The conversation between walkingman117 and myself is now ended (being terminated by myself). The primary reason for this, is because the dialogue rapidly moved from mutual conversation to interrogation (ie. I would be asked questions, and I would take several hours of precious time to answer, and when I asked questions in return, I received no answers except more questions). It became unproductive of my time and effort. Ultimately, beyond all the evidence that can be provided that the KJB is the perfectly inspired and preserved words of God in English, it requires, foundationally and finally - Faith in what God said (Psa 12:6-7), and though a thousand questions be answered, like as above, in as much care, precision and detail, the person without Faith in what God said, can not ever be satisfied with any amount of evidence. There are two kinds of people. People with questions that when answered recieve with joy understanding and believe. People with questions that when answered show no such thankfulness, nor belief, but only have more, and even endless, questions because of their unbelief.

[walkingman117 (by email)] "Thank you for your research.

English speakers today do not commonly add "eth" to the ends of verbs.

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth..."

Is this also a perfect copy of God's word?

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves...""

[My Response]

It depends on what you are defining as "perfect".

The KJB is more accurate in your example. It is translating more accurately according to the ending as found in Hebrew. If every verse were translated away from "-eth", &c, to simply and "s", &c ending, additional words would need to be utilized, which increases the complexity and difficulty, in amount of words (and thus also letter count) and syllables. See example below.

The same would go for an attempt to eliminate the "thee's" & "thou's", &c. It is more accurate to translate this way into English, and since English allows for it, why not utilize the entire scope of the language rather than to curtail it.

• "APPENDIX 12

• Archaic Verb Inflections

• Many words in the AV that are dismissed as being archaic are not archaic at all -- they merely have obsolete verb inflections. Inflection refers to changes made in the form of words to show their grammatical relationships. For nouns and pronouns this is called declension; for adjectives and adverbs, comparison; for verbs, conjugation. Typically deemed to be archaic due to obsolete verb inflections are words in the AV like the following:

• couldest eatest

• shouldest gavest

• goest lovedst

• hast durst

• creepeth sheddeth

• liveth pleaseth

• seeth aileth

• hath thinketh

• believeth cometh

• judgest knowest

• Although languages like Latin and Greek are highly inflected, English has relatively few inflections. English verbs are inflected for tense, voice, mood, number, and person. Tense denotes action in relation to time -- past, present, or future. Voice shows whether the verb's subject is acting or being acted upon. Thus, active or passive voice. Mood indicates the manner in which an action is expressed. The indicative mood states a fact. The subjunctive mood expresses a suggestion or contingency. The imperative mood gives a command or direction. These inflections are generally indicated by using other verbs called auxiliary verbs. This would include words like shall, will, and forms of have, do, and be. With the exception of the [page 505-506] irregular verb be, verbs are only inflected for number and person in the third person singular present indicative. Hence, I write the book, you read it, they read it, but he reads it.

• Older verb forms, however, like those of the aforementioned words, had special inflections in both the second and third person singular. The suffix -est denoted the second person singular and the suffix -eth denoted the third person singular. Sometimes the initial e in these forms was replaced by an apostrophe or dropped altogether. Some words had both forms: doeth and doth; doest and dost.

• Thus, any verb in the AV with an -est or -st suffix, not just form, is in the second person singular. Likewise, any verb in the AV with an -eth or -th suffix, not just form, is in the third person singular. Both Hebrew and Greek inflect verbs in number and person. So, since the capability exists in the English second and third person singular, it should not be a problem when the AV does likewise." - Archaic Words and the Authorized Version, by Lawrence M. Vance, 3rd ed., pages 505-506. Copyright 1996, 1999, 2011. ISBN 978-0-9823697-3-9. Published and Distributed by: Vance Publications P.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524 (E-mail: vancepub@vancepublications.com) (Website: www.vancepublications.com )

The endings, as noted, in the KJB are accurate in translating the Hebrew and Greek, and given in the most simplest of forms with the fewest of words, making the most sense without confusion.

For instance, take Luke 23:3:

Jesus said to Pilate,

(KJB) "Thou sayest it."

• (3 words) (12 letters) (4 syllables)

Compare to other 'translations':

(NIV) “You have said so,”

• (4 words) (13 letters) (4 syllables)

(NKJV) "It is as you say"

• (5 words) (12 letters) (5 syllables)

(Amplified) "It is just as you say."

• (6 words) (16 letters) (6 syllables)

(ERV) "Yes, what you say is true."

• (6 words) (19 letters) (6 syllables)

&c.

The list of "modern" Bibles has several English 'translations' that use similar KJB endings, and some that try to approximate it:

• (KJ21) “Thou sayest it.”

• (ASV) "Thou sayest."

• (BRG) "Thou sayest it."

• (DARBY) "Thou sayest."

• (DRA) "Thou sayest it."

• (GNV) "Thou sayest it."

• (JUB) "Thou sayest it."

• (AKJV) "Thou sayest it."

• (WYC) "Thou sayest."

• (YLT) "`Thou dost say [it].'"

Is the KJB the only one that you take umbrage with? Or do you contact the publishers of those and make the same charges, taking up the same issues as you have with the KJB? If not, what is your motive / reason for not so doing? The KJB is effectively from AD 1611, being over 400 years in use. What is the reason do you think that they would give for using the same 'obsolete' and 'archaic' endings of English words in their 'modern' and 'up to date' translations? The scales of the sanctuary should be balanced, not imbalanced. They should weigh true, not uneven. In other words, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Mat 7:2)

The very 'charges' that many lay against the KJB, are never leveled against the very 'modern' and 'up to date' translations. Hypocrites, the lot of them. They are "partial" in their judgment, biased in their thinking, wicked in their imaginations against the words of God as preserved in the KJB, and favour their "private interpretation" based upon their own a priori. For instance, the NIV never compares itself to any other translation except the KJB. Same with the NKJV, and others in their 'preface'. Generally speaking, most 'modern' and 'up to date' translations compare themselves to that 400 year old ever-living Lion, that quadringentesimo anno natus anvil, and not to any other. Why? What do they have against it, that cannot be found in the 'modern' and 'up to date' translations?

