Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[OMC]

Before you said the TR is based on late manuscripts that are medieval. I proved otherwise. Now you are moving the goal posts into some other direction that does not change the fact that the Byzantine text has early support. I am also not going to presume what form that TR/KJV line had existed in the 4th century seeing we do not have any evidence of that time period. It could have taken on many different kinds of forms. I believe my Bible existed because of the promises of God ultimately and my faith does not rest in unbelieving scholars, liberals, ect.

You didn’t “prove otherwise” about the TR’s manuscript base — you showed that some Byzantine readings appear early, which no textual critic denies, but that does not overturn the point that the TR as a textform is built on late, sparse, and uneven witnesses, because Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza simply did not have access to the broad Byzantine tradition we now possess; they worked with a handful of manuscripts, most medieval, and filled gaps with the Vulgate.
Saying “the Byzantine text has early support” is true in the sense that Byzantine‑type readings appear early, but that is not the same as an early Byzantine textform, and it absolutely does not establish an early TR/KJV line, because the TR contains dozens of readings with no Greek support at all.
Your appeal to “God’s promises” is theological, not textual; faith in preservation is not the same as assuming TR_originality, and trusting God’s Word doesn’t mean distrusting evidence.
You can believe your Bible existed in the 4th century, but belief is not data; textual criticism deals with manuscripts, not hypotheticals, and the manuscripts show mixture, development, and variation — not a single, settled TR/KJV form stretching back to the apostles.

Again, you said before that the TR was based on medieval manuscripts. I proven your claim wrong. Now you are moving into more bible agnostic territory. If you don't believe the promises of God on the purity and preservation of His words, thats on you. I have faith but its not blind because there is evidence that we have for our text.

I mean, would you demand that Jesus show you his nail prints in his hands in order to prove that He was resurrected?
That's what you sound like here.

You didn’t prove the TR isn’t based on medieval manuscripts — you proved that some Byzantine readings appear early, which every textual critic already acknowledges, but that does not magically create an early TR/KJV textform in the 4th century; it only shows that the Byzantine tradition had roots, not that your specific printed edition existed.
Saying “I believe my Bible existed because of God’s promises” is a theological commitment, not textual evidence, and it doesn’t overturn the fact that the TR contains readings with no Greek support, readings drawn from late manuscripts, and even back‑translations from the Latin.
That’s not moving goalposts — that’s distinguishing early_readings from early_textforms.
And the nail‑prints analogy collapses because Jesus’ resurrection is a historical event, not a textual variant; asking for manuscript evidence isn’t unbelief, it’s how we identify the very words you say God preserved.
Faith in preservation isn’t blind, but it also isn’t a substitute for manuscript_evidence — and the manuscripts simply do not show a TR/KJV line stretching back to the apostles.

There are early Greek witnesses to the Comma, but I am sure you would not receive such evidence all that well; Especially when you are unable to read Cyprian normally. It's because you don't want the Comma to be true. It's not the evidence. Your side will just explain the evidence away. We could have camera footage of John writing it and you would just explain that away in some silly way. It's what your side does. I have seen it time and again.

Saying “you wouldn’t accept camera footage of John writing the Comma” is just a way of avoiding the actual issue: the early Greek witnesses you’re talking about aren’t early Greek manuscripts, they’re later marginal glosses, catena notes, or retrojections from the Latin tradition — none of which function as independent Greek textual evidence.
Cyprian isn’t being “read wrongly”; he uses Son, not Word, he quotes John 10:30 first, then gives a Trinitarian formula introduced by “and again it is written,” exactly the way patristic writers paraphrase doctrine, and Fulgentius is reading Cyprian through a later Latin textual world where the Comma already existed.
That’s not bias; that’s manuscript_evidence.
You keep framing this as “your side doesn’t want the Comma,” but wanting or not wanting a reading has nothing to do with whether it existed in the Greek tradition before the Middle Ages.
The problem isn’t that the evidence is being explained away — it’s that the evidence you’re calling “early Greek support” isn’t actually early Greek support.

What is dumb is that the evidence for the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery is so powerful that even the Critical Text side now says that the story happened but its just not in the Bible. How on Earth can they even say something that stupid? It's because they have a bias towards Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Evidence is not going to change their mind. Those are their babies.

The “critical‑text side says the story happened but isn’t in the Bible” isn’t stupidity or bias toward Vaticanus and Sinaiticus — it’s the unavoidable result of manuscript_evidence: the pericope adulterae is attested early in patristic memory and church usage, but the earliest Greek manuscripts either omit it or place it in multiple different locations, which means the story circulated widely but was not part of a stable Johannine textform. That’s not “their babies”; that’s the same logic you apply when you reject later Latin expansions in the Comma. Early circulation ≠ early authorship, and textual critics aren’t saying “it happened but isn’t Scripture” because of bias — they’re saying the placement_variation shows it wasn’t originally in John, even though the church remembered it. You’re treating manuscript honesty as unbelief, but the evidence stands: powerful tradition does not override unstable textual transmission.

 

[Qt]

Lexical and Greek Support for ἐὰν μὴ Having the Sense of ἀλλά (“But”) in Galatians 2:16:

Galatians 2:16 in Beza’s 1598 Textus Receptus reads:

οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

The KJV renders the construction:

a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ

The following sources specifically support understanding ἐὰν μὴ in Galatians 2:16 as having an adversative sense corresponding to ἀλλά, “but,” or “but only.”

