make:

1. The Holy Spirit has led believers over the last 400 years to declare the purity of the King James Bible -- no other translation in history has ever been held to as absolutely pure. God's people have easily rejected revisions of the KJV that were false -- the RV, the NKJV, and others have either been outright rejected or simply became colossal commercial failures. Despite the defense of the NKJV going on in another thread, nobody has ever accused it of being the perfect word of God. Even subtle "updates" to the KJV have been rejected by believers, like the "New Scofield Reference Bible" which they are now once again printing with the true KJV text because so many people rejected the "minor" alterations of the first "New" Scofield. Another new "edition" of the KJV is Norton's "New Cambridge Paragraph Bible" which is another flop. Publishers haven't been able to pull a fast one on KJV believers in the past. They know that if they want to sell new versions they need to market them as new versions to the crowd that demands them, not KJV proponents.

2. The differences in genuine KJV editions have never been of the sort that makes people wonder what God's word actually says -- not like eliminating 1Jo 5:7 or dropping the last 12 verses of Mark. When KJVs were published with printing errors like "the wicked Bible," people immediately knew what God's word said and subsequent editions contained corrections. Nobody asked "did God really say 'thou shalt commit adultery?'" due to a printing error.

3. Are some printings of the KJV better than others? Yes. Wherever possible I will prefer the KJV text as it was printed by Cambridge (and other publishers like Collins) c.1900. But what is different between those editions and other printings? A few capital letters, some commas moved, and difference in italics in a few places. When we have modern versions deleting entire verses and changing words like "God" to "He who" (in reference to Christ), a difference between "flieth away" and "fleeth away" in some KJV printings hardly amounts to a bean, let alone a hill of beans.

The bottom line is that I would take any printing of the KJV since 1611 and be willing to shout "this is God's word and you can trust it!"

The "update" issue is always a red herring on the part of modernists. They aren't seeking to "update" the KJV when they hold its underlying text (the Textus Receptus) is absolute contempt, and switch it out for the critical texts.

i got a cornberstone bible, holman bible, thompson chain, and a zondervan. all kjv, and out of they all match up as far as i know with the exception of the zondervan. the zondervan is using an 1873 edition of the cambridge paragraph bible, but it was revised by dr. f.h.a. scrivener and i've found where only halfa word will be printed. such as but not limited to at least 14 times where the words fetchd-fetched-fetcht-fetch have been changed to "fet".. it's just the kjv thatzondervan uses, so now i don't like the zondervan kjv text. i just got my thompson chain reference, and that bible is awesome, as is my cornerstone, and holman

Is the KJB perfect? I think we open up a can of worms when we make statements like that? But I could be wrong also?

How about the KJB is the most reliable translation of the Received Text, (the most reliable Greek mss) in the English language. I'm sure there is a better way to say what I attempted to say?

The KJV is perfect - there are no errors in it. If someone has a Bible version that is not perfect, they don't have the Word of God, because the Bible itself claims to be perfect:

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

The word "perfect" means complete - but it also has the idea of without blemish, without spot:

The word used for perfect in the verse above is:

from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

from 5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with 3588) completeness.

The King James Bible is perfect. It is without errors or contradictions.

I guess I was thinking that there could be places where the translation made was not perfect. I don't know of any places where this is the case, I just wasn't sure if I could make the statement that the KJV is perfect and be able to back it up.

Although, I agree with what you are saying. I certainly agree that this definition of perfect would apply to the KJV
I thought this portion of this article would help with the OP.

Actually, it wasn't and isn't... Scrivener's Textus Receptus does not exactly match the text as presented in the KJB. That is why Hills was right when he said that the KJB itself was an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

Basically, instead of doing an Erasmus, or Stephanus or Beza job, the translators gathered out of multiple sources and rendered it in English. They coupled "translation" with their "textual selection" work.