• Is it "thee's" and "thou's"? Found in modern translations.

• Is it "-eth" and "-est"? Found in modern translations.

• Is it archaic words? Found in modern translations.

• Is it transliterations? Found in modern translations.

• Is it marginal notes? Found in modern translations.

• Is it the italics (or bracketed words)? Found in modern translations.

• Is it the 'occasional dynamic equivalency'? Found in modern translations.

• Is it 'specialized capitalizations'? Found in modern translations.

Go ahead, and pick a modern English translation that exists and is used commonly (or even not so commonly), and I will show you that it has some of the very things in it, that exist in the KJB, and yet persons complain of it (KJB) alone rather than of both.

English speakers will vary from place to place, and whether they utilize the endings for first, second and third person singular, etc, is up to them. The Bible (KJB) doesn't say that they have to use them. However, even in modern, present day English, all over the world, they are still used. They are used in Hymnals. They are used in Movies. They are used in art. They are used in poetry (written and spoken (poetry corners)). They are used in music (and in 'rap' especially; if one can call 'rap' music) (as for instance):

• "speaketh" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/Speaketh

• "speaketh" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/speaketh/

• "speaketh" - https://www.quodb.com/search/speaketh

• "speaketh" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=speaketh&m=

• "speaketh" - https://www.ign.com/videos/2006/06/21/prey-pc-games-gameplay-art-bell-speaketh

• "speaketh" - https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/07/22/gamearts-speaketh

• "speaketh" - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=video+game+lines+search+%22speaketh%22&t=ffab&ia=web

• "sayest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/sayeth

• "sayest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/sayest/

• "sayest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/sayest

• "sayest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=sayest&m=

• "sayest" - https://www.crafty-games.com/forum/index.php?topic=1531.0

• "doeth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/doeth

• "doeth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/doeth/

• "doeth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/doeth

• "doeth" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=doeth&m=

• "doeth" - https://hymnary.org/text/my_savior_guides_me_in_the_way

• "couldest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/couldest

• "couldest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/couldest

• "couldest" - https://www.vampirerave.com/forum/message.php?message=55251&group=1&catid=1

• "shouldest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/shouldest/

• "shouldest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/shouldest

• "shouldest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=shouldest&m=

• "shouldest" - https://www.partyvibe.org/topic/play-games-at-shouldest-com/

• "goest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/goest

• "goest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/goest/

• "goest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/goest

• "goest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=goest&m=

• "hast" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/hast

• "hast" - (Monty Python) - https://www.quodb.com/search/%22hast%22?p=2&titles_per_page=5&phrases_per_title=1

• "hast" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=hast&m=

• "hast" - https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/197339-final-fantasy-tactics/51829996

• "hast" - https://www.dndbeyond.com/search?q=hast

• "creepeth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/creepeth

• "creepeth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/creepeth/

• "creepeth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/creepeth

• "creepeth" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=creepeth&m=

• "creepeth" - https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/every-creeping-thing-that-creepeth/

• "liveth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/liveth

• "liveth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/liveth/

• "liveth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/liveth

• "liveth" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=liveth&m=

• "liveth" - https://lifeliveth.com/collections/games

• "seeth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/seeth

• "seeth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/seeth/

• "seeth" - (We're no Angels) - https://www.quodb.com/search/seeth?p=5&titles_per_page=5&phrases_per_title=1

• "seeth" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=seeth&m=

• "hath" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/hath

• "hath" - https://www.quodb.com/search/hath

• "hath" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=hath&m=

• "hath" - https://techcrunch.com/2014/06/15/i-hath-seen-the-future-of-videogames/

• "believeth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/believeth

• "believeth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/believeth/

• "believeth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/believeth

• "believeth" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=believeth&m=

• "believeth" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4135952/videogallery/

• "judgest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/judgest

• "judgest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/judgest/

• "judgest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/judgest

• "judgest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=judgest&m=

• "eatest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/eatest

• "eatest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/eatest/

• "eatest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/eatest

• "eatest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=eatest&m=

• "gavest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/gavest

• "gavest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/gavest/

• "gavest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/gavest

• "gavest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=gavest&m=

• "gavest" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012045/videogallery/

• "lovedst" - https://www.quodb.com/search/lovedst

• "lovedst" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=lovedst&m=

• "lovedst" - https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/lines-memory-james-dow

• "durst" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/durst

• "durst" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/durst/

• "durst" - https://www.quodb.com/search/durst

• "durst" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=durst&m=

• "sheddeth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/sheddeth

• "sheddest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/sheddest/

• "sheddeth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/sheddeth

• "sheddeth" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=sheddeth&m=

• "pleaseth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/pleaseth

• "pleaseth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/pleaseth/

• "pleaseth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/pleaseth

• "aileth" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/aileth

• "aileth" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/aileth/

• "aileth" - https://www.quodb.com/search/aileth

• "thinketh" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/thinketh

• "thinketh" - https://www.quodb.com/search/thinketh

• "thinketh" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=thinketh&m=

• "cometh" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/cometh

• "cometh" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/cometh/

• "cometh" - https://www.quodb.com/search/cometh

• "cometh" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=cometh&m=

• "cometh" - https://www.igdb.com/search?type=1&q=cometh

• 
  

• "knowest" - https://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/knowest