1. Johann Caspar Suicer, 1651, p. 187

Citation: Johann Caspar Suicer [Johann Caspar Schweizer], Ratio syntaxis apud Graecos, selectioribus ex novo maxime foedere et Patrum monumentis illustrata exemplis (Tiguri [Zürich]: Johann Jacob Bodmer, 1651), p. 187.​

​

Under the heading V. Enallage Conjunctionis, Suicer explains that one conjunction may be placed in the position of another:​

​

una Conjunctio pro alia ponitur​

​

He then gives εἰ μή and states:​

​

Pro ἀλλὰ, sed.​

​

Meaning:​

​

In place of ἀλλά, “but.”​

​

Immediately afterward he directs the reader to:​

​

Vide quoque ... Gal. II. 16.​

​

Meaning:​

​

See also ... Galatians 2:16.​

​

Suicer therefore specifically points to Galatians 2:16 in a discussion where εἰ μή is said to stand pro ἀλλά, sed, “in place of ἀλλά, but.” Galatians 2:16 itself has the closely related form ἐὰν μὴ.​

​

Suicer's evidence is especially useful because he is discussing Greek syntax, not merely supplying a dictionary gloss.​

​

Google Books scan of Suicer 1651, page containing printed p. 187​

2. William Greenfield, revised by Thomas Sheldon Green, 1849, p. 50

Citation: William Greenfield, A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, with additions and alterations, revised by Thomas Sheldon Green (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1849), p. 50.​

​

Under ἐάν, the lexicon states:​

​

Ἐὰν μή, except, unless; also equivalent to ἀλλά, Gal. 2.16.​

​

This is direct lexical testimony. Greenfield/Green explicitly identifies Galatians 2:16 as a passage in which ἐὰν μή is equivalent to ἀλλά, “but.”​

​

The correct printed page is p. 50, not p. 51.​

​

Google Books, Greenfield/Green 1849, p. 50​

3. Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889, p. 171

Citation: Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: American Book Company, 1889), p. 171.​

​

In his discussion of εἰ μή, Thayer explains that following a negative the expression can have the force of the Latin:​

​

sed tantum​

​

meaning:​

​

but only​

​

Thayer then explicitly states:​

​

ἐὰν μή is so used in Gal. ii. 16.​

​

Thayer therefore recognizes Galatians 2:16 itself as an example of this usage. This is particularly important when Thayer is being appealed to as an authority, since Thayer's own discussion allows the sense “but only” in this verse.​

​

Actual 1889 Thayer scan, see printed p. 171 (Or do a search for "Gal. ii. 16").​

4. Panagiotis N. Trembelas, 1886–1977

Panagiotis N. Trembelas (1886–1977) was a Greek theologian and professor at the University of Athens. He was born in Stemnitsa, Greece, lived and carried out his academic career in Greece, and Greek was his native language.​

​

In an article reproducing Trembelas’s interpretation of Galatians 2:16, the biblical Greek first reads:​

​

ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ​

​

This is the same ἐὰν μὴ construction found in Beza’s 1598 Textus Receptus.​

​

The article then gives Trembelas’s interpretive rendering in modern Greek:​

​

ἀλλὰ μόνο με την πίστη στον Ιησού Χριστό​

​

Meaning:​

​

but only by faith in Jesus Christ​

​

The source therefore places ἐὰν μὴ in the biblical text and ἀλλὰ μόνο, “but only,” in Trembelas’s modern Greek interpretive rendering of the same sentence.​

​

Thus, a native Greek-speaking scholar who was born, lived, studied, and taught in Greece understood the construction naturally enough to express its sense in modern Greek with ἀλλὰ μόνο, “but only.”​

​

Article containing Galatians 2:16 and Trembelas’s rendering​

​

Greek national cultural repository entry for Trembelas​

Summary

Suicer, 1651, p. 187: explains the substitution of conjunctions, gives εἰ μή ... pro ἀλλά, sed, “in place of ἀλλά, but,” and specifically directs the reader to Galatians 2:16.

Greenfield/Green, 1849, p. 50: explicitly states that ἐὰν μή is “also equivalent to ἀλλά, Gal. 2.16.”

Thayer, 1889, p. 171: explains the relevant construction with the sense sed tantum, “but only,” and explicitly says that ἐὰν μή is so used in Galatians 2:16.

Trembelas, 1886–1977: a native Greek-speaking theologian and University of Athens professor, takes the ἐὰν μὴ of Galatians 2:16 and expresses its thought in modern Greek as ἀλλὰ μόνο, “but only.”

Therefore, saying that ἐὰν μὴ has the sense or force of ἀλλά, “but,” in Galatians 2:16 has substantial grammatical and lexical support. This does not mean that ἀλλά is the ordinary lexical definition of ἐὰν μὴ in every context. It means that in this particular construction and context, recognized authorities have explicitly understood ἐὰν μὴ adversatively, with the sense “but” or “but only.”


Side Note:


Here is a friendly suggestion, my friend. Next time, instead of assuming the KJV has an error, try asking ChatGPT if there is any lexical support in history for the rendering and you will be amazed. Ask if people who lived in Greece, and whose native tongue is Greek also understood it with wording that is supported by the KJV (Note: You may have to connect the modern wording with the older sense of words in the Middle English dictionary in some cases like "faith" meaning "faithfulness."). In other words, once you employ this method, all these so-called errors in the KJV you see will disappear. Granted, some so called errors have to be resolved by looking at the context, though, too.



....

Theirs is Conjecture based on theological bias or a misunderstanding of context. And Please do not try to argue someone else's argument.

In respect to context, If I am dead and CHRIST LIVES IN ME I am living by the faith of Christ. For I have put on Christ. It is God that works in me both to will and do His good pleasure. This the New Covenant, for His Law, His Word is in our hearts through Christ Jesus. We are a new creation, behold we are all new and of God. Reconciled, as He is so are we in this world.

With this understanding Gal2:16 should be read like this, Knowing that a man is not justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the works of the law, IF NOT through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed INTO Jesus Christ (for we have put on Christ Gal 3:26-27), that we might be justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the faith of Christ, and not OUT OF the works of the law: for OUT OF the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

For the Just (righteous) shall live by faith. The faith that establishes the Law. For the Word is in our hearts and in our mouths that we do it. That is the word of faith that we preach. For with the heart man believes INTO righteousness

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Want my phone number or address so you can assault me in person? Manners matter.

