The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[robycop3]

Incorrect, I have chosen the KJ after decades of research into the history of the Christian Bible, the MSS, Textual Criticism, the Reformation, and modern Bibles.

So, actually, you retrogressed. The makers of newer versions had many more mss. to work with, as well as easier means to read them, such as modern lighting, plus, they built on the knowledge of those who went before them, as the AV men did from the work of Tyndale, Coverdale, etc. And later, they had easy internet access to almost any ms. they wanted.

I welcome a discussion on this subject. But of course, you would be required to actually support any and all accusations against the KJ, preferably from an unbiased source. Please, by all means, put forth you best presentation to prove that the KJ “came about from a cultic, dishonest origin”. You've said it; now you need to support it with facts.
No, you have the opinion of modern scholarship that is based upon rules made by men who deny the inspiration of Scripture, as well as the equal authority of the OT and NT. The problem is, you have simply accepted the word of modern scholarship, and have no idea of its roots and origin. The very net you have cast to ensnare me, will be the net that proves you wrong. The real question is, could you honestly pray to God right now and ask Him to allow you to see the facts of history for what they are, and accept the outcome, no matter what? That is what I had to do about 15 years ago. I had dug so deep, that I wondered, (and sometimes feared), what I may find; but my desire to know the truth was greater. Please, present your case.

First, I said that the KJVO MYTH - not the KJV - came from cultic, dishonest sources. And I presented the facts of that point long ago. I reminded everyone that the modern edition of the KJVO myth was developed from three "foundation books" - Our Authorized bible Vindicated (1930) by SDA OFFICIAL Dr. Ben Wilkinson, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955) by J. J. Ray, & Which Bible? (1970 by Dr. D. O. Fuller. Ray legally plagiarized from Dr. W, a CULT OFFICIAL, while Dr. F copied from both, while not revealing Dr. W's cult affiliation. And Ray & Fuller used modern media to hype their wares. That's the cultic, dishonest origin of today's KJVO myth.

One need only to study the methodology of the Jews copying their MSS to see the standard of God. Sinaiticus is loaded with corrections upon corrections (as many as 10 generations of editing for the same portions). Such poor quality would never have been accepted by true copycats. The agreement between the Byzantine texts is in line with what we would expect from true scribes.

Are you talking about the originals, or the copies?

The originals were written by men whom God directly told to write, or by those who were in the middle of certain events. I believe God allowed the originals to become dust so they wouldn't become icons of worship as the "Holy Grail" was. And we don't know who made copies of what, when or where.

The first thing you must do is stop using the naturalistic view. God had each writer write according to what He wanted the writer to portray Him as. It wasn’t Matthew ‘borrowing” from Mark, each writer wrote the words God wanted them to write.
You need to distinguish between the difference in the four gospels BECAUSE they present four portrayals; and the differences in the MSS that support each of the gospels. The MSS that support each individual gospel should be in total agreement. E.g. All MSS of Matthew should be in agreement, but we have already seen that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree on the text of Matthew 6:7 … having υποκριται (hypocrites) – Βג syrcur
and
εθνικοι (gentiles) – Aleph

Then YOU need to do the same thing with newer Bible versions. You're using a double standard, because the KJV is your "pet" version.

Remember, JESUS used a different "version" when He read aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21, calling it "this Scripture". (Compare those verses in Luke with Isaiah 42:7, & 61:1-3.)

I believe the Reformation Bibles were good translations, but not as good as the KJ

And I believe the KJV was good, but not as good as several NEWER translations that are in OUR English style.

And you're still facing that big ole bear of a fact that the KJVO myth has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, which makes that myth DOA! That fact is NOT going away !

 

[Dr. Jack]

So, actually, you retrogressed. The makers of newer versions had many more mss. to work with, as well as easier means to read them, such as modern lighting, plus, they built on the knowledge of those who went before them, as the AV men did from the work of Tyndale, Coverdale, etc. And later, they had easy internet access to almost any ms. they wanted.

And now I hear you echoing the words of German Rationalism once again. You keep using man's ability as the controlling factor of better MSS, and better Bibles.

If God directed Erasmus to the key MSS that were closest to the originals as a base text to build a perfect Greek Text, why would he need any manuscript that God didn't lead him to include for his stage of the work?

I've heard James White talk about this referring to both Erasmus and the KJ translators ... He asks ... Can we really trust those Anglicans to get it right?
(What he's doing is throwing a cast of doubt.)

