View Single Post
  #8  
Old 05-14-2008, 08:22 AM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Way back when James White was writing his book, I "chatted" with him on a pre-Internet message relay system called Fidonet. At the time, I was newly "converted" to the "KJVO" position and considered the term a smear. White certainly intended it as a smear when he used it.

Anyway, I no longer care if the term was originally meant as a pejorative. Most KJB believers I know are happy to call themselves "King James Only" now. It is, for me, accurate enough.

Although I believe God preserved his words in the original Hebrew and Greek (the Masoretic and the TR), the evidence is plain that there does not exist a single correct and completely collated presentation of God's word in those languages. (That's what Scrivener was trying to create with his edition of the TR.)

If we believe that the KJV translators did a completely accurate job translating God's word and selecting the correct source readings, then it logically follows that we have no true need for the "originals" any more.

It has been said that some people believe that the KJV can be used to "correct the Greek" (TR). I think the TR-only scholars who laugh at this are missing the point -- since we do not have the exact TR text that the KJV translators used as their basis for translation, and yet we have faith that the KJV is 100% correct, we can in fact use it to "correct" any particular edition of the TR. The KJV is a variant of the TR and if we accept it as authoritative, it can be used to select TR readings. However, while Scrivener's attempt at creating a KJV-based-TR is laudable, it did not yield a "perfect TR," so we are left concluding that the knowledge required to purely do so simply does not exist right now. And why should it? God has his pure English Bible; nobody speaks the "Biblical original languages" any more, so what's the need?