There are lots of false assumptions here.
Jesus called people serpents and white washed tombs.
Telling a person that they have a lack of spiritual discernment does not come even close to doing that.
This statement was also not addressed to you but to another.
It does not also even remotely mean I would act in violence towards them, either. That is your false assumption.
I believe in NT non-violence and in praying and loving and doing good towards my enemies.
Why do I claim this other poster (not you) had lacked spiritual discernment?
Well, it should be obvious. He was defending the most corrupt Critical text that has these problems.

1. No historic unbroken chain of custody.
2. Many doctrinal corruptions
3. A never settled text that keeps shape shifting
4. Extreme heretics are attached to shaping this text over the years.
5. Bad fruit in that there is no memorization, it causes confusion with people arguing over what God really said.
6. Ignores the warning in Revelation 22:18-19.
7. Its scholars and adherents employ made up unproven theories or lies to refute the evidence of the TR/KJV (This is not just me saying this but it is direct observation of what they have said and what history actually says instead).

J.P. Green's translation and the LEB are the only modern translations I like.

So you have a mingled standard. You use a Textus Receptus based Bible and a Critical Text based Bible and you have to pick and choose what is the word of God between them according to you and your infallible judgments.

Your text exists only in your own mind is the wrong belief on God's word that has infected countless many others today who think exactly the same way. So a reading that may be in for you is out for another person who takes the same "Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible" mentality or approach to Gods word. There is no historic received text that you can stand behind and say that this is the text that can be traced back to the Reformation, and this is the text that men like Tyndale died over in translating to English, and this is the text that was almost destroyed by a super bomb (the gunpowder plot), this is the text that has led to three of the greatest revivals, and this is the text that was memorized and preached and loved as God's very words for hundreds of years. This is the text that has early patristic support and connects with early papyrus and other manuscripts that are old. This is the text that is settled and is thus supports the belief that God's words are pure and that they would be preserved forever.

Why do the Modern Bibles change in 18 places on our trust in God's word in either its purity, certainty, or preservation?
It is odd that the very belief that Modern Bible adherents hold to have Bibles that cater to that very belief. How strange.


....

 

[OMC]

There are lots of false assumptions here.
Jesus called people serpents and white washed tombs.
Telling a person that they have a lack of spiritual discernment does not come even close to doing that.
This statement was also not addressed to you but to another.
It does not also even remotely mean I would act in violence towards them, either. That is your false assumption.
I believe in NT non-violence and in praying and loving and doing good towards my enemies.
Why do I claim this other poster (not you) had lacked spiritual discernment?
Well, it should be obvious. He was defending the most corrupt Critical text that has these problems.

1. No historic unbroken chain of custody.
2. Many doctrinal corruptions
3. A never settled text that keeps shape shifting
4. Extreme heretics are attached to shaping this text over the years.
5. Bad fruit in that there is no memorization, it causes confusion with people arguing over what God really said.
6. Ignores the warning in Revelation 22:18-19.
7. Its scholars and adherents employ made up unproven theories or lies to refute the evidence of the TR/KJV (This is not just me saying this but it is direct observation of what they have said and what history actually says instead).

Your entire rant about “false assumptions” is just you swinging a broom at shadows, because none of your seven accusations survive contact with either history or Scripture:
calling someone a “serpent” in Matthew_23 is Jesus pronouncing covenant judgment on Israel’s corrupt leadership, not you declaring yourself the spiritual TSA agent who decides who has “discernment,” and your attempt to baptize that insult into a defense of the TR/KJV collapses the moment you remember the TR was stitched together from a handful of late manuscripts, revised multiple times, and disagrees with itself across editions — which makes your “unbroken chain of custody” claim the theological equivalent of insisting your family tree is pure because you only wrote down the names you liked.
Your “doctrinal corruptions” list is just you calling any variant you dislike “heresy,” your “shape‑shifting text” complaint ignores the fact that the TR changed repeatedly, your “extreme heretics” jab is historically illiterate, your “bad fruit” argument is just nostalgia for 17th‑century memorization habits, and your Revelation 22 warning is misapplied because reporting variants is not “adding or subtracting.”
You’re not defending Scripture — you’re defending a tradition you mistake for Scripture, and the irony is that the very textual history you condemn is the one that actually preserves the breadth of witnesses God used to transmit His Word.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

invoking “spiritual discernment,” the serpent’s “Yea, hath God said,” bracketed readings, Revelation 22 warnings, and purity‑of‑text arguments still doesn’t change the basic category mistake:
you’re treating textual criticism as a spiritual warfare narrative instead of a manuscript‑based discipline,
and that collapses the entire argument before it starts.
Brackets aren’t serpents; they’re honesty — they mark places where manuscripts disagree, which is exactly what a truthful edition should do.
Revelation 22:18–19 warns against deliberate tampering, not against reporting manuscript variation, and the ECM’s Revelation 22:6 decision is a manuscript_variant, not a Christological attack; the reading doesn’t make Jesus “become the I AM,” it reflects how some witnesses phrase the clause.
And the TR is not “settled”; it changed repeatedly — Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir — and the KJV translators themselves corrected the TR against other sources. Saying “our text is settled” is a theological preference, not a textual fact.
Preservation doesn’t mean one printed edition is perfect; it means God preserved His Word across thousands of manuscripts, so no single scribe, committee, or century could control it.
You’re interpreting manuscript brackets as spiritual danger because your system equates certainty with purity, but Scripture never says God preserved His Word by eliminating textual variation — He preserved it by overwhelming multiplicity.

Jesus wouldn’t tell you “ignore theology,” but He also wouldn’t tell you to override manuscripts with fear; He grounded truth in what God actually said, not in which printed edition someone prefers, and the only way to know what God actually said is by weighing manuscript evidence, not by assuming the TR/KJV is the fixed standard.
Saying “false texts lead to false beliefs” is only meaningful if the text is actually false, and the way we determine that is through manuscript_variants, not through instinctive suspicion of any reading outside the TR.
Revelation 22 warns against intentional tampering, not against reporting variation, and brackets aren’t serpents — they’re honesty, marking places where God preserved multiple witnesses, not one perfect stream.
Jesus would oppose deliberate distortion; He would not oppose careful comparison of the words God actually preserved.