I would then say to James White, I don't know, you tell me, after all, it was the same Anglican Church that brought us the 1881 Greek Text, along with the 1881 English Revised Version. Just 270 years later.

First, I said that the KJVO MYTH - not the KJV - came from cultic, dishonest sources. And I presented the facts of that point long ago. I reminded everyone that the modern edition of the KJVO myth was developed from three "foundation books" - Our Authorized bible Vindicated (1930) by SDA OFFICIAL Dr. Ben Wilkinson, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955) by J. J. Ray, & Which Bible? (1970 by Dr. D. O. Fuller. Ray legally plagiarized from Dr. W, a CULT OFFICIAL, while Dr. F copied from both, while not revealing Dr. W's cult affiliation. And Ray & Fuller used modern media to hype their wares. That's the cultic, dishonest origin of today's KJVO myth.

In post #2 you stated the following ...

Ever wonder where KJVO-the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there came from? Here's the skinny:

In 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God's holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". Apparently, Wilkinson didn't bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon's writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

There's no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White's writings, placing them on a par with Scripture. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

In 1955, someone called J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, "God Wrote Only One Bible". Ray copied much of Dr. W's book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W's book. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W's permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown, but at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

Now, try Googling "J. J. Ray" in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I've found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published any book. Ray's company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, "J. J. Ray" is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN(or woman) OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, "Ray" was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published "Which Bible?"(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn't bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W's CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public's attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

Now, while Ray's plagiarism and Fuller's deliberate omission of W's CULT AFFILIATION might've been legal, it was certainly DISHONEST, not something any devout Christian would do!

Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 1964 works, "Manuscript Evidence" and "Bible Babel". These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson's and Ray's books, repeating many of their booboos, such as the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie". and copying an erroneous chart from Ray's book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray's book as "God Only Wrote One Book", which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman's work. However, Ruckman's works was not among the "foundation stones" of the KJVO myth, as were Ray's and Fuller's boox, both derived from Wilkinson's book.

Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL'S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VERIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, in public libraries, many religious bookstores, or are for sale at various web sites of many religious book stores.

Thus, you see why I, and many other Christians who try to serve God in all aspects of life, are so vehemently against the KJVO myth! It's Satanic in origin, definitely NOT FROM GOD!

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.

In post # 122 I presented the following ...

"The Menace of Modernism" was published in 1913, and as Dr. Cassidy wrote, it was an "old conception" when this book was published.

Nowhere in post #2 did you speak of the "modern" KJVONLY position, you only spoke of the "KJVO-the false doctrine". Furthermore, you made the following challenge clearly ...

I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the current KJVO doctrine.

I have no intention of going back and showing what was said by either of us. However, I will say that I asked you what difference there was between the old KJOnly position, and the current one, and the truth is ... you have no idea! (The truth is, there isn't any difference.)

You keep avoiding the real issue of why there is a KJVOnly position.


By the way, I said this ...
One need only to study the methodology of the Jews copying their MSS to see the standard of God. Sinaiticus is loaded with corrections upon corrections (as many as 10 generations of editing for the same portions). Such poor quality would never have been accepted by true copycats. The agreement between the Byzantine texts is in line with what we would expect from true scribes.

The originals were written by men whom God directly told to write, or by those who were in the middle of certain events. I believe God allowed the originals to become dust so they wouldn't become icons of worship as the "Holy Grail" was. And we don't know who made copies of what, when or where.

Agreed

Then YOU need to do the same thing with newer Bible versions. You're using a double standard, because the KJV is your "pet" version.

I told you why I hold my position, you just ignore the facts.

Remember, JESUS used a different "version" when He read aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21, calling it "this Scripture". (Compare those verses in Luke with Isaiah 42:7, & 61:1-3.)

I'm not going to give you a lesson on translating from one language to the other. If something was written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek, the Greek doesn't read exactly like Hebrew, because it's Greek. But you don't understand that.

And I believe the KJV was good, but not as good as several NEWER translations that are in OUR English style.

And you're still facing that big ole bear of a fact that the KJVO myth has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, which makes that myth DOA! That fact is NOT going away !

No, you keep ignoring the real issue of properly dealing with preservation.

 

[robycop3]

And now I hear you echoing the words of German Rationalism once again. You keep using man's ability as the controlling factor of better MSS, and better Bibles.