• "knowest" - https://hellopoetry.com/words/knoweth/

• "knowest" - https://www.quodb.com/search/knowest

• "knowest" - https://newslookup.com/results?ovs=1&dp=&mt=-1&mtx=0&tp=Y2018&s=&groupby=no&cat=-1&fmt=&ut=&mkt=0&mktx=0&q=knowest&m=

The only two I could not immediately locate in that lyrics database were, "shouldest" (but found it in existing modern poetry, and also in Milton's Paradise Lost poem, which is still read today in colleges, &c. - https://www.netpoets.com/search/search ) and "lovedst" (seen in other materials, such as a translation of Gilgamesh's Epic - https://books.google.as/books?id=Es4NPQvCn3EC&pg=PA51&dq=%22lovedst%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY29yI2ID4AhXEoY4IHUTJDhQQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=%22lovedst%22&f=false or William Shakespeare - https://books.google.as/books?id=ZlPA0fSb88cC&pg=PA130&dq=%22lovedst%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq1Prw2ID4AhX6oY4IHYEHBtQ4KBDoAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=%22lovedst%22&f=false or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - https://books.google.as/books?id=oHLGDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22lovedst%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTsMOg2YD4AhWmqY4IHSvvCs045gEQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=%22lovedst%22&f=false ) and that doesn't mean that they don't exist in lyrics of modern day, it only means that that particular database doesn't have record of such.

According to such thinking, all of those movies, poems, lyrics (in music and hymns), video games, newspapers, books, and such all need to be updated, so that people can 'read' them and 'understand' them. Just imagine all of the seminaries, colleges, news agencies, video game developers (especially in the RPG, and JRPG sections), and hollywood producers and script writers having to do such a thing.

Then, we will have to eliminate all of those languages, like German, and others that also do such things similarly in their endings. In German, the second person takes -st, e.g., "Ich bin, du bist, Ich kenne, du kennst" (I am, you are, I know, you know).

In Luke 23:3 when Jesus says “Thou sayest it,” he was speaking to Pilate in the Second Person Singular Present.

In John 21:17 Jesus says to Simon Peter “Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” Again, the word love with "-est" or lov"-est" indicates the Second Person Singular Present (Jesus speaking to Peter).

In John 1:15 John the Baptist speaks of Jesus “He that cometh after me is preferred before me:” the "-eth" in cometh shows us that Jesus is being spoken of in the Third Person Singular Present, and further down in verse 26 John the Baptist says to the Pharisees about Jesus: “I baptise with water, but there standeth one among you whom ye know not.”

Again we see "-eth", this time with the word stand. In this case standeth refers to Jesus in the Third Person Singular Present.

Do we change those works, and others like them to 'update' them? Do we go through and change all the lyrics in the hymnals? Do we go through the many other documents written by presidents, statesmen, orators since the time of English and 'update' those?

Should we get rid of the word "Calvary" in the modern translations (as many already do)? - https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%2023:33

What then of all the hymns that use the word "Calvary", and have all those word 'obsolete' endings and 'archaic' words? Do we update those too? if not, that seems rather inconsistent to be singing in church using those same endings, and then turn to a 'modern' bible that no longer uses them. Word order, meter, and rhymes would need to change, and so on. Seems like confusion to me.

• 1Co 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Do we change the 'archaism' of 'seer' in 1 Samuel 9:9 to the modern and updated word "prophet"?

• 1Sa 9:9 - (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

Watch what happens when we do.

• 1Sa 9:9 - (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the [PROPHET]: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a [PROPHET].)

Does it make any sense now?

No.

[walkingman117 (by email)] " I think I am following what you're saying. I understood you to be saying earlier that the perfect copy of God's word would be in the common language of the common person. I don't think the KJB truly fits that description. I also understood you to be saying that the perfect copy would not be bound. Again, The KJB is under royal prerogative in the UK as I understand it.

So following your train upon, I wanted to see if it was possible to come up with a perfect copy in truly common English that was truly public domain everywhere in the world.

It may not be an efficient approach, but I wanted to know if it was possible.

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."

My response:

The common language, of the earth is English (particularly England English), which is the common language of the common person.

- https://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/

- https://www.pcc.edu/community/2019/06/19/the-4-most-common-languages-spoken-around-the-world/

This is not referring to 'native language'. This is referring to common language. For instance, a native mandarin Chinese speaker's primary (native) language would (generally) be mandarin Chinese, but the percentage of such persons is such that they more than likely to also speak English (ESL, English as Second Language), the common language of the Earth. Or a native of South America or Spain is more than likely to natively speak a form of Spanish, but the same similarity exists, in that many are also ESL. Many people speak mandarin Chinese, and many people speak Spanish, etc, but those languages are not universally spoken, as English (England, and subsequent derivatives) is.

I am uninterested in "think" (ie. you stated, "I don't think the KJB truly fits that description."), not that it comes from you (as being personal), but because it is merely conjectural opinion. It is quite irrelevant what I or you think on the matter of what is the common language. I am interested in universal facts, which is English (England, and subsequent derivatives).

You may be interested in the following book, which also shows that the language of the KJB (see a brief appendix here - https://www.thekjvstore.com/content/SamplePages/VANCEArchaicAppendix.pdf ) is utilized in every-day common persons' language (even down to some 'archaisms'), utilized in movies, newspapers, music, art, &c, all documented fully. It is by Lawrence Vance (I own this book, and can quote from it at desire on any page for any word). It may be purchased here - https://shop.avpublications.com/product_info.php?products_id=295&osCsid=b63vo6jhacnifb1uek7c53qg56

I attempted to look online for a free PDF of that book for you, but nothing is immediately available (Internet Archive, Google Books, Wayback Machine, etc).