I didn’t “wipe away” your 26 Catholic ideas because I’m afraid of a settled Bible or of being under authority; I said they’re interpretive claims, not manuscript evidence, because that’s exactly what they are — theological conclusions you draw from modern translations, not readings in the manuscripts themselves, and textual criticism cannot treat doctrinal patterns as proof of textual corruption any more than it can treat doctrinal agreement as proof of originality.
If you want your list to function as evidence, you have to show that each item corresponds to an actual variant in the Greek witnesses, not to a translation choice, doctrinal inference, or theological trajectory; otherwise you’re arguing theology, not text.
And no, rejecting theological pattern‑arguments is not rejecting authority — it’s refusing to replace manuscript_data with suspicion‑based narratives.

2 Tim 3:16 tells you what the original, God‑breathed text does once you’ve identified it — it is profitable for doctrine — but it does not tell you how to identify that text among differing manuscript readings; that’s why textual criticism weighs readings, not doctrines, because manuscripts don’t come with inspired labels saying “this variant is the right theology.”
Doctrine flows from the original text; it cannot be used to decide which variant is original without collapsing into circular reasoning. That’s the whole distinction: Scripture is inspired and doctrinally authoritative; manuscripts are witnesses that must be evaluated to recover that inspired text.

The “blunder” isn’t in Codex B or Aleph — it’s in the way you’re reading them; the spear‑thrust appearing before Jesus’ death in those manuscripts is a harmonization pattern found in multiple early witnesses, not a chronological mistake invented by scribes, and textual critics have documented this for over a century.
It’s simply a case where some early copyists aligned John’s sequence with the Synoptic passion pattern, just as the TR has its own harmonizations, expansions, and late adjustments.
The fact that you can “check it on their websites” doesn’t change the category: it’s a variant, not a theological error, and it must be weighed the same way every variant is — by manuscript_evidence, not by whether it fits a preferred narrative of purity or corruption.

You’re right that words shape belief — Scripture itself says God’s words give life, light, and direction — but that doesn’t overturn the point you’re missing: doctrine flows from the original text, not from whichever printed edition someone prefers, and the only way to know what God actually said is by weighing manuscript readings, not by assuming the TR/KJV is the fixed standard.
Saying “false texts lead to false beliefs” is only meaningful if the text is actually false, and the way we determine that is through manuscript_evidence, not through suspicion of any reading outside the TR.
God preserved His Word by giving us many witnesses, not one edition, and textual criticism is simply the process of identifying the original wording to which “a lamp unto our feet” applies.

There is no point in any further discussion on this point because you keep repeating the same arguments that does not address the heart of the points I made that you are ignoring.

Time for us to move on.
You can side with a text that has these problems if that helps you to sleep at night.

1. No historic unbroken chain of custody.
2. Many doctrinal corruptions
3. A never settled text that keeps shape shifting
4. Extreme heretics are attached to shaping this text over the years.
5. Bad fruit in that there is no memorization, it causes confusion with people arguing over what God really said.
6. Ignores the warning in Revelation 22:18-19.
7. Its scholars and adherents employ made up unproven theories or lies to refute the evidence of the TR/KJV (This is not just me saying this but it is direct observation of what they have said and what history actually says instead).

I am not interested in trying to endlessly show you something that you refuse to see.
I can lead a horse to water but I cannot force it to drink.
No matter what evidence I present, it must be immediately rejected.
I made great points but you are simply unable to see them.
It's like I said before. I could have video camera footage of John writing the Comma and or Byzantine readings and you and your side will just ignore that evidence and come up with some stupid theory to explain it away.
I've seen it time and again.

You believe the way you do not because of the evidence but because the Modern Bible industrial complex has convinced you to believe this way and it sits well with your life. I prefer truth and evidence and honest logic over such nonsense.

I believe it is flawed logic to assume that false doctrines in a text cannot lead a person to believe false things.

So may the Lord Jesus bless you, and I hope someday in this life you will see the truth of where I am coming from.





....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your entire rant about “false assumptions” is just you swinging a broom at shadows, because none of your seven accusations survive contact with either history or Scripture:
calling someone a “serpent” in Matthew_23 is Jesus pronouncing covenant judgment on Israel’s corrupt leadership, not you declaring yourself the spiritual TSA agent who decides who has “discernment,” and your attempt to baptize that insult into a defense of the TR/KJV collapses the moment you remember the TR was stitched together from a handful of late manuscripts, revised multiple times, and disagrees with itself across editions — which makes your “unbroken chain of custody” claim the theological equivalent of insisting your family tree is pure because you only wrote down the names you liked.
Your “doctrinal corruptions” list is just you calling any variant you dislike “heresy,” your “shape‑shifting text” complaint ignores the fact that the TR changed repeatedly, your “extreme heretics” jab is historically illiterate, your “bad fruit” argument is just nostalgia for 17th‑century memorization habits, and your Revelation 22 warning is misapplied because reporting variants is not “adding or subtracting.”
You’re not defending Scripture — you’re defending a tradition you mistake for Scripture, and the irony is that the very textual history you condemn is the one that actually preserves the breadth of witnesses God used to transmit His Word.

I want you to tell me how you can add or subtract from God's words if those words keep changing?
Your logic is flawed. Just calling them variants does not erase the problem in that it is giving us a shape-shfiter text that affects people's faith and beliefs.

Adding or subtracting from God's words can only happen if there is a single set standard.
The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is meaningless in the Modern Bible Movement because it does not have any settled standard.
Please point me to one in the Modern Bible Movement. You will not find such a thing.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

If I am dead but alive, yet not I that lives but Christ Jesus lives in me and the Life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of Jesus I am living by His Spirit. For it is God that works in me both to will and do His good pleasure. His Law, His Word is in our heart that we do it, that is the word of faith that we preach. For with the heart man believes into righteous.

