Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[OMC]

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

Are you not reading my posts? Your claim that “you cannot know what the text says without a single standard” is just the same KJV‑as‑anchor argument in different packaging, because the moment you elevate one edition as the stabilizer, you’ve already replaced the actual manuscript_witnesses God preserved with a human printing tradition; appealing to “modern lexicon blunders” or “superior KJV translator credentials” doesn’t solve the problem, because the issue isn’t translator intelligence but the reality that the manuscripts behind the KJV contain the same textual_variants you accuse modern scholars of “shape‑shifting.”
The TR changed across Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, meaning your “fixed standard” never existed even in the tradition you trust, and your appeal to “classic older lexicons” simply assumes older = purer, which is not how textual history works.
You’re not defending certainty; you’re defending a printing era and calling it the only way God could preserve His Word, while Scripture itself defines preservation as God sustaining His Word across the witnesses He actually left us.

 

[OMC]

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.



....

Your entire objection still assumes the very premise you never prove — that God must give the world one printed edition or else Revelation 22:18–19 becomes unjust.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

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.

You don't get it. Family 35 while not based on the Critical Text used manuscripts to translate into English the "become" reading. Some poor sap out there is going to believe that Bible and it is going to affect their faith. In time, the Modern English Bibles can add the new NA 29 / UBS 6 reading and it will influence even more minds to believe that. You just call it a variant as if it was unimportant but by believing Jesus becomes the I AM, they will think the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) did not exist from eternity's past. That's what your not getting here is that bad texts affect people and creates bad false beliefs or bad doctrines. But you can just ignore this elephant in the room if you like.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your entire objection still assumes the very premise you never prove — that God must give the world one printed edition or else Revelation 22:18–19 becomes unjust.

I already proved it. I gave you many reasons why the KJV is that standard. It's not some obscure translation sitting on a shelf that nobody uses or has never used. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were virtually unused through a giant portion of church history.

Again, Revelation 22:18-19 cannot be applied if you don't have a standard you know 100% is true. If there is any room for doubt and you introduce the 160 new changes like in the NA 29, then how can you really know what is being added or subtracted? You don't. Not in the Modern Bible Movement. You cannot truly know what is truly in or out because your text keeps changing.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Your entire objection still assumes the very premise you never prove — that God must give the world one printed edition or else Revelation 22:18–19 becomes unjust.

You also fail to consider that God's word took time to be printed (1400s) and then in the 1500s it was starting to come together, and it was being refined then finally in 1600s, those copies of the original languages finally came together in one place . Before that it was scattered manuscript copies and printed editions in the original languages. That is just the progression of how we see God's words are preserved through history. English is a global language and it makes sense that God was bringing a Bible to meet that demand to hold men accountable to His words. But again, I believe the inspired words are the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV. The KJV is just an English translation of those inspired words.


...

 

[OMC]

You don't get it. Family 35 while not based on the Critical Text used manuscripts to translate into English the "become" reading. Some poor sap out there is going to believe that Bible and it is going to affect their faith. In time, the Modern English Bibles can add the new NA 29 / UBS 6 reading and it will influence even more minds to believe that. You just call it a variant as if it was unimportant but by believing Jesus becomes the I AM, they will think the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) did not exist from eternity's past. That's what your not getting here is that bad texts affect people and creates bad false beliefs or bad doctrines. But you can just ignore this elephant in the room if you like.

The “elephant in the room” isn’t that variants create heresy — it’s that you’re treating any variant you dislike as heresy while ignoring that the very manuscripts behind your KJV contain the same textual_variants you condemn; your Family 35 example doesn’t prove your point, it proves mine: a translation can mishandle a reading, but that’s a translator’s error, not a flaw in God’s preservation.

 

[OMC]

You also fail to consider that God's word took time to be printed (1400s) and then in the 1500s it was starting to come together, and it was being refined then finally in 1600s, those copies of the original languages finally came together in one place . Before that it was scattered manuscript copies and printed editions in the original languages. That is just the progression of how we see God's words are preserved through history. English is a global language and it makes sense that God was bringing a Bible to meet that demand to hold men accountable to His words. But again, I believe the inspired words are the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV. The KJV is just an English translation of those inspired words.

