[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I never said it was absent. If you look up 1 John 5:7 in Scrivener’s text from 1894, you will see that the typography on the words appears different there. You should be able to see that the presentation there makes a distinction. It detracts from the purity and certainty of those words.

I could care less about typography. The fact of the matter is that 1 Jn. 5:7 is there. Period. End of story.

Who cares about whether Scrivener believed it belonged there or not? If I was supposed to care about that perhaps I should also worry about what all 47 of the KJV translators believed about renderings they may have questioned in their own text. Fortunately worrying is not necessary because the fact is that these men did an honest work by simply adhering to the evidence.

Scrivener's goal as commissioned was to produce a Greek text that matches the KJV word for word. And that's what he did. And until you can provide specific examples (additions or omissions) where his text conflicts with the KJV your claim that it doesn't is false. His text is innocent until proven guilty.

The KJB does match the TR, but the KJB does not match any specific extant Greek edition exactly.

Yes it does. Scrivener's 1894 Greek NT.

What you have to understand is that the editions you point to are critical apparatuses.

Wrong. The Masoretes didn't use critical apparatuses as they believed they were copying the very words of Moses and the Prophets in Hebrew handed down from generation to generation (Ps. 78:1-8).

As such, they do not exhibit a single text, but one which may be viewed once variants and sidenotes are taken into account (or rejected).

LOL. The Masoretic text doesn't contain variants and sidenotes. (I have a copy of Bomberg's Hebrew Masoretic text.) Where do you come up with this stuff?

Bomberg’s Hebrew was not the sole basis of the KJB.

There you go again, putting words into people's mouth. Shame, shame on you. There is no single text that the KJV translators based their work on since they used a wide variety of texts for their work. That's not the point. The point is that the Bomberg Masoretic text is the Hebrew text that contains the very Hebrew words that underlie the KJV.

Scrivener’s TR was made long after the KJB was complete.

So what? Big deal. The point is that there is an edition of the TR that matches the KJV exactly and its Scrivener's text. And if this is not so all you have to do is provide specific examples where Scrivener's text conflict with the KJV. This can be done with other editions of the TR (though on very rare occasions). But not with Scrivener's since the whole purpose of his text was to produce an edition of the TR that matched the KJV exactly.

There are textual variations and various (albeit minor) issues with these single texts.

Prove it.

They are not perfect.

Prove it.

They do not perfectly and exactly match the KJB.

Prove it. Specific examples please.

They are only particular representatives in the original languages which are good, but not pure and perfect.

Got evidence?

Are you really saying that these two editions are infallible down to the jot and tittle?

You're saying they aren't. All you have to do is PROVE IT with evidence. Specific examples. Additions or deletions. What are they?

How can you explain the perfection of these editions since the KJB might be following a marginal rendering or a differing word order?

Forget about what "might be"! I want specific examples (evidence) that proves that the texts mentioned above conflict with the KJV. Give it to me.

This is besides the fact that no one can be exactly sure when, in every last place, what words the KJB men might actually have been following.

Quit speaking with ambiguities and tell me where the Hebrew and Greek texts I mentioned above conflict with the KJB. If you can't, swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.

Moreover, there are yet controversies over the meanings of words in the original languages. It is true that the KJB resolves this, but we do not actually have an identical form in the original languages for final and complete comparison.

Proof please.

Then why do you need the Hebrew and Greek, since it 100% in the English?

For the umpteenth time I NEVER SAID YOU NEEDED THE HEBREW AND GREEK TO UNDERSTAND THE KING JAMES BIBLE. What I said is that consulting the Hebrew and Greek is an option if the student wishes to do so and that he is not a Bible corrector in doing so.

Now until you can provide specific examples to prove your claim that the Bomberg Masoretic text and Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus doesn't line up with the KJV 100% of the time this conversation between you and me is over. God bless.