[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

BP, thank you for your reply, it is obvious from your posts that you have a passion and depth of knowledge for this issue.

I am afraid I don't understand your position though. How can the AV be perfect if the mss that it was translated from are not perfect?

I have the feeling that I am about to learn something, but at this point you have me totally lost.

Suppose you have three copies made by school children who wrote down what they observed written in chalk in a classroom:

One says, "ABCDEFGHIJ...LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ."
Another says, "ABCDEFGH...JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
Another one says, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY..."

The chalk was rubbed away long ago, but you have the three paper copies. You would be able to construct correctly what was written in chalk, even though it might now be some time later.

That is a very simple illustration of how the KJB is compared to the present copies and editions we have of Hebrew and Greek.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Suppose you have three copies made by school children who wrote down what they observed written in chalk in a classroom:

One says, "ABCDEFGHIJ...LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ."
Another says, "ABCDEFGH...JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
Another one says, "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY..."

The chalk was rubbed away long ago, but you have the three paper copies. You would be able to construct correctly what was written in chalk, even though it might now be some time later.

That is a very simple illustration of how the KJB is compared to the present copies and editions we have of Hebrew and Greek.

That is not where I thought you were going. I was afraid you were going to say that the translation of 1611 was a new revelation or some such.

Correct me if I am wrong, do you believe that God has preserved His Word in full in the original languages, but that that preservation is spread amongst various manuscripts so that no single manuscript contains the perfect Word of God in full? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to better understand your position.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

That is not where I thought you were going. I was afraid you were going to say that the translation of 1611 was a new revelation or some such.

Correct me if I am wrong, do you believe that God has preserved His Word in full in the original languages, but that that preservation is spread amongst various manuscripts so that no single manuscript contains the perfect Word of God in full? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to better understand your position.

God's Word has been fully preserved, but scattered. That is to say, that among all the various copies in the original languages, and in other sources as well (e.g. Latin), the true Word of God is to be found. We are talking about the text, every last letter.

But when you look at each individual manuscript, while that might be the Word of God, it will have some variations in it. Moreover, there is no single edition in the Greek which has the entire New Testament perfectly. They are right, good and have been useful, but they had variations and other issues (such as missing portions), so there is no extant perfect Greek Testament that matches the autographs exactly.

However, by gathering out of many sources, first the editors of the Textus Receptus were able to reconstruct the New Testament to a greater level of accuracy. Also, the early Protestant English translations were improvements in the area of better portraying the sense in English. Thus, eventually, the King James Bible, which considered many sources and a variety of witnesses, gathered perfectly, so we have a final text which matches what was first inspired in the autographs, and translation which gives fully and completely the sense in English.