I believe and present the view that the King James Bible is perfect in English because it has gathered the correct text from the original languages, and has been translated exactly, and that through a process of editorial work in time, we have the exact presentation of the King James Bible without printing error or unstandardised spelling, etc.

Can you give actual concrete difference between Scrivener's TR and the KJV?

Second that. We know bro Hill's pedigree and testimony. What's yours? I only ask because of Hill's plain statement coupled with your emphatic dissent from it. NOTE: I'm not saying one has to be a bona-fide textual scholar in order to disagree with bro. Hills. I'm simply asking if you are? Either way, you should state that to prevent your "correction" of bro Hills from sounding provocative. Your statement was provocative and I guess I got provoked :O).

And all Scrivener did was come along behind them and do a greek text whose goal was to match the KJV's greek decisions. Scrivener shows in his book (The Authorized Bible) that the KJV translators' greek decisions were no longer very well documented. So he did the next best thing: come along behind them working from english and developing a greek text that matches it.

I don't see any significant difference between your position and that of Hills'. Scrivener said ther choices were not very well documented anymore and so the only way to reproduce their greek decisions in a single text was to start from the KJV and work towards the greek with it.

I will state the case briefly as I understand it: Instead of presenting the actual underlying text to the King James Bible, Scrivener presented on occasions differences to the KJB as are to be found in some or many Greek witnesses, because he limited himself to certain Greek sources, so his work therefore, according to various reviewers, has differences at Hebrews 10:23, 1 John 5:7 and so on.

There is no exact "jot and tittle" (or iota) correct text of the Greek that is being presented today. This is because the King James Bible has gathered from a variety of sources, and presented the exact correct text in English. (It does not exist in Greek in one extant volume.) Going back to the Greek, or attempting to imitate the KJB in Greek is, once we regard the finality of the English Bible, taking a step backwards. Thus, the situation is “fait accompli”.

The real problem is that authority cannot now be in the original languages “in toto” because we cannot be entirely certain as to which sources and when the translators were following what, or whether they found (as we might expect from the title page) every last reading from the Greek for the New Testament. Therefore, we can only rely upon that we know in English, that is, the received tradition as manifested to us through the Church by Divine Providence. Additionally, Scrivener also came up with analysis of where he things that the translators followed Beza as opposed to Stephanus, etc., but all this again is "ex post facto".

Bishop Lloyd's Textus Receptus was being used as the usual Greek standard for a long time, and this is even what Burgon utalised. Having studied Scrivener's work on the King James Bible (he was a member of the Revised Version Committee after all), it is clear that this is a person who did not hesitate to make unnecessary changes.

This is actually why the Greek is secondary to the English now.

Except that Scrivener never got there, and no one can get there in or with the Greek.

I believe there is a lot of power in the argument that since we have the Bible certainly in a language we can understand, that there is no need to reconstruct in Greek, nor to use the Greek in any primary way: the authority of it was essentially transferred into the English in 1611, both in text and the sense.

1. There is no extant authoritative single presentation of the Greek text of the New Testament, nor a sure or certain method which might be employed to divine it, whereas we have a received text in English now available and manifested to the world.

2. There is no present certain understanding or meaning of every Greek word of the New Testament, nor is there a consistent method present that might be utalised to understand the Greek properly, however, we have a translation bequeathed to us in English which is the Word of God to the world.

Guesswork is not a good starting place. Scrivener has 1 John 5:7 in it - and he also has the same as all the other Greek TR texts in Hebrews 10:23. The word used there is the word for "hope", but the context shows that "faith" fits the context. The words are somewhat interchangeable (don't ask me to defend this, but I have read several great defenses of it).

Slander is not becoming of a professing believer. Yes, Scrivener was part of the committee, at first - they did not listen to his words of caution and disagreement. He did his Greek translation because he wanted to expose their corruption and changes in the underlying manuscripts. He did his text to uphold the KJV, not tear it down.