The word of God is not bound (2 Tim 2:9).

The Cambridge (also now Oxford) ed. of the 'AV' is under England's "Royal Prerogative" for printing (and that exists for several reasons). The 'AV' is also called the "King James (I) Bible". It is backed by the King's royal authority in license, which kingship is one of the highest authorities on earth as before God (JEHOVAH). I made mention of this before (Ecc 8:4 - Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?), and as such, was issued by the King's authority, under God (King James (I) did not simply issue orders as of himself in this matter). Therefore, this "Royal Prerogative" is not merely the "crown" (state) or enforced by the "crown" (state), but is ultimately approved under God's direction and higher Kingship who issues the "crown" to men (Dan 2:21 - And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:), and it is God who sets the bounds of kingdoms in their borders and times of existence (Act 17:26 - And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;). Legally (state-wise) speaking:

• "‘The royal prerogative itself is a notoriously difficult concept to define adequately.’" - https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/the-royal-prerogative.php "... Blackstone described the prerogative as the powers that ‘the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.’ While A.V. Dicey has given the classic definition of the royal prerogative, he defined it as ‘… the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority and it is therefore … the name for the residue of discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the Crown, whether such power be in fact exercised by the King himself of by his Ministers.’ The term ‘Crown’ is not only referring to the monarch, who exercises the personal prerogatives, it is also referring to the central government which is the Ministers who exercise the executive prerogatives under the name of Crown." - ibid.
  

Thus, the word (KJB) is not bound, and is protected from corrupt printers (England), which means in England the pure word of God in English will always be printed with utmost care, because if it were found that corrupters were attempting to alter that text, they could be imprisoned, fined, etc Thus, it was directed by God, through King James, etal., and the Royal Prerogative, to spread over all the earth and having a safeguard. King James (I) said (effectively), Let the word of God be printed. Who can say him, nay? To say him, Nay is to bind it. To obey the decree is to be at liberty. Most persons that attempt to consider the "Royal Prerogative" look at it as restrictive, and miss the whole point as well as being incorrect.

I find that when people dig into history, they often leave out the God of history, the God of King James, and the God of England, simply looking at 'letters patent'. Such 'letters patent' have no authority except what God allow it (Romans 13:1).

There can never be such a thing as "truly common English that was truly public domain everywhere in the world", because of the wicked hearts of mankind, and it was never meant to be in the hands of worldlings, God-deniers, hedonistic, &c, because the words of God are spiritual and from heaven, not carnal and of the earth (see the example of Philistines taking the Ark of God, which contained the words of God, and when they attempted to meddle with it (as they even do now), plagues are seen in the world, and just wait until they seek to federally (NSL) and globally alter God's law (GSL); Rev 13, 14 & 17' Psalms 119:126). Without such authoritative backing, it will collapse into uselessness, being 'lawless'. It would be an ever shifting, no-mans land of errors, contradictions, arguments over this, that and the other. As far as I am aware, most modern English 'versions' have no such backing, except at the word of their private authors / printers, who alter their text regularly, and that, most times, without notice to their purchasers (as for instance NKJV in it's several revisions).

It is not possible.

[walkingman117 (by email)] "Thank you for your answer. The reason I asked is because sometimes when people say "contradiction", they mean opposing meanings. As an example, these two statements: The sky is blue. The sky is red. Some people will say that is a contradiction. Others will say that the contradiction of The sky is blue. is The sky is not blue.

Are you following what I'm saying? If we take the ASV and insert the word "yet" in the place you refer to, is that section now a perfect copy of God's word?"

My reply:

I do not utilize personal definitions (aka 'private interpretation').

I use standard accepted word etymological definitions, starting with scripture (KJB) itself as defined by scripture (KJB; Isa 8:20, 28:10,13; Jhn 10:35, 17:17):

• Heb 7:7 - And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

• Heb 12:3 - For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

See also the word "contrary" (KJB).

• "CONTRADICTION, noun [Latin]

• 1. An assertion of the contrary to what has been said or affirmed; denial; contrary declaration.

• 2. Opposition, whether by words, reproaches or attempts to defeat.

• Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself. Hebrews 12:3.

• 3. Direct opposition or repugnancy; inconsistency with itself; incongruity or contrariety of things, words, thoughts or propositions. These theorems involve a contradiction

• If we perceive truth, we thereby perceive whatever is false in contradiction to it." - https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/contradiction

• "contradiction (n.)

• late 14c., "objection, opposition; hostility, mutual opposition," also "absolute inconsistency," from Old French contradiction or directly from Late Latin contradictionem (nominative contradictio) "a reply, objection, counterargument," noun of action from past-participle stem of contradicere, in classical Latin contra dicere "to speak against, oppose in speech or opinion," from contra "against" (see contra) + dicere "to say, speak" (from PIE root *deik- "to show," also "pronounce solemnly"). Old English used wicwedennis as a loan-translation of Latin contradictio.

• Meaning "an assertion of the direct opposite of what has been said or affirmed" is from c. 1400. Sense of "a contradictory fact or condition" is from 1610s. Contradiction in terms "self-contradictory phrase" is attested from 1705." - https://www.etymonline.com/word/contradiction

If the word "yet" were placed back into the verse that it belonged (Jhn 7:8 ASV), then Jhn 7:8 ASV would align with God's perfectly inspired and preserved word, in English, the KJB. However, eliminating the contradiction in Jhn 7:8 ASV, does not correct the remaining myriad issues with the ASV (nor subsequent revisions that stem from it), and it would still be a contradictory and corrupted text.