Your entire “God slowly assembled a single printed standard over centuries” narrative is just a theological reconstruction built backward from the KJV, not something Scripture ever teaches; saying God intended the printing press, the TR refinements, and finally the KJV to become the one global standard is not exegesis, it’s providential storytelling, and it collapses the moment you remember the very manuscripts behind your “underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek” contain the same textual_variants you condemn in modern editions.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I tried my best and your not getting it.

Moving on from talking to you (specifically).

May God bless you.

Tchau, Tchau.

....

 

[OMC]

I tried my best and your not getting it.

Moving on from talking to you (specifically).

May God bless you.

Tchau, Tchau.

....

 

[Dino246]

I already proved it. I gave you many reasons why the KJV is that standard.

You're playing fast and loose with definitions, employing the false equivocation fallacy.

"Standard" has several meanings. You are trying to argue that because the KJV has been in common usage for centuries, that it is the standard translation.

You're right, in ONE sense: "common".

However, when someone who is arguing against KJV-onlyism says, "The KJV is not the standard", they are using the word in a DIFFERENT sense: one of a tape measure or micrometer: a standard against which others are measured.

In the second sense, the KJV IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE the standard. The original-language manuscripts ARE the standard in this case.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You're playing fast and loose with definitions, employing the false equivocation fallacy.

"Standard" has several meanings. You are trying to argue that because the KJV has been in common usage for centuries, that it is the standard translation.

You're right, in ONE sense: "common".

However, when someone who is arguing against KJV-onlyism says, "The KJV is not the standard", they are using the word in a DIFFERENT sense: one of a tape measure or micrometer: a standard against which others are measured.

In the second sense, the KJV IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE the standard. The original-language manuscripts ARE the standard in this case.

Nice try. But you are missing the fact that the KJV is unlike other previous translations in history in that it was:

#1. The dominant translation in a world language (English) that was influential, had a positive impact globally, and broke denominational barriers within the Protestant world, leading to good fruit (like three of the great revivals). In short, our text now has a global positive impact for good that creates unity and not confusion.​

​

#2. It was tied to the Reformation in its early formation with the TR, which gave people a Bible in Greek that helped many people break away from the Catholic machine. Luther used one of Erasmus' TR editions, which was also crucial as a part of the Reformation.​

​

#3. Represents a historic chain of custody that aligns with patristic writers, early manuscripts, and papyri.​

​

#4. Superior doctrine when compared to the now-popular Critical Text of our day.​

​

#5. Led to the memorization of God's word on a larger scale than ever before.​

​

#6. Believed to this day to be the word of God and recognized by even unbelievers as a magnificent and poetic achievement. Its words and 200-plus idioms have been ingrained in English-speaking countries all over the world. So even unbelievers speak the word of God without even realizing it.​

​

#7. It aligns with the promises of God in that His words are pure, trustworthy, and preserved forever.​

But of course, I know that none of this will register in your brain as anything special because of your current belief system that runs contrary to having a settled word of God for our day that will lead into the end times.

So I am wondering how your one-liner jabs and no-evidence claims, or your lack of any good points, will somehow draw me into your side of the movement of conflicting Bibles and never-ending, shape-shifting NA editions as somehow better or superior. Your movement is only filled with confusion and contradictions and a constantly changing text with no end in sight. Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith because they do not have a settled text that they can trust in. Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite. How is this a better Bible line or path? You offer junk doctrines, extreme heretics, liberals and lies by scholars about the TR/KJV. Yeah, not convincing or even tempting for me to join. It's like offering me spoiled food and saying it is good. Yeah, no thanks. You don't have any good alternative or anything remotely tempting to offer. Being accepted by popular Christianity is all you really have to offer, and that is not a good enough reason if it is a compromise on truth. Make your case for why you think your side is better than our side. I don't really think you can do that. I think you know that deep down on a subconscious level you cannot do that. So on it goes with your sad tactics. Your upcoming insulting one-liners and sad, unproven theories are just attempts to avoid obvious truths in history involving the true words of God for the Lord's people.

If you want to be liberal with God's word, that is your choice, but I know where all the words of God are.

You don't know where all the precise words of God are for His people today. The Critical Text side is still trying to figure it out, and their results or efforts have been an absolute dumpster fire.


....