Yes there is, or we would not have an English NT - there are enough Greek lexicons out there to know the Greek NT is perfectly understandable. The problem comes from the Critical Greek texts, not the preserved TR.

Scrivener did not fully present the actual Greek text underlying the KJB, although all differences may be translational only. Those who have reviewed his work on the Greek claim that he has omitted to present in Greek where the KJB is said to be following the Latin.

First of all, I am not making a slanderous statement, as you will note, I said, "Having studied Scrivener's work on the King James Bible". I am making a statement which is factual and true. And my statement is that Scrivener made unnecessary changes to the KJB. I also believe that his work in Greek is a deviation. If you look on my website you will find a draft of my book which contains various studies linked with the Scrivener's KJB issue.

Second, while Scrivener did disagree to Westcott, Hort and the others to a point, he did not disagree enough to disavow himself of the work, nor did he hesitate to supervise the printing of their new Greek text, nor did he refrain from making remarks favourable to the Revised Version. There are numerous statements from Scrivener's book which are against the King James Bible, its tradition and its textual basis.

Third, Scrivener was not upholding the KJB. If he did, why would he have to change the constructed underlying text as presented by Lloyd? (Please let me know if there is a valid reason.) Why did he partake of the Revised Version? Why did he make numerous changes in the King James Bible himself, including altering passages such as Hebrews 10:23 in the English?

P.S. I am talking about two different things, his Greek and his English.

In regards to his Greek TR, it is the same as the KJV - from all the years I have studied it. If there are some actual differences, I have yet to find them. His work on his TR was after his work on the Revised Version - and his work on the RV is what led him to defend the TR (to whatever extent he may have done).

I don't care about his personal quirks or whether he personally disagreed with the KJV in various places - his TR is exactly the same (to the best I have been able to determine). I am not defending him and his doctrine or beliefs, but his work which I have used for years.

I said, "There is no present certain understanding or meaning of every Greek word of the New Testament, nor is there a consistent method present that might be utalised to understand the Greek properly"

Jerry said, "Yes there is, or we would not have an English NT".

Yes, I agree that the statement would be true in 1611, but I am talking about 2008. If it were true in 2008, a new valid English Bible could be produced, or further revisions on the KJB be allowed.

I stand by my statement, that we cannot be fully certain as to the full and proper meaning of every Greek word, especially since there is no full certainty as to what constitutes the actual Greek text (or otherwise sources) underlying the King James Bible.
However, it is perfectly attainable to know the meaning of every English word as is presented in the King James Bible, about which we can be certain, because we have seen and known it, touched and read it, and, in short, can study it with the Spirit's help.

The Greek NT is not "perfectly understandable", because we are living in a time when most people do not even know a little bit of Bible Greek, and those who know anything don't know that much, and those who know a lot are now dead, and we do not have all their writings or knowledge. But why this Hermetic journey into the Greek, when we may turn to the English, which God in His Divine Providence has given to us and the whole world.

And it doesn't matter which edition of any Greek text, or any manuscript, etc. is used, we still cannot be certain today of the exact meaning of every Greek word. However, we can be certain, from what we know, that the KJB translators got it right, and that the TRs are better that the CTs, and that the King James Bible is an independant form of the Received Text, and is superior because it is the perfect gathering of the text from the preserved tradition, and is also a perfect translation which matches exactly to what was inspired, though it is now presented in English.

God in His providence was able to get His preserved Word fully into English. Therefore, the Greek is of diminishing importance, except to indicate that the King James Bible is right as we now have it.

The meaning of the Greek words has not been lost. The problem with mv's is not their misunderstanding of the Greek - it is that they are using DIFFERENT Greek manuscripts.

Yes, essentially the same, but not perhaps not particularly (e.g. in every jot or tittle).

I am not saying that Scrivener was totally wrong. The truth is that it has been providential that Scrivener did defend to some point the TR. Also, without Scrivener, I think that Hills, Holland and other persons who are looking at the Greek side of the things have been able to confirm that the KJB is at least the best translation from the best Greek. Of course, I think it is a perfect translation and presents the perfect text (in English).

