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.
|