 

[Dino246]

Nice try. But you are missing the fact that the KJV is unlike other previous translations in history in that it was:

#1. The dominant translation in a world language (English) that was influential, had a positive impact globally, and broke denominational barriers within the Protestant world, leading to good fruit (like three of the great revivals). In short, our text now has a global positive impact for good that creates unity and not confusion.​

​

#2. It was tied to the Reformation in its early formation with the TR, which gave people a Bible in Greek that helped many people break away from the Catholic machine. Luther used one of Erasmus' TR editions, which was also crucial as a part of the Reformation.​

​

#3. Represents a historic chain of custody that aligns with patristic writers, early manuscripts, and papyri.​

​

#4. Superior doctrine when compared to the now-popular Critical Text of our day.​

​

#5. Led to the memorization of God's word on a larger scale than ever before.​

​

#6. Believed to this day to be the word of God and recognized by even unbelievers as a magnificent and poetic achievement. Its words and 200-plus idioms have been ingrained in English-speaking countries all over the world. So even unbelievers speak the word of God without even realizing it.​

​

#7. It aligns with the promises of God in that His words are pure, trustworthy, and preserved forever.​

But of course, I know that none of this will register in your brain as anything special because of your current belief system that runs contrary to having a settled word of God for our day that will lead into the end times.

So I am wondering how your one-liner jabs and no-evidence claims, or your lack of any good points, will somehow draw me into your side of the movement of conflicting Bibles and never-ending, shape-shifting NA editions as somehow better or superior. Your movement is only filled with confusion and contradictions and a constantly changing text with no end in sight. Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith because they do not have a settled text that they can trust in. Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite. How is this a better Bible line or path? You offer junk doctrines, extreme heretics, liberals and lies by scholars about the TR/KJV. Yeah, not convincing or even tempting for me to join. It's like offering me spoiled food and saying it is good. Yeah, no thanks. You don't have any good alternative or anything remotely tempting to offer. Being accepted by popular Christianity is all you really have to offer, and that is not a good enough reason if it is a compromise on truth. Make your case for why you think your side is better than our side. I don't really think you can do that. I think you know that deep down on a subconscious level you cannot do that. So on it goes with your sad tactics. Your upcoming insulting one-liners and sad, unproven theories are just attempts to avoid obvious truths in history involving the true words of God for the Lord's people.

If you want to be liberal with God's word, that is your choice, but I know where all the words of God are.

You don't know where all the precise words of God are for His people today. The Critical Text side is still trying to figure it out, and their results or efforts have been an absolute dumpster fire.


....

Yawn.

The KJV is not the standard.

Deal with it.

 

[OMC]

Nice try. But you are missing the fact that the KJV is unlike other previous translations in history in that it was:

#1. The dominant translation in a world language (English) that was influential, had a positive impact globally, and broke denominational barriers within the Protestant world, leading to good fruit (like three of the great revivals). In short, our text now has a global positive impact for good that creates unity and not confusion.#2. It was tied to the Reformation in its early formation with the TR, which gave people a Bible in Greek that helped many people break away from the Catholic machine. Luther used one of Erasmus' TR editions, which was also crucial as a part of the Reformation.#3. Represents a historic chain of custody that aligns with patristic writers, early manuscripts, and papyri.#4. Superior doctrine when compared to the now-popular Critical Text of our day.#5. Led to the memorization of God's word on a larger scale than ever before.#6. Believed to this day to be the word of God and recognized by even unbelievers as a magnificent and poetic achievement. Its words and 200-plus idioms have been ingrained in English-speaking countries all over the world. So even unbelievers speak the word of God without even realizing it.#7. It aligns with the promises of God in that His word is pure, trustworthy, and would be preserved forever.
But of course, I know that none of this will register in your brain as anything special because of your current belief system that runs contrary to having a settled word of God for our day that will lead into the end times.