I am advocating that the English is perfect. Until a person comes to that belief now, I would want them to keep away from Scrivener or a lexicon. That is because we must approach such things from having the Word fully present, i.e. in our English Bible. Most people are approaching from the opposite direction.

But we do not know fully exactly the underlying sources for the KJB, and therefore know how exactly they translated every word, and so we cannot say that we fully know the Greek. Furthermore, I would suggest that the meaning of the Greek words is lost to us today to the point that we have left behind the actual gathering from Greek (i.e. from 1611). However, I fully agree that the full meaning of what was there in the originals is now in English. Of course, we cannot actually check this fully, since we do not know exactly what Greek text was being used to start with. This is besides the obvious fact that the meanings of words are attacked, for some think that "pascha" means one thing, and some another greater meaning. But we can be certain as to the English words which appear in the KJB, and study to see what they mean. What saith the scripture?

Another way of saying it all is this:

With what we know about and from the Greek today (including Scrivener's TR), we have maximum certainty, that is to say, from what we do know that we can be certain about, we can be sure that the KJB is correct and faithful to the original languages, therefore, what we do not know about, (and the Autographs which no one today can see), we must take it on the logic of faith, to which reason concurs with the doctrine of the Scripture, namely, that we do indeed have the very Word of God in English. This leads to absolute maximum certainty, of which Hills and other King James Bible believers were in the providential continuum leading toward. As it was said in the Reformation, that in time God restored truth, or what we read from Daniel, that there is an unsealing of the book.

Well, I can never agree with you that the Greek is not important or that it is inferior. It was studying out the manuscripts and the history of the manuscripts behind the King James Bible that led me to be King James Bible only (plus comparisons between various versions in English). The KJV was an exact replica of the Hebrew and Greek in English - therefore I knew it was reliable and faithful, and I could trust it in all particulars.

The Word of God in Greek has been important, indeed, the Word of God in any language is important. But the most important Bible is the King James Bible, because:
1. It is a certain text,
2. It is an exact presentation of the message that was in the Autographs, and
3. It is in the language which the world is speaking more and more.
Therefore, the most important thing is to stand for the King James Bible.

The Word of God in Greek was not inferior to the Word of God elsewhere. However, there is no perfect original Greek NT today, as there are minor variations etc. in all extant MSS and TR editions and CT editions.

But I most wholeheartedly agree that the KJB is an exact replica of the Hebrew and Greek in English, and that it is reliable and faithful, and that it should indeed be trusted in all particulars. Therefore, we have once again a witness to the world, that someone who has investigated the Greek and Hebrew, has found this to be so. Therefore, it is not required for people to investigate the Greek and Hebrew, because we have sufficient witness, including yours Jerry, that the KJB is correctly presenting the originals. Therefore, who needs to rely on the originals any more as the "standard" for checking whether the KJB is correct? No, our standard now is in receiving the Bible which divine providence has afforded to us.

Why do you keep on comparing the TR to the CT? The TR is God's preserved Word in Greek - the CT are texts that man has played around with and corrupted.

The editions of the TR are different in nature to the editions of the CT.

However, both represent "gathered" or "critical" formations of a wider body of evidence.

We know that no single CT edition is perfect, and that each one differs to another.

(There have been many attempts by modern scholars to construct critical Greek editions, and each one differs to another one because the scholars at that time might pick to follow one B reading at one place, and then next time reverse that judgment, etc.)

No single Greek TR edition is perfect. There are differences between every edition of the TR, such as the five of Erasmus, four of Stephanus, nine of Beza, etc. And so there is no single manifest authority in Greek that was utilised by the King James Bible translators. Even today, the Greek text of Scrivener's (as presented by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not exactly perfect, though we might say that it is the "common Greek representation", though people also use Berry, and maybe Lloyd's.