The Progression of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 2:16-20​

Galatians 2:16:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law…”

Here Paul is dealing with how a person is initially justified. He presents a clear contrast: the Jews’ false approach to the Old Covenant law system, whereby they sought justification through works of the law without grace through faith (i.e. Circumcision Salvationism), vs. the New Covenant way of justification by believing in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Paul then progresses in verse 19:

Galatians 2:19:
“For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.”
Having established justification apart from works of the law, Paul explains his changed relationship to the law. He is dead to the law that he might live unto God. He is no longer seeking justification through the Old Covenant law system.

Paul then progresses further in verse 20:

Galatians 2:20:
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me…”

Now we have the resulting Christian life. The person who has been justified is identified with Christ and Christ lives in him. This is where the work of God within the believer, the work of the Spirit, and our continuing life of faith properly enter the progression.
So I agree that Christ lives in the believer. I agree that God works in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).

I agree that the Christian is to walk by the Spirit and have Christ live through them. But those truths do not eliminate the contrast Paul has already established in Galatians 2:16. They describe what follows from that foundation.

The progression can be seen like this:

Passage	Stage in Paul’s argument	Main point
Galatians 2:16	Initial justification	Not by works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, with our response being “even we have believed in Jesus Christ”
Galatians 2:19	Dead to the Old Covenant law system	“I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God”
Galatians 2:20	New life in Christ	“Christ liveth in me” and the believer continues to live by faith
Galatians 3:2-3	Life and sanctification by the Spirit	Having “begun in the Spirit,” believers must not attempt to be “made perfect by the flesh”
Galatians 5:16	Continued Christian walk	“Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh”

This progression also explains why I do not believe Galatians 2:20 can be used to weaken the “not…but” contrast of Galatians 2:16. Verse 20 is not giving an alternative explanation for how we first become justified. It is describing the resulting life of someone who has already been justified.

Paul Uses the Same Kind of Contrast Elsewhere​

Titus 3:5 provides a particularly useful comparison:

Galatians 2:16	VS.	Titus 3:5
“not justified”		“Not…he saved us”
“by the works of the law”		“by works of righteousness which we have done”
“but”		“but”
“by the faith of Jesus Christ”		“according to his mercy”

In both passages Paul rejects works alone as the means of initial salvation, or as the means by which a person first gets saved, and places God’s saving provision by faith on the other side of the contrast.

The Greek comparison is especially significant:

Verse	Negative	Works	Contrast	Alternative
Galatians 2:16	οὐ	ἐξ ἔργων νόμου	ἐὰν μή	διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Titus 3:5	Οὐκ	ἐξ ἔργων…	ἀλλά	κατὰ τὸν αὐτοῦ ἔλεος

In Titus 3:5 Paul explicitly uses ἀλλά (“but”) in the very similar construction:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us…”

Therefore, if your reason for bringing Galatians 2:20 into our discussion is that you believe the KJV’s “but” in Galatians 2:16 creates too strong a contrast between works and faith, I do not believe Galatians 2:20 establishes that. Paul himself makes a very similar not by works…but contrast with the explicit Greek word ἀλλά in Titus 3:5.

The later work of Christ and the Spirit within us does not erase the initial contrast. It belongs to the progression that follows it: justification first, then being dead to the Old Covenant law system, followed by the new life in Christ and our continued walk in the Spirit.


....

 

[OMC]

There is no point in any further discussion on this point because you keep repeating the same arguments that does not address the heart of the points I made that you are ignoring.

Time for us to move on.
You can side with a text that has these problems if that helps you to sleep at night.

1. No historic unbroken chain of custody.
2. Many doctrinal corruptions
3. A never settled text that keeps shape shifting
4. Extreme heretics are attached to shaping this text over the years.
5. Bad fruit in that there is no memorization, it causes confusion with people arguing over what God really said.
6. Ignores the warning in Revelation 22:18-19.
7. Its scholars and adherents employ made up unproven theories or lies to refute the evidence of the TR/KJV (This is not just me saying this but it is direct observation of what they have said and what history actually says instead).

I am not interested in trying to endlessly show you something that you refuse to see.
I can lead a horse to water but I cannot force it to drink.
No matter what evidence I present, it must be immediately rejected.
I made great points but you are simply unable to see them.
It's like I said before. I could have video camera footage of John writing the Comma and or Byzantine readings and you and your side will just ignore that evidence and come up with some stupid theory to explain it away.
I've seen it time and again.

You believe the way you do not because of the evidence but because the Modern Bible industrial complex has convinced you to believe this way and it sits well with your life. I prefer truth and evidence and honest logic over such nonsense.

I believe it is flawed logic to assume that false doctrines in a text cannot lead a person to believe false things.

So may the Lord Jesus bless you, and I hope someday in this life you will see the truth of where I am coming from

Your dramatic exit speech isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just you rage‑quitting the conversation because your TR/KJV framework can’t survive contact with actual textual history, so you retreat into the familiar refuge of “you refuse to see the truth,” “I made great points,” and “I could show video footage of John writing the Comma,” which is the theological equivalent of saying you’d win the debate if only reality cooperated.

 

[OMC]

I want you to tell me how you can add or subtract from God's words if those words keep changing?
Your logic is flawed. Just calling them variants does not erase the problem in that it is giving us a shape-shfiter text that affects people's faith and beliefs.

Adding or subtracting from God's words can only happen if there is a single set standard.
The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is meaningless in the Modern Bible Movement because it does not have any settled standard.
Please point me to one in the Modern Bible Movement. You will not find such a thing.


....

Your entire “Revelation 22 only works if there is one fixed printed standard” argument collapses the moment you realize you’re treating God’s_words as if they were a single 17th‑century typeset product rather than the thing Scripture actually calls them — the inspired text preserved across manuscripts, not across one edition; you keep insisting “the words keep changing,” but what you call “changing” is simply textual_variants, the same phenomenon that existed long before Erasmus, long before the TR, long before the KJV, and long before your imagined “single set standard.”

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Theirs is Conjecture based on theological bias or a misunderstanding of context. And Please do not try to argue someone else's argument.