If God directed Erasmus to the key MSS that were closest to the originals as a base text to build a perfect Greek Text, why would he need any manuscript that God didn't lead him to include for his stage of the work?

I've heard James White talk about this referring to both Erasmus and the KJ translators ... He asks ... Can we really trust those Anglicans to get it right?
(What he's doing is throwing a cast of doubt.)

I would then say to James White, I don't know, you tell me, after all, it was the same Anglican Church that brought us the 1881 Greek Text, along with the 1881 English Revised Version. Just 270 years later.

But you're just GUESSING that God led ole Rastus to the right mss. I mean, after all, he had to use a LATIN text to find the last several verses of Revelation, and he revised his own work at least twice.

In post #2 you stated the following ...




In post # 122 I presented the following ...



Nowhere in post #2 did you speak of the "modern" KJVONLY position, you only spoke of the "KJVO-the false doctrine". Furthermore, you made the following challenge clearly ...


I have no intention of going back and showing what was said by either of us. However, I will say that I asked you what difference there was between the old KJOnly position, and the current one, and the truth is ... you have no idea! (The truth is, there isn't any difference.)

The newer version of KJVO often presents Psalm 12:6-7 as "proof texts" that the KJVO myth is found in Scripture. While Dr. Wilkinson didn't invent that false premise, he popularized it by placing it in his book so Ray & Fuller could copy it in their own boox.

But one thing all KJVO doctrines have in common, older or newer - THEY'RE ALL FALSE !

You keep avoiding the real issue of why there is a KJVOnly position.

Not at all. It exists because MAN made it, without any Scriptural basis, & other men believed it without verifying it. Then, others saw a cash cow in publishing Sensationalist boox promoting KJVO, the truth be dipped.

By the way, I said this ...
One need only to study the methodology of the Jews copying their MSS to see the standard of God. Sinaiticus is loaded with corrections upon corrections (as many as 10 generations of editing for the same portions). Such poor quality would never have been accepted by true copycats. The agreement between the Byzantine texts is in line with what we would expect from true scribes.

But, not knowing what SOURCES both makers & correctors used, one cannot simply reject the whole thing.

Agreed

Good.

I told you why I hold my position, you just ignore the facts.

"Wisdom is justified of her children", Jesus sarcastically said.

I'm not going to give you a lesson on translating from one language to the other. If something was written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek, the Greek doesn't read exactly like Hebrew, because it's Greek. But you don't understand that.

We don't know WHAT LANGUAGE the copy of Isaiah in that synagogue was in. I'm figuring that, being in a synagogue, it was very likely in HEBREW. And there's too great a difference between the passages in the Old Testament & what Jesus read aloud to be accounted for by mere language differences.

No, you keep ignoring the real issue of properly dealing with preservation.

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

I fully believed God has preserved His word to this very day. What I DON'T believe is that He's limited to just one translation of that word in a given language.
Now, can you deny that GOD has preserved every ancient Scriptural ms. we have today? Evidently, you must not think so, as you've chosen to reject many of them.

And you're STILL not trying to deal with the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support. As I said, that big ole bear of a FACT will not go away, a fact that renders the KJVO myth false.

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[Dr. Jack]

But you're just GUESSING that God led ole Rastus to the right mss. I mean, after all, he had to use a LATIN text to find the last several verses of Revelation, and he revised his own work at least twice.





The newer version of KJVO often presents Psalm 12:6-7 as "proof texts" that the KJVO myth is found in Scripture. While Dr. Wilkinson didn't invent that false premise, he popularized it by placing it in his book so Ray & Fuller could copy it in their own boox.

But one thing all KJVO doctrines have in common, older or newer - THEY'RE ALL FALSE !



Not at all. It exists because MAN made it, without any Scriptural basis, & other men believed it without verifying it. Then, others saw a cash cow in publishing Sensationalist boox promoting KJVO, the truth be dipped.




But, not knowing what SOURCES both makers & correctors used, one cannot simply reject the whole thing.




Good.





"Wisdom is justified of her children", Jesus sarcastically said.





We don't know WHAT LANGUAGE the copy of Isaiah in that synagogue was in. I'm figuring that, being in a synagogue, it was very likely in HEBREW. And there's too great a difference between the passages in the Old Testament & what Jesus read aloud to be accounted for by mere language differences.






MMRRPP ! WRONG !