By perfect, I am meaning the exact text throughout, and without any spelling or other variation. I am meaning pristine and immaculate.

However, we have the exact Received Text in the King James Bible. The KJB is going to differ slightly to any individual TR edition, but it is the super-successionary form of the TR (and TR-based translations).

Just because the KJB is in English does not make it inferior to the Greek. This is because the full conceptual accuracy has passed into English. While we could say there are multiple valid English translations (e.g. Tyndale, Geneva, etc.) there is only one exact English translation that is going to be the most fully accurate and ultimately expressive of the Holy Ghost's original message.

I am not denying that a Greek TR edition was the Word of God, I am not denying that the Tyndale or Geneva Versions were the Word of God. Clearly, even the Vulgate Bible was considered to have contained the Scripture. But what we have in the King James Bible is the end of the gathering together of the words of the Scripture into one final form and finite presentation.

Differences in editions of the King James Bible are nothing to do with, and nothing like, the textual variations issue. Once the King James Bible was formed, in the providence of God, the presentation of it was worked upon, not to alter it in substance, just to make sure that even the presentation was purified in the English (clearing up printer's errors or standardising the spelling, etc.).

Considering that the KJB is the final form of God's preserved Word for the world, we may likewise see what the erroneous CTs get turned into, which clearly is man's fooling about based upon corrupt sources, and is always going away from perfection. Thus, we have one final Bible as compared to a myriad of new so-called "bibles".

This discussion is leading also to another area: that since we do not have an exact TR, and the learning of the Greek is now deficient, and that we actually have the final form of the Bible in English, it is now much better to teach foreigners and natives English, and give them the KJB, than it is to translate into their languages. After all, providential factors are indicating that English is becoming the global language, and although Hills, Holland and Cloud etc. indicate that a revision of the KJB could take place because of changes in the English language, this is now impossible because English is essentially fixed because of its universality. Therefore, English can expand, but its core form cannot be lost. Since English has ever been conducive to the KJB, and present English is also, every indication is that the KJB shall still be in the future. Therefore, Hills' deference to divine providence in this matter is entirely correct: we are observing that the KJB is the Bible for the world.

Thus, the trend of diminishing of learning and knowledge of Greek is accelerating, the factors which are causing the diminishing of all TR-based Bibles is likewise of God, for one purpose, that there is only one central Bible used by all true Christians in the whole world, the King James Bible. And even more specifically, one edition, the Pure Cambridge Edition. Considering that this has already been occurring without our conscious effort of believers, now we should allow for a conscious laying aside of other things, and adherence to one, with those other things retaining some secondary place. (Just as the Geneva Bible today is in some secondary place.)

“All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.” (Isaiah 18:3).

You are certainly entitled to your views - but that won't stop me or any serious/diligent Bible student from using sound Bible study tools, such as Strong's Concordance to understand our King James Bible better. Regardless of some people's loss of understanding, his Concordance is still in use and still gives the standard definition of Bible words - so it is still a reliable tool. I don't try to use it to retranslate the KJV, but to find out the meaning of the words as used in the KJV.

From my own study of this issue, the 1769 edition is how the 1611 was intended. The editions weren't revisions, they correcting spelling and other printing-press problems.

Some people think that because the translators didn't say their work was inspired or perfect doen't mean it wasn't. Look at 1st Corinthinas 7. Paul said that he sometimes spoke from direct commandment from the Lord, at other times he was just giving his judgment. Does that mean the things he said by his own judment weren't inspired Scripture? Peter said in 2nd Peter 3:16 that what Paul wrote was Scripture.