In respect to context, If I am dead and CHRIST LIVES IN ME I am living by the faith of Christ. For I have put on Christ. It is God that works in me both to will and do His good pleasure. This the New Covenant, for His Law, His Word is in our hearts through Christ Jesus. We are a new creation, behold we are all new and of God. Reconciled, as He is so are we in this world.

With this understanding Gal2:16 should be read like this, Knowing that a man is not justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the works of the law, IF NOT through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed INTO Jesus Christ (for we have put on Christ Gal 3:26-27), that we might be justified (shown righteous) OUT OF the faith of Christ, and not OUT OF the works of the law: for OUT OF the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

For the Just (righteous) shall live by faith. The faith that establishes the Law. For the Word is in our hearts and in our mouths that we do it. That is the word of faith that we preach. For with the heart man believes INTO righteousness

First, I am not one who is going outside the authority of lexicons and is also supported by a native of Greece.

Second, you would have to show why they are incorrect and use some kind of historic support for your interpretation or understanding. Meaning, is there any place in history where other early church writers or commentators have argued over this? Then you would need to show why your position in their argument is superior.

Third, Galatians 2:16 contrasts the Jews’ false approach to the Old Covenant law system, whereby they sought justification through works of the law without grace through faith, with the New Covenant way of justification by believing in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The controversy in Galatians involved those who sought to compel Gentile believers to be circumcised in order to be saved. Acts 15:1 states this position plainly: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Paul rejects the idea that keeping the works of the law, including circumcision, is the means by which a person is justified. Instead, justification is through faith, resting upon Jesus Christ and His faithful saving work. Galatians 2:20 is a progression of the topic with using Galatians 2:16 as the basis or foundation. It's moving into how Christ lives in Him and He is crucified to himself and lets Christ take control of his life because of God's grace (See: 1 Corinthians 15:10, and Titus 2:11-12). This progresses subtly into Sanctification and we see that pan out more with our sowing to the Spirit in Galatians 6:8-9 (Which is a passage many Christians do not accept or can see).

In other words, there are two things that should not be confused even though God's grace cross pollinates into Sanctification.

1. Gods grace through faith without works (which is in our Initial Salvation and is also Foundational).
2. Sanctification to live a holy life under New Testament Scripture that is made possible because of God's grace.

In either case, I don't think I am the one who will convince you that the KJV does not have any errors.
You apparently do not have any set single standard of God's word in either English or the Greek.
So then, you become the ultimate authority and it is not you submitting to a historic text that many have trusted as God's words.

See, in this life, you can either be a Bible believer or a Bible corrector.

I choose to be a Bible believer and believe all of what God's word says.
I believe every word of God. Jesus says man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.
How can that be if we were to follow your approach to the text? We would really never know what word was in or out.
Is there a movement that follows your understanding of God's word exactly?
How can God hold people accountable with your kind of approach to the Bible?
He really cannot because the person who thinks like you do, can cast doubt on a reading that you might accept.
It's a "Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible" mentality.
You really don't have a Bible that you can 100% trust but we need you to give us the correct words.
Yeah, no thanks. I will stick with the historic received text and just believe it.


....


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your dramatic exit speech isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just you rage‑quitting the conversation because your TR/KJV framework can’t survive contact with actual textual history, so you retreat into the familiar refuge of “you refuse to see the truth,” “I made great points,” and “I could show video footage of John writing the Comma,” which is the theological equivalent of saying you’d win the debate if only reality cooperated.

It is my attempted exit rebuttal speech with you and not with the discussion in general.
I will still preach against the false Modern Bible Movement to others and its dangers.



....

 

[OMC]

First, I am not one who is going outside the authority of lexicons and is also supported by a native of Greece.

Second, you would have to show why they are incorrect and use some kind of historic support for your interpretation or understanding. Meaning, is there any place in history where other early church writers or commentators have argued over this? Then you would need to show why your position in their argument is superior.

Third, Galatians 2:16 contrasts the Jews’ false approach to the Old Covenant law system, whereby they sought justification through works of the law without grace through faith, with the New Covenant way of justification by believing in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The controversy in Galatians involved those who sought to compel Gentile believers to be circumcised in order to be saved. Acts 15:1 states this position plainly: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Paul rejects the idea that keeping the works of the law, including circumcision, is the means by which a person is justified. Instead, justification is through faith, resting upon Jesus Christ and His faithful saving work. Galatians 2:20 is a progression of the topic with using Galatians 2:16 as the basis or foundation. It's moving into how Christ lives in Him and He is crucified to himself and lets Christ take control of his life because of God's grace (See: 1 Corinthians 15:10, and Titus 2:11-12). This progresses subtly into Sanctification and we see that pan out more with our sowing to the Spirit in Galatians 6:8-9 (Which is a passage many Christians do not accept or can see).

In other words, there are two things that should not be confused even though God's grace cross pollinates into Sanctification.

1. Gods grace through faith without works (which is in our Initial Salvation and is also Foundational).
2. Sanctification to live a holy life under New Testament Scripture that is made possible because of God's grace.

In either case, I don't think I am the one who will convince you that the KJV does not have any errors.
You apparently do not have any set single standard of God's word in either English or the Greek.
So then, you become the ultimate authority and it is not you submitting to a historic text that many have trusted as God's words.

See, in this life, you can either be a Bible believer or a Bible corrector.

I choose to be a Bible believer and believe all of what God's word says.
I believe every word of God. Jesus says man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.
How can that be if we were to follow your approach to the text? We would really never know what word was in or out.
Is there a movement that follows your understanding of God's word exactly?
How can God hold people accountable with your kind of approach to the Bible?
He really cannot because the person who thinks like you do, can cast doubt on a reading that you might accept.
It's a "Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible" mentality.
You really don't have a Bible that you can 100% trust but we need you to give us the correct words.
Yeah, no thanks. I will stick with the historic received text and just believe it.