So I am wondering how your one-liner jabs and no-evidence claims, or your lack of any good points, will somehow draw me into your side of the movement of conflicting Bibles and never-ending, shape-shifting NA editions as somehow better or superior. Your movement is only filled with confusion and contradictions and a constantly changing text with no end in sight. Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith because they do not have a settled text that they can trust in. Bart Ehrman, Rick Beckman, C.J. Cornthwaite. How is this a better Bible line or path? You offer junk doctrines, extreme heretics, liberals and lies by scholars about the TR/KJV. Yeah, not convincing or even tempting for me to join. It's like offering me spoiled food and saying it is good. Yeah, no thanks. You don't have any good alternative or anything remotely tempting to offer. Being accepted by popular Christianity is all you really have to offer, and that is not a good enough reason if it is a compromise on truth. Make your case for why you think your side is better than our side. I don't really think you can do that. I think you know that deep down on a subconscious level you cannot do that. So on it goes with your sad tactics. Your upcoming insulting one-liners and sad, unproven theories are just attempts to avoid obvious truths in history involving the true words of God for the Lord's people.

If you want to be liberal with God's word, that is your choice, but I know where all the words of God are.

You don't know where all the precise words of God are for His people today. The Critical Text side is still trying to figure it out, and their results or efforts have been an absolute dumpster fire

wow! thank you for this immaculate museum‑grade display of KJV triumphalism — truly a seven‑point constellation of perfection unmatched since the dawn of language.
Let me just bask in the radiance of your argument: the KJV isn’t merely a translation, it’s apparently the cosmic apex of linguistic evolution, the theological North Star, the global unifier, the doctrinal purifier, the memory enhancer, the poetic gold standard, the fulfillment of preservation promises, and — my favorite — the text that even unbelievers unknowingly quote like sleepwalking prophets.
Meanwhile, the Critical Text is, of course, a “dumpster fire,” a “shape‑shifting monster,” a “confusion factory,” and the spiritual equivalent of offering me a plate of spoiled meat and insisting it’s filet mignon.
And naturally, every person who ever struggled with faith did so because they didn’t have your exact edition of the Bible — Bart Ehrman didn’t lose confidence in Scripture because of textual complexity; no, he simply didn’t have the KJV to tuck him in at night. Truly, your argument is so airtight that NASA should study it for spacecraft hull design.
And yes, I absolutely understand: you know precisely where all the words of God are, every syllable, every vowel, every jot and tittle — while the rest of us are apparently wandering blindfolded through a textual landfill clutching NA28 like a cursed relic.
Thank you for this gourmet feast of rhetorical certainty; We will treasure it forever.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

wow! thank you for this immaculate museum‑grade display of KJV triumphalism — truly a seven‑point constellation of perfection unmatched since the dawn of language.
Let me just bask in the radiance of your argument: the KJV isn’t merely a translation, it’s apparently the cosmic apex of linguistic evolution, the theological North Star, the global unifier, the doctrinal purifier, the memory enhancer, the poetic gold standard, the fulfillment of preservation promises, and — my favorite — the text that even unbelievers unknowingly quote like sleepwalking prophets.
Meanwhile, the Critical Text is, of course, a “dumpster fire,” a “shape‑shifting monster,” a “confusion factory,” and the spiritual equivalent of offering me a plate of spoiled meat and insisting it’s filet mignon.
And naturally, every person who ever struggled with faith did so because they didn’t have your exact edition of the Bible — Bart Ehrman didn’t lose confidence in Scripture because of textual complexity; no, he simply didn’t have the KJV to tuck him in at night. Truly, your argument is so airtight that NASA should study it for spacecraft hull design.
And yes, I absolutely understand: you know precisely where all the words of God are, every syllable, every vowel, every jot and tittle — while the rest of us are apparently wandering blindfolded through a textual landfill clutching NA28 like a cursed relic.
Thank you for this gourmet feast of rhetorical certainty; We will treasure it forever.

What you declare as sarcasm, I take as praise. Granted, I believe the KJV is an English translation that is providential, and the original languages that underlie the KJV are the actual inspired words of God. As for NASA studying the KJV for hull design: While there is a strong chance nothing may come of it, we are breaking boundaries we never thought possible with AI, at least until "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines" happens.

Why did I bring up AI? Well, it was not for comic relief alone, but because I used AI to find something that should have been impossible for your average internet researcher to discover. I found three non-manuscript archaeological pieces of evidence for Textus Receptus readings that are not found in the Critical Text using AI. My first discovery was entirely accidental. A Christian lady who sometimes posts biblical archaeological findings at TR Academy had posted Madaba Mosaic map (6th century). For some reason, I felt led to ask an AI to examine the names on this Mosaic map and see if there was any kind of connection to the Textus Receptus. It was a long shot, and I did not expect anything out of it, and it actually found a unique TR reading that was different from the Critical Text for a particular verse. Granted, I do not see my discovering here of this as any kind of accident. I see this kind of thing as a God moment. Do you have any God moments in your life? Where God speaks to you? Has He spoken to you lately?