This brings up another question: Paul wrote a lot more letters than what is preserved in the Bible. Somehow God was able to get the right things into the holy Scriptures. By that reckoning, those who don't believe a translation can be inspired have a serious gap in their reasoning. They believe God inspired the "originals". They believe God was able to get the correct books and epistles into the canon of Scripture, but somehow couldn't see to it the Bible was translated correctly. So the question might be asked, "Why did it take 158 years to get the "bugs" out?" Simple: Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them...This also answers the question about "Where was the English Bible before 1611?" I honestly believe God worked with Tyndale. I don't believe God worked with any of the modern translators. I don't see any proof of it, especially since the "errors" are intentional and deliberate.

Again I ask, if the KJB isn't God's Word preserved in English, which one of the over 300 English versions is? They all say different things. They can't all be right. I believe the AV1611 has Proven itself over and over again. What the opponents of this belief offer is nothing, because to them, there is no perfect English Bible.

Consider this: Paul did not give personal opinions - but declared whether what he was stating was something Jesus addressed previously or not during His public ministry. All that he said in 1 Corinthians was Scripture inspired directly by God - but not all that he dealt with was previously addressed in the Gospels.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (ie. not by previous commands given in Jesus' sermons/discourses)

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (Jesus previously addressed the issue of divorce and remarriage)

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (Now he is given new instruction, not previously addressed by Jesus.)

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. (Jesus never addressed this during His public ministry)

1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. (Peter confirms that all that Paul wrote was given by God)

The rest of Paul's statements in that chapter would fit under either category (either giving new revelation or building upon something the Lord had already addressed publicly)

Not being pushy, but this is still an unsubstantiated claim on your part. You may be right. I honestly do not know. But the project was a good one and he may have actually accomplished it. I'll continue to assume he was successful until you show me a case of his Greek that CANNOT under any circumstances be translated from the KJV the way he did.


This is quite true and is the lesson that all modern bible correctors need to learn. Equally true, however, is just because the Scrivener TR is in greek doesn't make it inferior to the english.


Again, this is your claim. You have not as yet proved your claim.

I believe this to be a false extreme. Its better to do for them what Tyndale did for us. . .translate the Scripture into their languages. You may do well to translate the KJV into other languages (this is all Scrivener did for his TR). Others will do well to translate their bibles into other languages.

My understanding is that he found the manuscripts that corresponded to each part of the KJV - not creating a Greek text, but compiling one/revising one from the editions of the TR at his hand.

This is a statement from someone who clearly does not believe that full revelation is in the English alone, that is to say, in the King James Bible alone. While various things may be defined as helps, and are therefore useful, they can never be the standard by which knowledge is judged. Strong's Concordance is quite imperfect and not fully reliable. Not totally wrong, but not totally right. This is the same with all Greek studies and so on today. Even the modernists will have some correct things in what they say and teach. The problem is that anyone who is appealing to the Greek in this way is really denying that we have the Word of God perfectly, fully and exactly in English. They are saying that somehow there is more revelation to be got by considering other sources, sources which differ (even minutely) to the King James Bible (e.g. Strong's, Scrivener's TR, etc.). But all the necessary fullness is there with the King James Bible, and other sources should be used in subjection to it.

To go about in the opposite way is to find that there is no ultimate authority. For example, if you start from the Greek, and then say the King James Bible is accurate, there is one problem, and that is that there is no ultimately perfect form of Greek to which you can actually show and see that the King James Bible is accurate. Now, we know that the King James Bible is accurate to the Greek, but we have no final standard of appeal in any Greek text or any concordance to "prove" the King James Bible correct. Rather, what we have is the King James Bible, and many witnesses which generally approve of it.

I said: "it is now much better to teach foreigners and natives English, and give them the KJB, than it is to translate into their languages."

I stand by this as the approach Christians should be tending toward now, and pursuing from now on.

It seems "extreme" to say teach them English, because throughout history the Word of God has rightly gone into other languages. However, the world is now learning English, and this means that we can have one Bible, which we know is perfect, rather than many different versions. The problem is that there are tiny differences between all TR editions, and tiny differences between all TR-based translations (just look at the ongoing saga surrounding the Spanish TR-based translation).

