[bibleprotector]

I could care less about typography.

Jesus does. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

Scrivener's goal as commissioned was to produce a Greek text that matches the KJV word for word. And that's what he did.

This is naïveté. Scrivener’s text only closely underlies the KJB, which he made by constructing a supposed Greek text which lays underneath the KJB. Yet, in reality the KJB men drew from many sources and witnesses.

His text is innocent until proven guilty.

His text shall be judged by the standard of the KJB itself. There cannot be two standards. But we have to see why Scrivener’s Greek is not “the standard”. The reasons include that the world does not know Greek, and that controversy covers the exact content of the Greek. (Why would God providentially raise up Scrivener’s Greek since he turned the globe to English anyway?!!)

Of course, it is not up to me to show every last problem with Scrivener (though they may be few and slight), but to lift up the perfect standard of the pure KJB.

Yes it does. Scrivener's 1894 Greek NT.

No it doesn’t.

One example I know of is Philippians 2:21 which Scrivener has made, in his Greek, “Christ Jesus”. When in fact the proper rendering is “Jesus Christ’s”. Now people can say that the word order is different in Greek, but in reality, the order of “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” is right in the KJB, and seems to match to the KJB in other passages.

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).

I don’t doubt that they were accurate, but they certainly used NOTES which form a critical apparatus in the traditional sense.

a. The Masoretic text gets its name from the notes. Holland says, “Masoretic comes from the Hebrew word masora, referring to the marginal notes added by Jewish scribes and scholars of the Middle Ages (known as the Masoretes).”

b. Scrivener says, “Where the variation in the reading was brought prominently into view by the Masoretic notes ... Respecting the Hebrew text which they [1611] followed, it would be hard to identify any particular edition, inasmuch as the differences between early printed Bibles are but few. The Complutensian Polyglot ... was of course at hand, and we seem to trace its influence at some places, e.g. in 2 Chron. 1:5 ... Job 22:6 ... 1 Chron. 6:57 ... Ps. 64:6 ... In Job 30:11, 22 the Authorized Version prefers Keri to Chetiv.

c. Hills says:
"Along side the text, called kethibh (written), the Jewish scribes had placed in the margin of their Old Testament manuscripts certain variant readings, which they called keri (read). Some of these keri appear in the margin of the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 100:3 the King James text gives the kethibh, It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves, but the King James margin gives the keri, It is He that hath made us, and His we are. And sometimes the keri is placed in the King James text (16 times, according to Scrivener). For example, in Micah 1:10 the King James text gives the keri, in the house of Aphrah roll thyself in the dust. The Hebrew kethibh, however, is, in the house of Aphrah I have rolled myself in the dust.

"Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King James text reads, O Jacob, with the Hebrew kethibh but the King James margin reads, O God of Jacob, which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ."

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 certainly has more than just Scripture printed on each page.

The point is that the Bomberg Masoretic text is the Hebrew text that contains the very Hebrew words that underlie the KJV.

This implicitly denies the possibility of using the Vulgate, LXX, Chaldee etc. as sources. The KJB men were not locked to a witness printed in 1525.

The 1611 men themselves said: “Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin; no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch”. And of course the former English Bibles. This means they were not Bomberg-onlyists!

The point is that there is an edition of the TR that matches the KJV exactly and its Scrivener's text.

Except it doesn’t.

This is what Burgon said, which may shed some light on the issue: “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”

Moreover, “But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’”

Prove it.

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

With the NT this is easy to point out: the editions of Erasmus all differ to each other, as do the editions of Stephanus and Beza. And Scrivener’s TR differs also. The Vulgate differs to them all, NT and OT. With the OT the Complutensian differs to the Bomberg. So which edition of these is the right one? ANSWER: THE KJB!

Prove it. Specific examples please.

They differ one to another. They differ to the KJB. Therefore no extant edition in the originals is perfect.

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.

The KJB is standard. The KJB is different to these editions. Therefore the KJB is perfect.

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.

I have not made an exhaustive inquiry into all the defects of the Scrivener TR, but I suggest that some of the problems with it could be found in the listings I have at http://bibleprotector.99k.org/S.htm

The issue is this:

I am saying the KJB is primary, final, total authority.

You are saying that Bomberg and Scrivener are equal with the KJB.

I am pointing out that NO Bible OR any original language document is equal to the KJB today. None of them match the exactness and perfection of the KJB. They exhibit textual, translational, presentational and (in various individual cases) conceptual variations.