I fully believed God has preserved His word to this very day. What I DON'T believe is that He's limited to just one translation of that word in a given language.
Now, can you deny that GOD has preserved every ancient Scriptural ms. we have today? Evidently, you must not think so, as you've chosen to reject many of them.

And you're STILL not trying to deal with the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support. As I said, that big ole bear of a FACT will not go away, a fact that renders the KJVO myth false.

So you are telling me that I'm guessing about Erasmus. Yet, you trust the modern scholarship ... what's the difference?

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm just wondering, which of Erasmus' 5 editions was the "inspired' one?

The 1516? 1519? 1522? 1527? 1536?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So, actually, you retrogressed. The makers of newer versions had many more mss. to work with, as well as easier means to read them, such as modern lighting, plus, they built on the knowledge of those who went before them, as the AV men did from the work of Tyndale, Coverdale, etc. And later, they had easy internet access to almost any ms. they wanted.

First, I said that the KJVO MYTH - not the KJV - came from cultic, dishonest sources. And I presented the facts of that point long ago. I reminded everyone that the modern edition of the KJVO myth was developed from three "foundation books" - Our Authorized bible Vindicated (1930) by SDA OFFICIAL Dr. Ben Wilkinson, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955) by J. J. Ray, & Which Bible? (1970 by Dr. D. O. Fuller. Ray legally plagiarized from Dr. W, a CULT OFFICIAL, while Dr. F copied from both, while not revealing Dr. W's cult affiliation. And Ray & Fuller used modern media to hype their wares. That's the cultic, dishonest origin of today's KJVO myth.

One need only to study the methodology of the Jews copying their MSS to see the standard of God. Sinaiticus is loaded with corrections upon corrections (as many as 10 generations of editing for the same portions). Such poor quality would never have been accepted by true copycats. The agreement between the Byzantine texts is in line with what we would expect from true scribes.

The originals were written by men whom God directly told to write, or by those who were in the middle of certain events. I believe God allowed the originals to become dust so they wouldn't become icons of worship as the "Holy Grail" was. And we don't know who made copies of what, when or where.

Then YOU need to do the same thing with newer Bible versions. You're using a double standard, because the KJV is your "pet" version.

Remember, JESUS used a different "version" when He read aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21, calling it "this Scripture". (Compare those verses in Luke with Isaiah 42:7, & 61:1-3.)

And I believe the KJV was good, but not as good as several NEWER translations that are in OUR English style.

And you're still facing that big ole bear of a fact that the KJVO myth has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, which makes that myth DOA! That fact is NOT going away !

Wonderful informative posts, I wasn't all that aware of the origins of the KJVO myth or else I had long forgotten these details after so many other facts set my conscience free from the bondage of King James Version Onlyism. The worst part is, the damage caused in binding a believer's conscience to a single English translation, particularly believer's like myself without any real training in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Koine). I remember learning a bit about Hebrew, I mean how scribes would write all of the letters together, and how the text reads from left to right instead of right to left, how different from the way we read and organize our words.

 

[robycop3]

So you are telling me that I'm guessing about Erasmus. Yet, you trust the modern scholarship ... what's the difference?

Well, for one, ole Rastus only used SEVEN mss. while today's translators have some 5700 mss. available!

Still waiting for you to confront the FACT that the KJVO myth you believe has NO Scriptural support & is entirely MAN-MADE.

 

[robycop3]

Wonderful informative posts, I wasn't all that aware of the origins of the KJVO myth or else I had long forgotten these details after so many other facts set my conscience free from the bondage of King James Version Onlyism. The worst part is, the damage caused in binding a believer's conscience to a single English translation, particularly believer's like myself without any real training in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Koine). I remember learning a bit about Hebrew, I mean how scribes would write all of the letters together, and how the text reads from left to right instead of right to left, how different from the way we read and organize our words.

The KJVO myth has been around long as the KJV has. Before it, there was the Geneva-Only myth, & so on. However, some modern authors have found a cash cow in KJVO & publish their boox full of hooey to make a few dollars.

While a KJV-PREFERRED position is OK, the KJV-ONLY position is completely false and wrong. As I've repeatedly said, SATAN started it to cast doubt on several perfectly-legitimate English Bible translations, and to create strife & dissension among & within congregations.

As an IFB, I don't believe ANY doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture, either directly or by clear implication, such as the "Holy Trinity" doctrine is, & the KJVO myth doesn't have one word of Scripture even-remotely supporting it.