What Tyndale did was very good, and what the others did for other languages likewise. But the Scripture is indicating something more:

"For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isaiah 28:11).

"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9).

To have another tongue besides Hebrew for the Word of God to come to the Jews must mean English. To have a pure language to know things properly in the time from now on must be the language of the King James Bible. This is because ONE FINAL language is being indicated.

Certainly it would be better to translate the King James Bible into another language than probably any particular Greek TR edition, and it is reported that this occurred in the Missionary Movement. But we have advanced beyond that time, where the Reformation learning has almost failed, where the modern version thinking has taken over, and most especially where all the indications of divine providence are that English is the global language and that the King James Bible is correct and most fitting to be the world wide Bible for the true Church Remnant.

Yes, but there has been some slight changes since 1769 in the Cambridge Edition. E.g. 1769 has "Beer-sheba, Sheba" at Joshua 19:2. Oxford now has "Beer-sheba, and Sheba", while Cambridge has "Beer-sheba, or Sheba". So, the correct form or edition is the Pure Cambridge Edition.

I would call correcting spelling and printing press problems by editors a "revision", but not the kind of revision that actually changes the work (e.g. underlying text and translation), it is just really things like copy-editing.

Yes, but the Word of God was only given once by inspiration, and everything else is copies. We have preservation of the original inspiration in the KJB, not re-inspiration. The people who see the King James Bible as perfect should see it so because of divine providence (the God who is powerful enough to use earthly means to get the Word from what Paul wrote to be chosen and correctly rendered by the KJB translators), not because of some theory that the translators were "inspired" from 1604-1611.

I agree. The KJB is exactly perfect. No exactly jot and tittle perfect Bible exists in any other language or other English Bible, though there are (or have been) many good Bibles around, e.g. TR editions, Geneva, Luther, R-V Spanish, etc. etc.

I believe the KJV is perfect - however, I believe many who read the KJV are ignorant of what the words mean - their understanding is imperfect. However, with Strong's Concordance I have definitions of every single word in my KJV Bible - and those definitions have never contradicted or corrected the KJV. I would rather stick with a Strong's than wing it and think I got all the English figured out and come up with my own wacky made up definitions (and yes, I have seen some people that do this).

I agree with what you have said concerning the KJB and that some people do make up wrong things. However, I disagree concerning having complete reliance in Strong's Concordance, because Strong's is not the authority on defining the meaning of English words, and it does contradict or stray away from the KJB English in several respects, especially by giving meanings other than what the KJB means.

1. Strong's pronunciations of the Hebrew are incorrect. E.g. "jod" is given as "yod". And so 3068 wrongly says "Yehovah".

2. 3070 says that "jireh" means "Jehovah will see (to it)", contradicting the interpretation of Genesis 22:14.

3. 7214, that is, unicorn, is said to mean "a wild bull". Even the LXX interpreters knew that it was "monoceros", one horn, i.e. unicorn of the KJB, not a wild bull.

4. 5959, the word which is in the prophecy about Mary in Isaiah 7:14, could therefore mean "a lass", "damsel, maid, virgin". But it must be "virgin".

5. 5775 is said to be a bird, a creature covered with feathers, etc., and yet even the Oxford English dictionary knows better, and Leviticus 11:19 lists one of the fowls as the bat: which are neither birds nor feathered. Leviticus 11:20 speaks of insects: these fowl are not feathered or birds.

6. 7549. Strong's thinks that firmament should be "expanse", and indicates that the word was only given because the sky apparently looks like an arch, when in reality it is a substantial barrier with firmness.

7. 8476. Badger. Strong's considers it to mean "antelope".

8. I would venture that numerous other examples may be given of such problems in Strong's Hebrew-English definitions.

9. Relying upon today's knowledge of Greek, as exemplified by Strong's, what should "pneuma" be rendered as in Acts 11:12 and 11:28?