Example.

I have two vehicles.

• [1] Mint (Perfect) condition & fully functional, and never has a problem, and if we happen to get in a wreck with it, it has a safety belt to preserve us alive if we simply put it on, and if we get stuck, we press the "onMorningstar" button, and contact the manufacturer to come help us.

• [2] That which is called a 'vehicle" but has been in a devastating wreck with the front end bashed in, no working headlights at all, is missing the engine, has differing size tires (one of which is a spare), several windows blown out, dents, dings and slashes all along the exterior, the internal lining is shredded in parts, and the car is welded entirely at the middle and is really two completely different makes and models make-shifted together, and someone (unknown) poured mixture 50/50 oil and gas in the tank and had run that for about 2 minutes before blowing out all the rings, gaskets, etc. And I don't know who allowed it, but a cat left a pretty good smell in the rear and under which has seeped into the under-plating beneath the carpet. It can be pushed down the road, so it does move, but it only turns left, because of a bent shaft.

Parallelism:

• I have the KJB in my hand, works great as is, and I can get another just like it pretty cheap in just as mint condition if I need it.

• Or, I could spend hundreds to thousands of hours, and resources try to fix the wreck that calls itself a vehicle. With the 'restoration' of "yet" in Jhn 7:8 ASV, we just buffed out one section of side panel and placed primer on it. Taking a step back, pretty proud of our self for getting that spot fixed, we see the complete carnage that still exists in the ASV.

• If we eventually took all of that time and resources to get into tippy-toppy shape, replacing, adding, subtracting the previous owners mess, we could have purchased hundreds of KJB's, and been driving around in them with all of our friends and neighbours; not to mention, all we did, was spend the LORD's time and money (purchased with the blood of the Son of God mind you) to convert the ASV into a KJB, or something very close to it.

So, with this example, I hope you can see the futility of attempting to fix the ASV (or really, any of those others, they're all 'wrecks'). It is simply easier, more economical, and logical, to salvage title it, and get the money to buy a mint KJB and enjoy the sweet ride.

I did that to my old 'beater' (a primer gray pickup truck, broken driver side door lock (you could stick your finger in the hole and unlock the door), plexiglass back window (scratched so bad couldn't see anything on the other side except light), and the engine finally threw a rod, among other things, like bad cap and rotor, balding tires (down to wires), and a rusted out back bed covered with a beat up 'rhino' covering, no air conditioning or heating unit, a hole in the dash for radio, and busted mirrors), and got $1000 from the government buy-back program (polluters that could not pass smog), and if I had tried to sell it on my own, would have had to pay someone to take it off my hands, and if I had tried to fix it, I could have bought two vehicles in it's place.

Are you following what I'm saying?

[walkingman117 (by email)] "Earlier I think you mentioned the idea that a perfect copy could not contain an actual contradiction. Is there an actual contradiction in the American Standard Version?"

The ASV (1901; and subsequent versions that derive from it)

• (ASV 1901, John 7:2-10) "2 Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand. 3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. 4 For no man doeth anything in secret, [a]and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. 5 For even his brethren did not believe on him. 6 Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready. 7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works are evil. 8 Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up [b]unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled. 9 And having said these things unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

• 10 But when his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not publicly, but as it were in secret."

ASV; Jesus, in John 7:8 is made to say, "I go not up [b]unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.". So, Jesus, is 'not going' to the Feast. In John 7:10, Jesus goes ("went he also up [to the feast]"), contradictory to what John 7:8 had him saying. Some attempt the 'excuse' that when Jesus said "my time is not yet fulfilled", refers to his going to the feast, but this is not so, according to the previous context, of vss 4-6, and John 3:14, 7:30, 8:20,28, 12:23, 13:1, 16:32, 17:1, which reveals that the "time" Jesus speaks of, is the revealing of Himself to the world (arrest unto Calvary & resurrection), and places this in contrast to the "time" that was present for his step brothers to accept Him a Messiah, even before that event. The ASV has a clear contradiction, and even worse, has Jesus being contradictory to Himself.

• "John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up;"

• "John 7:30 They sought therefore to take him: and no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come."

• "John 8:20 These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man took him; because his hour was not yet come."

• "John 8:28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that [a]I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things."

• "John 12:23 And Jesus answereth them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified."

• "John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them [a]unto the end."

• "John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

• "John 17:1 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee:"

The KJB rightly says:

• Jhn 7:8 - Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

No contradiction in the perfectly preserved word of God, in English (KJB). If any need the mss evidence for "yet" I can provide that here:

• (Brother Will Kinney @ BrandPlucked) "... Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: "Most mss (P66, 75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), INCLUDING MOST OF THE BETTER WITNESSES have "not yet" here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), BUT "OUK" IS THE MORE DIFFICULT READING HERE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT STANDS IN TENSION WITH V. 10."

• So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar, and it is NOT found in "the better witnesses" or even the oldest manuscripts we have, therefore it must be the right reading! Hellooooo, is anybody home?

• "hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Corinthians 1:20

• Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw--P66, 75, B, E, F, G, H, L, N, T, W, X, D, Q, Y 070, 0105, 0141, 0250, f1, 13, Byz, Lect, syr p, h, pal, co sa "NOT YET" ; ouk -- À, D, K, P, lat, syr s, c , co bo "NOT". Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.

• Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66, 75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.)