Your entire reply is just the standard KJV‑Only epistemology dressed up as piety — the idea that unless God’s Word exists in one perfect, frozen, English edition, you’re forced to become a “Bible corrector,” which is the theological equivalent of saying the apostles didn’t have a Bible because they didn’t own a 1769 Oxford printing.
You keep insisting that unless there is a single printed standard, no one can “live by every word,” but Scripture never defines preservation as a printed edition, it defines it as God keeping His Word across manuscript_witnesses, which is why your “Bible believer vs Bible corrector” dichotomy collapses the moment you remember the TR itself changed — Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir — meaning your “historic received text” is a shape‑shifter by your own definition.
Your appeal to “native Greek speakers” and “lexicons” doesn’t rescue your argument, because I speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, and I can tell you the issue isn’t whether πίστις can mean faithfulness (it can), but whether Galatians_2_16 teaches justification by Christ’s faithfulness instead of faith in Christ — and the early church, the grammar, and Paul’s own argument all contradict your reading.
And your final flourish — “you don’t have a Bible you can 100% trust, so you become the authority” — is just you mistaking your preferred edition for God’s Word, then accusing everyone else of unbelief for not sharing your printing tradition.
You’re not choosing between “Bible believer” and “Bible corrector”; you’re choosing between trusting the breadth of witnesses God actually preserved and trusting one English edition as if God dropped it from heaven leather‑bound.

 

[OMC]

It is my attempted exit rebuttal speech with you and not with the discussion in general.
I will still preach against the false Modern Bible Movement to others and its dangers.



....

“I’ll keep preaching against the Modern Bible Movement” — is just you declaring victory to yourself while walking offstage, because it’s easier to preach to an audience that already agrees with you than to stay in a conversation where your claims actually have to face evidence.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your entire “Revelation 22 only works if there is one fixed printed standard” argument collapses the moment you realize you’re treating God’s_words as if they were a single 17th‑century typeset product rather than the thing Scripture actually calls them — the inspired text preserved across manuscripts, not across one edition; you keep insisting “the words keep changing,” but what you call “changing” is simply textual_variants, the same phenomenon that existed long before Erasmus, long before the TR, long before the KJV, and long before your imagined “single set standard.”

Again, you are not dealing with the problem. I believe the standard we have is the standardized KJV we have today and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why? Because again... you cannot have Revelation 22:18-19 be true if words change in God's word that is given to us today. See, the correct Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek copies that underlies the KJV existed prior to the King James Bible. So we had the words of God in a different form (i.e. manuscript copies and then printed editions). The printing of the Bible did not even happen util the 1400s. So the collection of all of God's words from manuscript copies were collected properly into one place with the refinement of the TR and the KJV. Why? Because of the good fruit. Three of the greatest revivals was a result of the KJV. It's 200 plus idioms had helped to become ingrained in English speaking cultures all over the world. It became the Bible that Christians memorized and preached from with great conviction. The TR was a part of the Reformation and men like Tyndale died translating it into English. We can see the hand of God even upon the KJV with the fact that Christians today still believe and trust it as the words of God in English. When men in history said that the KJV would fade away in multiple points in history, the KJV still endured. A settled text. This is where Revelation 22:18-19 comes in and makes sense. But in the Modern Bible Movement with its never ending shape shifter text, you cannot add or take away from such a text because its words keep changing. So how does Revelation 22:18-19 apply in your Modern Bible Movement? Please answer. Give me serious ways of that actually works.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your entire reply is just the standard KJV‑Only epistemology dressed up as piety — the idea that unless God’s Word exists in one perfect, frozen, English edition, you’re forced to become a “Bible corrector,” which is the theological equivalent of saying the apostles didn’t have a Bible because they didn’t own a 1769 Oxford printing.
You keep insisting that unless there is a single printed standard, no one can “live by every word,” but Scripture never defines preservation as a printed edition, it defines it as God keeping His Word across manuscript_witnesses, which is why your “Bible believer vs Bible corrector” dichotomy collapses the moment you remember the TR itself changed — Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir — meaning your “historic received text” is a shape‑shifter by your own definition.
Your appeal to “native Greek speakers” and “lexicons” doesn’t rescue your argument, because I speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, and I can tell you the issue isn’t whether πίστις can mean faithfulness (it can), but whether Galatians_2_16 teaches justification by Christ’s faithfulness instead of faith in Christ — and the early church, the grammar, and Paul’s own argument all contradict your reading.
And your final flourish — “you don’t have a Bible you can 100% trust, so you become the authority” — is just you mistaking your preferred edition for God’s Word, then accusing everyone else of unbelief for not sharing your printing tradition.
You’re not choosing between “Bible believer” and “Bible corrector”; you’re choosing between trusting the breadth of witnesses God actually preserved and trusting one English edition as if God dropped it from heaven leather‑bound.

I am not KJV-only or KJV-English only. I used to be. My position is KJV + Its Underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. But you fail to see the importance of the KJV because without it, you are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine by every new Modern English modern Bible that comes out or by the next Nestle and Aland edition. You could be a sucker for believing that Jesus become the I AM according to the new UBS6 and NA 29. or you can just stick with the older reading. A person can go either way. Hence, why Revelation 22:18-19 does not apply in your world view.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

“I’ll keep preaching against the Modern Bible Movement” — is just you declaring victory to yourself while walking offstage, because it’s easier to preach to an audience that already agrees with you than to stay in a conversation where your claims actually have to face evidence.

Sorry. You are not the center stage of the debate.
Obviously you must be familiar with the concept of how I can lead a horse to water but I cannot force it to drink.
My repeating points to you that you don't accept will not help progress the conversation.
It would be like I am talking to a wall.


...

