[bibleprotector]

I find your comments interesting. What you are not able to discern is that even in this very passage, Nehemiah uses Aramaic terms. Since I cannot debate Hebrew/Aramaic with someone who lacks those language skills, I will simply have to go my own way.

The debate is really about whether using the original languages is needful in order to understand/study Scripture today.

Second is whether using the “Aramaic” is correct. For example, the King James Bible shows that Chaldee-Syriack was used in the Old Testament at times. (As an aside, Christ or the New Testament people did NOT use “Aramaic”, but Greek and Hebrew. There is plenty of evidence to show that Hebrew was the proper tongue of the Jews in circa 30 A.D.)

While I allow for textual criticism among all of the versions, you apply your own textual criticism to your version.

There are two kinds of criticism being spoken of here, and I am talking about the lower, scientific type, namely, criticism in the Greek language and criticism in the English.

Textual criticism really means selecting what readings belong. That was already settled in 1611, when the KJB men revised the former English translations, and finalised the text, as was gathered from the original languages, but also with regard of other sources, like the Rabbis, Fathers, Latin, other versions and translations, and other Protestant translations. That textual criticism is no more issue: except versus anyone who does not accept the King James Bible as perfect and/or the final text.

The English textual criticism is merely like how people treat Shakespeare or anything else, except that because it is the Word of God, we see God’s direct hand in it. We see that the spelling of a word may be altered, like “bee” to “be”, but this is never a change from meaning the buzzing insect to the word “be”. And so this type of internal textual criticism is vastly different to the type that says “what words from the scattered sources actually constitute God’s Word”, we are merely saying, “what jots and tittles in their order should be in the presentation of the already settled from 1611 final form of the text”.

If you think the warning in Rev 22 applies to me, you should rethink this. Discard your various KJV versions and get the original KJV 1611 facsimile. The Cambridge edition has thousands of "jot" and "tittle" changes.

This is misinformation at best, and outright deception at worst. There are not different “versions” of the King James Bible, as though the 1638, 1769 and Pure Cambridge Edition are any different to the 1611 in regards to text-form and translation.

Moreover, no change of spelling or wording between 1611 to 1769 and to the Pure Cambridge Edition can be said to be actually anything but progressive clarification of the proper meaning, which is to say, purification of the presentation. Thus, to change from “Iesvs” to “Jesus” is only a purification in the jot and tittle, and nothing to do with actually altering the text-form or translation. Thus, hundreds of such examples, whether of “he” (1611) to “she” (1611 to present), which was merely a printer’s error, or of “burnt” (1611) to “burned” (1769 to present) which was merely standardisation of the language, can never constitute a change in actual meaning, in that the true meaning was intended at every place all along.

Revelation 22 allows for the purification of the presentation, otherwise we would be locked to printers’ errors and endless variations in spelling, etc. But Revelation 22 does not allow for actual changes to the Word of God, which would happen if we changed so much as “abideth” to “abides”, let alone “strain at” to “strain out”.