• John Gill on John 7:8 - "I go not yet unto this feast". in others it is read, "I go NOT up unto this feast"; leaving out the word YET; which occasioned Porphyry, that great enemy of Christianity, to reproach Christ, as guilty of inconstancy, or of an untruth, since he afterwards did go up: but in almost all the ancient copies the word (YET) is read; and so it is by Chrysostom and Nonnus; and to the same sense the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "I do NOT GO UP NOW to this feast"; that is, just at that very time, that very day or hour: which is entirely consistent with what is afterwards said." ..." - https://brandplucked.webs.com/john78didjesuslie.htm

Another:

• "yet" (MISSING) - "S D K Pi 1241 most lat vg syr(c,s) most cop(north)"

• "yet" (PRESERVED) - "p66 p75 B L T W X Delta Theta Psi 0180 f1 f13 28 700 892 1010 Byz Lect two lat syr(p,h,pal) one cop(north) cop(south)" - http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/lay09jhn.htm

But can anyone guess which Bible the Roman Catholic Church does NOT want us to read -

https://brandplucked.webs.com/Screen%20Shot%202018-03-18%20at%209.16.32%20PM.png

The Index of Forbidden books:

• "... Note 10. All editions of the Bible, issued by non-Catholics, in ancient as well as in modern languages, are permitted to those and those only, who are engaged in serious theological or Biblical studies, provided, however, that the PROLEGOMENA and annotations do not of set purpose impugn the Catholic faith. ..." - https://ia801301.us.archive.org/27/items/RomanIndexOfForbiddenBooks/RomanIndexOfForbiddenBooks.pdf

The King James Preface:

• "... Now the Church of Rome would seeme at the length to beare a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a Licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. ...

• ... Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholicks (meaning Popish Romanists) alwayes goe in jeopardie, for refusing to goe to heare it? ...

• ... And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. ...

• ... So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse: or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile; we may rest secure, supported within by the trueth and innocencie of a good conscience, having walked the wayes of simplicitie and integritie, as before the Lord; ..." - https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php

Looks like both parties know exactly which side they stand on.

I am sure, if one looks carefully with a KJB in one hand, and the ASV in the other, they'll see a lot more.

I do not think that some comprehend the fullness of what John 10:35 is saying.

John 10:35 KJB is not just about 'contradictions'. It says that, "the scripture cannot be broken". Broken means a lot more than merely 'contradiction'. It means to 'loose', 'untie', 'undo', 'weaken', etc. Anything which even 'weakens' God's word, or even has the "appearance of evil" (1 Thess 5:22) is not God's word. All those 'bibles' which are based (as foundationally) in Aleph (Sinaiticus), or B (Vaticanus) (both of which are like the two false witnesses that accuse Jesus; Mat 24:26, one from the 'desert' (Egypt), one from the 'secret chambers' (MYSTERY BABYLON), or A (Alexandrinus), and the other corrupted texts, have whole missing verses, and thousands of missing words, contradictions, man-made conjectural additions (1 Sam 13:1), all of which are forbidden. Why would anyone want the errors of Egypt (secular humanism (rejection of God in open rebellion); house of bondage, worldliness) and BABYLON (religious humanism (rejection of God in apostasy); confusion)? God calls everyone out of "Egypt" (Rev 11:8) and "BABYLON" (Rev 14:8, 18:1-5). The truth came out of Jerusalem, and from there to Antioch, where they were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

So, even if someone likes the ASV (1901), which would be quite rare these days, and attempts to fix John 7:8, they would have literally hundreds of other places to also 'emend' (change).

The people that authored those corrupt texts (mss) changed God's word, and we know some of them did it purposefully (aka Jerome, etc). Why mess with them?

• Pro 24:21 - My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

The conversation previous to this (here).

• [Walkingman117 (by email)] "Before Britain spread English around the world, in what language was the perfect copy of God's word?
  

• Looking forward to hearing from you, and may the Lord bless you and keep you!"

I know you are looking for a simple answer, in maybe one sentence or two, but the question involves inspiration and preservation by God, as well as transmission by the church, and several other factors, including prophecy and prophetic events (like the persecutions and dark ages or wilderness experience; Daniel 7:7-8,21-22,24-25, 8:10-12, 11:35-40; Revelation 2:10, 9:2,5,6,10, 11:2-3, 12:6,12-14, 13:5). So it is a bit more complicated than pointing to a single instance:

The perfectly inspired and preserved word (66), in English, is the King James Bible. This was completed or finished by God after a lengthy period of time, even like as God took 6 days to complete and finish the earth.

Perfection deals with a thing completed, or that thing in completed portions (ie a perfectly finished OT (39 books), or a perfectly finished book - Isaiah or Jeremiah (they didn't write 66 or 52 chapters in a single day, week, month or even year), or a perfectly finished Psalm (like Psalms 119, which more than likely was written over a period of time of days to weeks (just educated guess, being an author / writer myself), or all of the Psalms (1-150), as they were not all written and compiled at once, or even within the same lifetime of the persons writing (for instance all of the things that Solomon would later write, David more than likely did not know most of them).

So, in order to try to best answer this question, I have to say that the question itself carries a misunderstanding of the position; in which the formation of the Bible into a finished whole, its preservation and distribution is taken into consideration; and is sort of like asking where was the perfect living Adam before God breathed into the nostrils the breath of Life? or Where was the perfect form of Adam before God finished forming Adam from the dust of the ground? The completed and perfect work was not yet manifest, until it was finished. So it is sort of there, and sort of isn't.

The Bible (66), in general, (not merely the KJB) was not a finished product even in the time of Jesus. Only the OT had been completed. In the time of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther hadn't even been written yet, along with many other books. In the time of Moses, all they had were the Ten Commandments, and whatever God immediately gave to them by inspiration through Moses, and later through Joshua, David, Solomon, &c. In Adam's to Noah's, and even through the time of Abraham, there was no directly written material that was passed from hand to hand, as it was all retained in the mind / heart back then (their minds were far superior to ours).