The other two were. not so easy to find. I had to keep searching AI non-stop practically for hours on end for 3-4 days before I could find something really meaty and good with the source links. It had to be within a certain earlier time period and no later than the 9th century, as well. I found one in 600 AD, and the other was 800 AD. The AI kept telling me repeatedly there is no such evidence, and I kept ignoring and I kept pushing, and pushing it to find it, and it eventually gave me the goods.

You can check out my findings of these three pieces of archaeological evidences at my site:

www.affectionsabove.com

On an added fun crazy wild idea side note involving NASA and hull design using the KJV:

There are already precedents for converting written language into physical geometry. In one case, researchers converted letters and words into numerical or binary information that determined the arrangement of cells in a 3D-printed mechanical metamaterial. In another project, numerical features taken from written works, such as word frequency and distribution, were transformed into geometric forms and then physically 3D printed.

This raises an interesting experimental question. What if numerical patterns derived from the exact text of the King James Bible were converted, by a predetermined mathematical rule, into two- or three-dimensional lattice structures and then tested for useful physical properties? The resulting geometries could be compared with structures generated from other writings, other Bible translations, randomized text, and conventional engineered lattices. Researchers could then test them for strength, heat distribution, vibration resistance, electromagnetic behavior, or other properties that might have applications in aerospace engineering or nanotechnology.

Perhaps nothing unusual would result from the experiment. On the other hand, perhaps a useful geometric arrangement or material property would emerge that no one anticipated. There is no way to know without actually testing it. Granted, NASA or materials researchers may never attempt an experiment like this, but the underlying concept is not outside the realm of scientific investigation. Written information has already been converted into numerical data and then into physical geometry. The proposed experiment would simply take the idea one step further by asking whether geometry generated from the KJV could produce any useful engineering properties.

There are already at least two real experiments or research projects showing that written text can be converted into numerical information and then into physical geometry.

1. In 2023, researchers from Tsinghua University, Nanyang Technological University, and Washington University published “Encoding and Storage of Information in Mechanical Metamaterials” in Advanced Science. They developed software that could take words, letters, and numbers as input, convert that information into arrays of data, and use the resulting patterns to determine the arrangement of cells in a 3D-printed mechanical metamaterial. In other words, written information was converted into data that controlled an actual physical material structure.
   Read the full study
2. Researchers at Bauhaus-Universität Weimar performed another experiment called “Digital Homunculus” or “Philosophical Bodies.” They analyzed large collections of writings by Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, and others, calculated numerical information such as the frequency of particular types of words, and then used those numerical results to alter the geometry of 3D models. The resulting text-derived shapes were physically manufactured with 3D printing.
   Bauhaus University project page
   Published research paper

Granted, I am not the kind of person to do this kind of thing. So don't expect any kind of NASA hull experiment based on the KJV coming from me. Science has never really been one of my interests. I am more geared towards the arts, writing, and the investigation of truth. But if you want to try it, be my guest. If you pray for direction, anything is possible with God.

....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

wow! thank you for this immaculate museum‑grade display of KJV triumphalism — truly a seven‑point constellation of perfection unmatched since the dawn of language.
Let me just bask in the radiance of your argument: the KJV isn’t merely a translation, it’s apparently the cosmic apex of linguistic evolution, the theological North Star, the global unifier, the doctrinal purifier, the memory enhancer, the poetic gold standard, the fulfillment of preservation promises, and — my favorite — the text that even unbelievers unknowingly quote like sleepwalking prophets.
Meanwhile, the Critical Text is, of course, a “dumpster fire,” a “shape‑shifting monster,” a “confusion factory,” and the spiritual equivalent of offering me a plate of spoiled meat and insisting it’s filet mignon.
And naturally, every person who ever struggled with faith did so because they didn’t have your exact edition of the Bible — Bart Ehrman didn’t lose confidence in Scripture because of textual complexity; no, he simply didn’t have the KJV to tuck him in at night. Truly, your argument is so airtight that NASA should study it for spacecraft hull design.
And yes, I absolutely understand: you know precisely where all the words of God are, every syllable, every vowel, every jot and tittle — while the rest of us are apparently wandering blindfolded through a textual landfill clutching NA28 like a cursed relic.
Thank you for this gourmet feast of rhetorical certainty; We will treasure it forever.