10. And many other examples from the Greek, including his false claim that Jesus was speaking Chaldean (Syriack, now called Aramaic) at Mark 7:34, 15:34, etc., read John 19:17 and Acts 1:19 especially, and see what Strong's says about the proper Hebrew there. (He does not believe that the KJB is right to use the word "Hebrew".)

Strong's is clearly not an infallible authority, and numerous times imperfect or wrong.

Moreover, we cannot be certain that Strong used the correct underlying text word at every place, that is, the word he is presenting in the original language.

And we can be certain that Strong did not use a Cambridge Edition of the KJB, though this has no bearing on the underlying issues.

We find that the Scripture instructs us how to find the meaning of the words of the Bible, such as Proverbs chapter 1, which says it is in the law (of God), and Psalm 119:99 also shows where we should turn to. Therefore, I let the KJB be right, and Strong's wrong, though there are still uses for Strong's etc. once we have our priorities right. For many at the moment it would be better if they got rid of their Strong's.

Who is giving the jot and tittle exact rendering at Phil. 2:21?

KJB: Jesus Christ

SCRIVENER’S GREEK TR: Christ Jesus

And 1 John 2:23?

KJB: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

SCRIVENER'S GREEK TR (MAIN TEXT): Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father

Better to have an objective dictionary defining the words in my Bible, than have some subjective one - which I have seen happen too many times. You will never convince me not to use an objective source. While I have not yet looked up the examples you have given, some of it seems to be nitpicking. Such as the word almah in Hebrew - it means virgin, it is translated as other various words in English (though all those passages still imply the women were virgins, pure).

If you know ANYTHING about Greek, you know that it is not the same as English, and word order is not determined by the way the sentence is in Greek, but by the forms of the verbs, etc. So nitpicking that the phrase is backwards in the TR is silly.

What I am really driving at is that there is no ultimately reliable extant presentation of the Bible outside of the King James Bible, and that we must have every jot and tittle correct and every word pure, and everything in its order, (despite allegations of "nitpicking"), because God is holy, pure and perfect, and is powerful enough to be able to ensure that His Word in the Earth is presented exactly properly.

Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 is definitely, certainly, surely, perfectly "virgin", and since we now have the exact presentation, we cannot allow any other possibility.

And Philippians 2:21 is definitely, certainly, surely, perfectly "Jesus Christ", and since we now have the exact presentation, we cannot allow any other possibility.

To have the "possibility" view, even "limited possibility", you might be allowing all TR editions, which are all slightly different. Or allow all "good translations", which are all slightly different. Maybe just the King James Bible and its margins, which certainly differ to each other. Or perhaps just King James Bible editions, which do differ in jots and tittles to each other. But in all this, there is not one certain final standard of appeal. Not unless we have one presentation of the King James Bible, witnessed to in multitudes, delivered by God's providence, superintended over by the Holy Ghost, received by believers, and exalted in the time to come.

If “Jesus Christ” could yet be legitimately rendered “Christ Jesus”, this is the same as allowing “virgin” to be changed to “maiden”. Why? Because changing the word order of the Scripture is changing the Word of God as much as the changes of modernists are changes to the truth.

Objective sources are no final standard of appeal: only God’s Word, which is completely the truth. It is according to the logic of faith to start with God’s Word as true, and then examine everything on that basis, and see everything match up, and it authenticate itself, and verify that it is indeed the truth. The opposite approach, which seems plausible, is false, namely, to start from having no truth, and then to find what is most likely true based on some non-absolute truth way of examining, which can never be certain that any of its conclusions are true anyway. This is because faith was lacking from the outset.

If no one minds, I would like to weigh in on this. I believe the KJB is God's Word, infallible and without error. However, I also believe that it is also infallible in other languages, too. True, if any Bible in any other language says and/or means something different than the KJB does in English, then it is not God's Word. I personally believe it is careless to say God preserved the Bible in English only. Don't forget, the KJB has been translated into over 800 other languages itself.