If we are speaking about a completed Bible (66) since the close of the entire canon (66) from the time of John (Gospel, Epistles & Revelation) unto the English of the King James Bible, even here we are primarily speaking about the entire OT (39 books, as we now know them; Gen. - Mal.) as written in Hebrew (later also in the hands of the Masoretes), by which God preserved the text. This is referred to by Jesus, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and others:

• Luk 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

• Jhn 5:39 - Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

• Act 7:38 - This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

• Rom 3:2 - Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

• 2Ti 3:15 - And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

• 2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

• 2Ti 3:17 - That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

• Heb 5:12 - For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

• 1Pe 4:11 - If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

• 2Pe 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

From the earliest days of the Gospels, and Epistles, speaking of the koine Greek NT (27 books), they started as individual and personal letters to individual churches (Rome, Colossae, Ephesus, Thessalonika, Galatia, etc) or persons (Theophilus, Philemon, etc), which scribes, and / or church members would copy, and eventually spread around (with further copying). The originals were kept by the respective persons sent to, normally, and the copies would circulate. Eventually the originals would disappear, and even the early copies disappear and all that remains are copies of copies, and even them into other languages also.

So there were then preserved koine Greek copies, and as each inspired letter / epistle was written, eventually included until we arrived at 66, and the canon was closed by God.

There were also Latin copies made, such as the Italic, or Vetus Latina, the original Latin "vulgate" (not Jerome's admittedly (by himself, as well as Helvidius) altered 'vulgate'), and much of English stems from Latin (through also French, Spanish, Portuguese), as well as Hebrew (with minor Syriack) and koine Greek.

The Masoretes also had Hebrew copies of the OT.

A gothic (a very early related form of English) translation also later existed, under Wulfilas.

The early vaudois and piedmontese, later known as Waldenses, carried the Italic and also Hebrew & Greek with them. These came through unto the time of the King James Bible, and were consulted.

The perfect word was generally scattered during the dark ages into various small pockets of the world, or preserved in various manners by God, and existed in several languages by then (1200-1500's.) There was no one single universal language yet, as even many of the Reformers themselves, being scholars, wrote in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and several other languages. Most of the common people, were Roman Catholic, and didn't even have primary access to a Bible at all, and even if they did it would have been the corrupted text of Rome, and more than likely wouldn't have been able to even read it, being in Jerome's Latin.

As for instance, during the dark ages, in the general world, the Latin Vulgate of Jerome existed, but contain many alterations and errors, subtractions and additions, but not a lot of people knew this. Later, John Wycliffe would translate the Latin of Jerome into English, but it would still contain many errors from the corruptions of Jerome. It would become more and more purified as time when on, through William Tyndale, Martin Luther, Erasmus, and others, but theirs while containing the word of God, also contained errors of Romanism, which were slowly being weeded out. The true Bible was still in the wilderness with the Vaudois, Piedmontese, Passagini, Insabbati, Sabbatini, Paulicians, Albigenses (French; Provencal), & many other groups, like various Goths, Irish and Scots, and even English.

Truth Triumphant by Benjamin G Wilkinson, may be helpful to you:

archive.org

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Truth Triumphant

Our Authorized Bible & Response, by Benjamin G Wilkinson, may be of help to you:

archive.org

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 01

archive.org

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 02 Answers To Objections

So, there is no real single book (66) in a single language I can point to during all that time (there were copies in varied locations in varied languages), as it was the time of transition from Judaism to Christianity, and entering into the times of persecution, destruction of life (people and animals) and property (including Bibles / scrolls), and the great dark ages of Romanism. As the people of God were scattered to various locations under various languages, so too the inspired and preserved word of God. It was in some Latin, some French, some German, some Italian, some Gothic, some early English, some Spanish, etc.

That I have the perfectly inspired and preserved word of God (66) in English, does not mean that Martin Luther had to have one in English (or even in German), and does not mean that Wycliffe had to have the correct NT texts, unaltered by Jerome, and does not mean that the early Christian Church had to have all 27 NT books in their personal possession, any more than Moses needed a copy of Daniel or Jeremiah, etc. In each phase and location, God had His perfect work in the portion that was required for His people.

For instance, Esther didn't need anything of the 27 NT books. She had the perfect word of God, which was the whole OT up to her time, primarily written in Hebrew (a little Syriack), and it wasn't even divided as it currently exists under the Christian era. Yet what she had access to through scrolls of Levites, was perfect.

For instance, Moses didn't require Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Daniel, &c. Yet what he had in his hands, and access to, was perfect.

We, today are not in their shoes, nor their experience. We are not in the dark ages. We are not in the time of unsolidified English. We are not in the time of hand written scribes. We are not in the time of the scattering, but rather, we are in the gathering, with unifying English, and having great light, with digital technology able to be copied and sent in seconds.

I pray that this helps you understand the position as held.

[walkingman117] "Well guys, it's been an interesting experience here. Given the length of some of the replies and that replies are sometimes hidden by default, I can't really follow the various lines of reasoning. You are welcome to send me a chat message and maybe we can figure out a different way to communicate. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

• I have put in a suggestion (here) about the issues you have raised in reading, following and replying to the thread.

Would be glad to continue any conversation by chat, or public.

[walkingman117] "Assuming there is a perfect copy here on Earth, which one do you say it is?"

• [Aaron Earnest] "The perfectly inspired and preserved words of God, in the English, is the KJB."