Speaking of museums:

We need one for the Westcott and Hort / Nestle and Aland Modern Bible Movement.

Here are some possible names:

#1. The Westcott & Hort Museum of Biblical Blunders.
#2. The Westcott-Hort House of Horrors Museum.
#3. The Westcott & Hort Slice & Dice Museum.
#4. The Museum of Westcott & Hort's Bible Butcher Shop.
#5. The Critical Text Chop Shop Museum.
#6. The Holey Bible Museum: Slogan: A Book That is Not Divine (Holy), But a Book Full of Holes or Errors.
#7. Westcott & Hort: Ninja Thieves Museum: Slogan: Stealing Verses Since 1881
#8. Westcott & Hort: Ninja Scribes Museum: Slogan: Masters of Textual Disappearance.

Think of how fun it could be. You get to visit Westcott's statue and see it in a recreated part of the church where you hear him say that he believed he was witnessing dead spirits. You could have communion with a statue of George Vance Smith, a unitarian. See a realistic statue of Catholic cardinal Carlo Maria Martini working on the Nestle and Aland text and get your photo next to him. Shake the fake hand of Donald W. Parry who is a Mormon that worked on the BHQ. Examine archaic Mark in how they later discovered it was a forgery when they thought it was one of the best. Look at a film highlighting the blunders in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Watch a documentary on real life people and how they have been confused or mislead by Modern Bibles. Strap yourself in, and take the "Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible" ride. The possibilities of fun for such an attraction are endless.


....

 

[OMC]

What you declare as sarcasm, I take as praise. Granted, I believe the KJV is an English translation that is providential, and the original languages that underlie the KJV are the actual inspired words of God. As for NASA studying the KJV for hull design: While there is a strong chance nothing may come of it, we are breaking boundaries we never thought possible with AI, at least until "Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines" happens.

Why did I bring up AI? Well, it was not for comic relief alone, but because I used AI to find something that should have been impossible for your average internet researcher to discover. I found three non-manuscript archaeological pieces of evidence for Textus Receptus readings that are not found in the Critical Text using AI. My first discovery was entirely accidental. A Christian lady who sometimes posts biblical archaeological findings at TR Academy had posted Madaba Mosaic map (6th century). For some reason, I felt led to ask an AI to examine the names on this Mosaic map and see if there was any kind of connection to the Textus Receptus. It was a long shot, and I did not expect anything out of it, and it actually found a unique TR reading that was different from the Critical Text for a particular verse. Granted, I do not see my discovering here of this as any kind of accident. I see this kind of thing as a God moment. Do you have any God moments in your life? Where God speaks to you? Has He spoken to you lately?

The other two were. not so easy to find. I had to keep searching AI non-stop practically for hours on end for 3-4 days before I could find something really meaty and good with the source links. It had to be within a certain earlier time period and no later than the 9th century, as well. I found one in 600 AD, and the other was 800 AD. The AI kept telling me repeatedly there is no such evidence, and I kept ignoring and I kept pushing, and pushing it to find it, and it eventually gave me the goods.

What you’re calling “God moments” are actually you treating AI pattern‑matching as divine revelation, and the “discoveries” you describe cannot function as textual witnesses because mosaics, inscriptions, and artifacts do not preserve Greek New Testament readings unless they literally quote the text, which the Madaba Map does not; you pushed an AI until it fabricated TR‑distinct readings because you were asking it to do something impossible—extract variant readings from non‑textual artifacts—and then interpreted the hallucination as providential confirmation; the TR is a 16th‑century editorial reconstruction, and no 6th‑, 7th‑, or 8th‑century artifact can “prove” a TR‑unique reading unless it contains an explicit Greek citation, which none of your examples do; your experience feels meaningful, but it’s not manuscript evidence, and treating AI output as divine communication is spiritually dangerous because it collapses the distinction between providence and private_revelation—God speaks through Scripture, not through forcing a machine to produce results it repeatedly told you do not exist.

