As to the KJV being written in 1611, if it is truly based on the Textus Receptus - the common tongue of the people, then the Word of God has been faithfully held and preserved since the day that pen was set to paper and sent to the churches by the Apostles.
My stand on the KJB is based on faith in a God that promised He would preserve His Word faithfully unto all generations, which is why I prefer the term "biblicist" to "fundamentalist"
I knew it would come to this.
As to the KJV being written in 1611, if it is truly based on the Textus Receptus - the common tongue of the people, then the Word of God has been faithfully held and preserved since the day that pen was set to paper and sent to the churches by the Apostles.
First off, can you prove that claim?
Fact, we know for a fact that the first "copies" came just a little over a century after the last Apostle died.
And another fact, there was no "standard" of "canon" until AD 200 and later.
Let me point this out to you:
"Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early date. Reuss says, "It may be asserted with tolerable certainty that the farther back we go in the history of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." Differences between New Testament manuscripts appeared within a century of the time of its composition, and additions and alterations introduced by heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. Tischendorf says, "I have no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him. Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a century and a half at least, the greatest freedom was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament writings. These writings were not originally regarded as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were made for the use of individual communities, and with no thought of placing them on the same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, and little scruple in making alterations.
Variants meet us as soon as quotations from the apostolic writings occur at all in later authors, and that both in catholic and heretical writers. Heretics felt the necessity of seeking for their peculiar doctrines a support which should secure for them a place within the church with whose tradition they were, at many points, in conflict. Thus they were driven to interpret the apostolic writings in harmony with their own systems.
Accordingly, we find, in the earlier Apologists, allusions to wilful corruptions and misinterpretations. Thus, Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III, 12) declares that "the others (besides Marcion), though they acknowledge the Scriptures, pervert their interpretation." Tertullian (De Præsc. Hær. XXXVIII) says that Marcion and Valentinus change the sense by their exposition. "Marcion," he continues, "has used a sword, not a pen; while Valentinus has both added and taken away." Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke in the interest of his antijudaistic views, although it should be said that some of his variations were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation in his time. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius go through his work in detail, indicating the mutilation point by point.
Such perversions called forth attempts at textual criticism. Origen (Comm. on Matthew) remarks on the diversity of copies arising either from the negligence of scribes or the presumption of correctors. He frequently discusses various readings, and comments upon the comparative value of manuscripts and the weight of numerical testimony. He seldom attempts to decide on the right reading, being rather inclined to accept all conflicting readings as contributing to edification. His value is in reproducing the characteristic readings which he found. There is no sufficient evidence of a general revision of the text by him, as maintained by Hug.
Again, minute care was not exercised in the preparation of manuscripts. In some cases they appear to have issued from a kind of factory, where the work of transcribing was carried on on a large scale. Portions of the same manuscript seem to have been copied from different exemplars and by different hands, and it does not appear to have been thought necessary to compare the two exemplars, or to harmonise the disagreements. Moreover, changes of reading were introduced by individual bishops, who had the sole authority over the public reading of Scripture, and these changes, unless very violent, would soon become as familiar as the old readings, and would pass into the versions."
A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Marvin Vincent, 1899, Part I, Part II, Textual Criticism of the Early Church.
That right there blows that assertion out of the water.
My stand on the KJB is based on faith in a God that promised He would preserve His Word faithfully unto all generations, which is why I prefer the term "biblicist" to "fundamentalist"
Salvation by faith in the finished work of the risen Savior, has been preserved for all time.
However, the assertion of God "preserving" His word in the KJV is ridiculous.
Fact, we also know that the KJ Translators made heavy use of Theodore Beza's Codex D. The problem with that is careful study shows that at least 18 different scribes, at 18 different times worked on that Greek MS.
Also, are you aware that until the 14th century, there is no record of the phrase "Holy Ghost"?
There is no reference in the scriptures of "holy ghost". The ones that are there, are incorrect.
Another fact: the earliest "gospel" written would be that of Mark. Written about AD 65. By this time, Luke was nearly 3/4's of the way done writing the book of Acts. Fact: Luke set the precedence that every Apostle would follow thereafter. Throughout the book of Acts the third person of the Trinity is always referred to as "pneuma" (spirit).
"Pneuma" (wind, air) is identified by Luke in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit descends at Pentecost by the description "as a mighty rushing
wind. "Pneuma" is also where we get our English word "pneumatic".
Luke uses the Greek word "pneumatos", yet the KJ Translators rendered it as "ghost". A completely different Greek word! (φάντασμα, phantasma)
You ABSOLUTELY will not find in ANY of the Greek MSS the phrase "agios phantasma" (Holy Ghost)!
In each any every reference to the 3rd person of the Trinity, scripture always uses the Greek word "pneuma" and NEVER phantasma!
In fact, the Greek word "Phantasma" always refers to the evil, undead.
Example: we read in the Textus Receptus:
"οἱ δέ, ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἔδοξαν
φάντασμά εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· -Mk. 6:49
The bolded word is:
Original Word: φάντασμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: phantasma
Phonetic Spelling: (fan'-tas-mah)
Short Definition: an apparition, ghost, spirit
Definition: an apparition, ghost, spirit, phantom.
Source
Here the obvious reference is a "disembodied siprit, "ghost"" of a dead person.
Nowhere in the scriptures will you find one reference to the Holy Spirit as such.
Here is another example:
"For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the
Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.' -Lk. 1:15 (KJV)
Here is an example where the KJ translators got it wrong.
In The Greek, it reads:
"ἔσται γὰρ μέγας ἐνώπιον [τοῦ] κυρίου, καὶ οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ μὴ πίῃ, καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ," -Lk. 1:15 (GNT)
And there is your proof. "πνεύματος ἁγίου" (Holy Spirit).
I do not see the phrase "ἁγίου φάντασμα" (holy ghost)
Want more?
God Bless
Till all are one.