 

[OMC]

Again, you are not dealing with the problem. I believe the standard we have is the standardized KJV we have today and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why? Because again... you cannot have Revelation 22:18-19 be true if words change in God's word that is given to us today. See, the correct Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek copies that underlies the KJV existed prior to the King James Bible. So we had the words of God in a different form (i.e. manuscript copies and then printed editions). The printing of the Bible did not even happen util the 1400s. So the collection of all of God's words from manuscript copies were collected properly into one place with the refinement of the TR and the KJV. Why? Because of the good fruit. Three of the greatest revivals was a result of the KJV. It's 200 plus idioms had helped to become ingrained in English speaking cultures all over the world. It became the Bible that Christians memorized and preached from with great conviction. The TR was a part of the Reformation and men like Tyndale died translating it into English. We can see the hand of God even upon the KJV with the fact that Christians today still believe and trust it as the words of God in English. When men in history said that the KJV would fade away in multiple points in history, the KJV still endured. A settled text. This is where Revelation 22:18-19 comes in and makes sense. But in the Modern Bible Movement with its never ending shape shifter text, you cannot add or take away from such a text because its words keep changing. So how does Revelation 22:18-19 apply in your Modern Bible Movement? Please answer. Give me serious ways of that actually works.


....

Your entire argument still assumes the very thing you refuse to defend: that God’s standard = the KJV, and unless the KJV exists as a single frozen edition, Revelation 22:18–19 collapses — but Scripture never defines preservation as a printed English text; it defines it as God keeping His Word across manuscript_witnesses, which means your “words must never change” premise is already broken by the TR itself, since Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir all produced different editions with different readings.
Your “good fruit” argument doesn’t rescue the logic either — revival, idioms, cultural influence, and memorization are not God’s criteria for textual purity, and if they were, you’d have to canonize Luther’s Bible in Germany and the Vulgate in medieval Europe. Revelation 22 applies to intentional tampering, not to the honest reporting of textual_variants that existed long before the KJV, which means your claim that the modern text “shape‑shifts” is just you ignoring the fact that the TR did the same.
And your final question — “How does Revelation 22 apply to your movement?” — is answered simply: it applies to anyone who deliberately alters Scripture, not to scholars comparing manuscripts God actually preserved. You’re not defending Revelation; you’re defending a printing tradition and calling it the standard God never defined.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your entire reply is just the standard KJV‑Only epistemology dressed up as piety — the idea that unless God’s Word exists in one perfect, frozen, English edition, you’re forced to become a “Bible corrector,” which is the theological equivalent of saying the apostles didn’t have a Bible because they didn’t own a 1769 Oxford printing.
You keep insisting that unless there is a single printed standard, no one can “live by every word,” but Scripture never defines preservation as a printed edition, it defines it as God keeping His Word across manuscript_witnesses, which is why your “Bible believer vs Bible corrector” dichotomy collapses the moment you remember the TR itself changed — Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir — meaning your “historic received text” is a shape‑shifter by your own definition.
Your appeal to “native Greek speakers” and “lexicons” doesn’t rescue your argument, because I speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, and I can tell you the issue isn’t whether πίστις can mean faithfulness (it can), but whether Galatians_2_16 teaches justification by Christ’s faithfulness instead of faith in Christ — and the early church, the grammar, and Paul’s own argument all contradict your reading.
And your final flourish — “you don’t have a Bible you can 100% trust, so you become the authority” — is just you mistaking your preferred edition for God’s Word, then accusing everyone else of unbelief for not sharing your printing tradition.
You’re not choosing between “Bible believer” and “Bible corrector”; you’re choosing between trusting the breadth of witnesses God actually preserved and trusting one English edition as if God dropped it from heaven leather‑bound.

You cannot know what the text says if you don't have a standard and if you are going off modern lexicons and modern scholars who have made many blunders over the years. They don't compare to the scholarship of the KJV Translators and their integrity. Try looking up their credentials some time and look to the classic older lexicons. If not, then have a nice life. I cannot force you to see something you are unwilling to see.



....

 

[OMC]

I am not KJV-only or KJV-English only. I used to be. My position is KJV + Its Underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. But you fail to see the importance of the KJV because without it, you are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine by every new Modern English modern Bible that comes out or by the next Nestle and Aland edition. You could be a sucker for believing that Jesus become the I AM according to the new UBS6 and NA 29. or you can just stick with the older reading. A person can go either way. Hence, why Revelation 22:18-19 does not apply in your world view.

Ok, One more time, your position is still functionally KJV‑Only, just with a Greek‑Hebrew footnote, because you’re treating the KJV as the fixed standard that stabilizes all doctrine, and anything outside it as a “shape‑shifter” that makes Revelation 22:18–19 impossible — but that argument collapses the moment you remember the very TR underlying your KJV changed repeatedly across Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, meaning your “settled text” never existed even in the tradition you trust; your fear that modern editions make people “tossed to and fro” assumes the KJV is the anchor God ordained, but Scripture defines preservation as God keeping His Word across manuscript_witnesses, not across one English printing.
Your “Jesus becomes the I AM in UBS6/NA29” example doesn’t prove instability — it proves textual_variants exist, just like they did in the manuscripts behind the KJV, and Revelation 22 applies to intentional tampering, not to reporting the readings God actually preserved. Your worldview needs a single printed standard for Revelation 22 to make sense; Scripture doesn’t.
You’re not defending the Bible — you’re defending the idea that God’s Word must match one edition or else preservation fails, and Paul never gives you that requirement.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

“How does Revelation 22 apply to your movement?” — is answered simply: it applies to anyone who deliberately alters Scripture, not to scholars comparing manuscripts God actually preserved. You’re not defending Revelation; you’re defending a printing tradition and calling it the standard God never defined.

Again, that does not address the problem. How can God hold anyone accountable for adding or removing from His words if there is no set printed standard somewhere? That would be like a master who kicks a dog across the room for pooping on his carpets despite the fact that it has an uncontrollable pooping problem because it is sick. The dog has no way of stopping its release because it is sick. Yet, the master kicks the dog anyways even with it knowing the dog is sick and it cannot help itself. Thats what you want me to believe here. You want me to believe God punishes others for a standard that nobody really can know or have. Your argument or logic is flawed. You cannot add or take away from God's words if there is no single set standard that we all agree are His words.



....