 

[OMC]

Speaking of museums:

We need one for the Westcott and Hort / Nestle and Aland Modern Bible Movement.

Here are some possible names:

#1. The Westcott & Hort Museum of Biblical Blunders.
#2. The Westcott-Hort House of Horrors Museum.
#3. The Westcott & Hort Slice & Dice Museum.
#4. The Museum of Westcott & Hort's Bible Butcher Shop.
#5. The Critical Text Chop Shop Museum.
#6. The Holey Bible Museum: Slogan: A Book That is Not Divine (Holy), But a Book Full of Holes or Errors.
#7. Westcott & Hort: Ninja Thieves Museum: Slogan: Stealing Verses Since 1881
#8. Westcott & Hort: Ninja Scribes Museum: Slogan: Masters of Textual Disappearance.

Think of how fun it could be. You get to visit Westcott's statue and see it in a recreated part of the church where you hear him say that he believed he was witnessing dead spirits. You could have communion with a statue of George Vance Smith, a unitarian. See a realistic statue of Catholic cardinal Carlo Maria Martini working on the Nestle and Aland text and get your photo next to him. Shake the fake hand of Donald W. Parry who is a Mormon that worked on the BHQ. Examine archaic Mark in how they later discovered it was a forgery when they thought it was one of the best. Look at a film highlighting the blunders in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Watch a documentary on real life people and how they have been confused or mislead by Modern Bibles. Strap yourself in, and take the "Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible" ride. The possibilities of fun for such an attraction are endless.
....

Your “Westcott & Hort Museum of Biblical Blunders” is hilarious precisely because it exposes the core flaw of KJV‑only polemics, which is the belief that textual criticism is a morality play with heroes and villains rather than a discipline dealing with scribal habits, transmission history, and manuscript evidence; you can build animatronic Westcotts whispering to ghosts, holographic Unitarians serving communion, Mormon scholars in glass cases, and a “Pick‑Your‑Own‑Adventure Bible Ride,” but none of it changes the fact that the TR is a 16th‑century patchwork built from a handful of late manuscripts, while the Critical Text is a reconstruction from thousands of witnesses across centuries, and your museum is basically a theological haunted house designed to make people afraid of manuscripts older than the KJV; it’s funny, it’s theatrical, it’s peak , but it’s not an argument — it’s satire that accidentally reveals how much of the KJV‑only case depends on demonizing scholars instead of engaging the actual textual data.

 

[Qt]

I said, "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.

I bet you get in a lot of arguments. Your pointed comments about others typically do nothing but gender strife. Let's avoid that shall we

As to your query, No, I use a TR based Interlinear with various lexicons and grammar books with the KJV for the most part. And then I look at other versions to see how they translated a given text. And if they are not of the same textual family, I disregard their differences.

Are you familiar with these two translations? J. P. Green's translation is outstanding. But it isn't perfect either.

And no I do not pick and choose, God had already put forth His Word in the TR. I do my best through prayer and research to understand that. No translation is perfect, so I dig.

 

[Qt]

Your “Westcott & Hort Museum of Biblical Blunders” is hilarious precisely because it exposes the core flaw of KJV‑only polemics, which is the belief that textual criticism is a morality play with heroes and villains rather than a discipline dealing with scribal habits, transmission history, and manuscript evidence; you can build animatronic Westcotts whispering to ghosts, holographic Unitarians serving communion, Mormon scholars in glass cases, and a “Pick‑Your‑Own‑Adventure Bible Ride,” but none of it changes the fact that the TR is a 16th‑century patchwork built from a handful of late manuscripts, while the Critical Text is a reconstruction from thousands of witnesses across centuries, and your museum is basically a theological haunted house designed to make people afraid of manuscripts older than the KJV; it’s funny, it’s theatrical, it’s peak , but it’s not an argument — it’s satire that accidentally reveals how much of the KJV‑only case depends on demonizing scholars instead of engaging the actual textual data.

OMC Are you Protestant? What Textual group made that possible?

 

[Qt]

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.


....

Before actually addressing this. Is this all your work or is only part of it?

If it isn't all you please cite sources, thanks.