As for the " preservation" stuff, the Byzantine mss. are newer than the Alexandrian ones, so BY WHAT AUTHORITY were the Biz mss. changed so they don't match the older ones? The debate over which mss. are the "official" ones has been going on for well over a hundred years thru 6 or 7 generations, & shows no signs of ending soon, as new materials such as the Dead Sea Scrolls are being found. I simply TRUST GOD to have presented His own word as HE chose.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, for one, ole Rastus only used SEVEN mss. while today's translators have some 5700 mss. available!

Still waiting for you to confront the FACT that the KJVO myth you believe has NO Scriptural support & is entirely MAN-MADE.

Wonder what in the world the church did BEFORE 1611?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I simply TRUST GOD to have presented His own word as HE chose.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'm just wondering, which of Erasmus' 5 editions was the "inspired' one?

The 1516? 1519? 1522? 1527? 1536?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...none of thee above.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I'm just wondering, which of Erasmus' 5 editions was the "inspired' one?

The 1516? 1519? 1522? 1527? 1536?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm assuming you think I subscribe to double inspiration ... you would be incorrect. I believe in derivative inspiration ... feel free to look it up.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...none of thee above.

I love when people do the presumptive celebration!

 

[Dr. Jack]

I'm assuming you think I subscribe to double inspiration ... you would be incorrect. I believe in derivative inspiration ... feel free to look it up.

One of the arguments presented against the KJ position is the one you just presented. I will admit that there are those who claim one of the Greek texts are 'inspired" ... this is obviously in error.

What I DO believe is that the WORDS of the autographs were inspired ... not the writers, not the paper, not the ink ... the WORDS.

Now as long as the WORDS are copied faithfully ... those WORDS remain inspired.

Secondly, when those WORDS are translated by faithful men whom God has filled with that wisdom which is from above ... those translated WORDS still carry the authority of what was originally written.

Some may disagree ... and that is okay ...

 

[robycop3]

One of the arguments presented against the KJ position is the one you just presented. I will admit that there are those who claim one of the Greek texts are 'inspired" ... this is obviously in error.

What I DO believe is that the WORDS of the autographs were inspired ... not the writers, not the paper, not the ink ... the WORDS.

Now as long as the WORDS are copied faithfully ... those WORDS remain inspired.

Secondly, when those WORDS are translated by faithful men whom God has filled with that wisdom which is from above ... those translated WORDS still carry the authority of what was originally written.

Some may disagree ... and that is okay ...

Well, I certainly don't disagree. However, it's obvious that different languages have different words that mean the same things as the original words mean.

God, of course, knows those differences, as HE created all the languages to begin with. Thus, as He causes/allows changes in the languages, He keeps His word updated in them, as He's done in English.

And I believe He originally gave His word in ancient hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek for two reasons: 1.) those were the languages of His chosen penmen, and 2.) He caused those languages to become "dead" so they no longer changed, thus making a permanent "standard" for His word.

However, English and other currently-used languages DO change, but God causes His word to be translated into current language to keep it understandable to its readers & hearers. That's another reason the KJVO myth is false.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm assuming you think I subscribe to double inspiration ... you would be incorrect. I believe in derivative inspiration ... feel free to look it up.

No, but since you obviously are supportive of everything from Erasmus' perspective, I just want to know which of his 5 editions, was the definitive one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Secondly, when those WORDS are translated by faithful men whom God has filled with that wisdom which is from above ... those translated WORDS still carry the authority of what was originally written.

I would almost support the first statement, almost.

But this second statement, there is no proof of that either.

Why don't you just come out and say that the scribe that corrected the scribe that copied the text was "inspired" also.

That is what your second statement says. Plain and simple.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Since it is the belief that the "scribes" who down through time corrected the previous "scribes" who corrected other "scribes":

"those translated WORDS still carry the authority of what was originally written."

I would ask for anybody to show me in the Greek the phrase "Φάντασμά ἅγιον".

This should be a fairly easy task since after all, the KJV is the bible to end all bibles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Since it is the belief that the "scribes" who down through time corrected the previous "scribes" who corrected other "scribes":

"those translated WORDS still carry the authority of what was originally written."

I would ask for anybody to show me in the Greek the phrase "Φάντασμά ἅγιον".

This should be a fairly easy task since after all, the KJV is the bible to end all bibles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I wasn't aware those TWO words appeared that way in Scripture. Maybe your Greek text is different than mine.