[walkingman117] "I see. What leads you to believe that it is the KJB?"

The same which leads me to believe and know the true Jesus Christ, from the myriads of the false ones (it is why I left the Roman Catholic faith, after 30 years in, born and raised). Truth presents itself before all of us (because God is faithful), and we are to honestly examine it (Isa 1:18; Mal 3;10; Jhn 5:39; Act 17:11; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Thes 5:21).

Now, again, the examination is not to 'determine' or 'define' what is truth, neither to 'determine' or 'define' (by personal or majority, etc vote) what the Bible is. It is only to accept ("Amen") what is already eternal Truth.

It's like saying I accept 1+1=2, not because I said it was so, or 'determined' or 'defined' it to be so. It already is so, before I ever existed.

Well guys, it's been an interesting experience here. Given the length of some of the replies and that replies are sometimes hidden by default, I can't really follow the various lines of reasoning. You are welcome to send me a chat message and maybe we can figure out a different way to communicate. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

[walkingman117] "hi again Aaron, it's very difficult for me to follow long posts on this website on my cell phone. ..."

• See previous reply to assist you - https://www.beastsmark.com/forum/main/comment/627add353a25060017bb77c9

[walkingman117] "... I did see something about you saying that I moved the goal posts."

• Yes, that was here - https://www.beastsmark.com/forum/main/comment/6279998ef49537001794412e

• "[walkingman117] "Well... I believe you are assuming part of your conclusion as part of your reasoning. Suppose John isn't scripture and the Didache is. There are still 66 books but we can no longer appeal to John 10:35."
  

• No, it was not assumption, but based upon your own premises offered to me. You offered a 66 book "Bible" and a 73 book "Bible". I know of no such 66 or 73 book "Bible" in existence which contains the 'didache' as scripture, or claims to (even the antichrist; Papacy, does not say it belongs to the 'canon'). I showed already how to determine between the two internally, of themselves.
  

• You then offered two differing "66 book Bibles". Again, there are no known "66 book Bibles" in existence which contain the "didache" as scripture.
  

• You then shifted the goalpost (a logical fallacy) by changing the requirements, and confuse the entire (66 book Bible) with a singular 'book' (John, vs didache).

• Your 'new' question, essentially asks,'

• How do we (I) determine between, say, the singular 'book', as John (which contains John 10:35), and 'something like the didache' (or any other such heretical document) which does not (contain John 10:35)?' ..."

[walkingman117] "... Unfortunately, I can't easily check that out to see if I said the 66 book or a 66 book. ..."

You said neither. You said, "a 66 book Bible and a 73 book Bible" and "two different 66 book Bibles", not "the 66 book", nor "a 66 book". The word utilized in all instances in connection with those words / phrases, was "Bible":

• [walkingman117] "I agree, it's not a problem. For the question: Is the Church above the Bible? In the sense of picking out the scriptures and following your train of thought, the answer is No. It is the individual, aided by personal revelation, that decides what the right Bible is. Suppose someone presented you with both a 66 book Bible and a 73 book Bible. They asked you which one was the right one. You would say the 66 book Bible. And that's based on God's personal revelation to you. So in that sense, that personal revelation is above the Bible because it enables you to say what is scripture and what isn't. Am I following your train of thought correctly?"

• [walkingman117] "suppose someone presented you with two different 66 book Bibles. How would you decide which is the right one?" -

You were not asking about individual 'books' (such as "John") within those "Bibles". You had mentioned the "didache" (here) afterward, which is not, nor ever has been associated as being a part of any "Bible" (66 or 73, or other), at any time. You asked about discerning between "two different 66 book Bibles", not about how it is determined which individual 'books' are to be canon in those "Bibles". That shifted the goalpost, when you raised a new question, after my response, about "John" & "didache", which are individual mss, or 'books', the only of which "John" was ever canon.

[walkingman117] " ... In any case, does the method you promote only work with existing Bibles used by a group of some size? ..."

• The "method" will work the same even for just the Torah ('law'), or any portion thereafter (Ketuvim (writings; aka wisdom & history books; etc), Nevi'im (prophets)) or the whole OT (Tanakh), or portions of the NT (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Revelation) or the whole NT (Mat - Rev), or the entire word of God (the 66 book Bible), and for any individual or group, of any size. It works for any honest (earnest) person who is seeking truth in the matter, just like any other matter or subject (Jhn 16:13; Jam 1:5).

[walkingman117] "... And I want to add that I may not be able to find your response. So if we don't interact anymore, May the Lord bless you and keep you!"

• Hopefully you will "find" this response easily enough, being that it should be the last post on this page, at the moment of responding. Also, I recommend please making suggestions in the suggestion area of the forums to improve your experience here. I would be interested in any other questions you may have on any subject. Feel free to start other threads in any other section of the forum, on any topic you would like to discuss, or study together. I have enjoyed this present discussion, and it allows me to bring out a lot of evidences that do not normally get shared.

[walkingman117] "... Because of its length, the layout of the website, and my being on a cell phone, it's very difficult for me to follow. ..."

Since, this statement, or similar reasoning has been given several times now, I would like to address it, for your benefit, as well as all:

[1] 'length', is generally subjective to the individual, in matters too little or too much (as for instance, I write several hundred page to 1000 page + material on a regular basis, and so the responses I give here, are quite small (subjective to myself) in comparison).

So, if I may have something to compare to from you please, to assist in my responses to you? What would you accept as a max limit in letters, words? For instance:

• Psa 119. Is it also too lengthy to read in a single sitting?

• Isa. Is it also too lengthy to read in a single sitting?

• Jer. Is it also too lengthy to read in a single sitting?

• Luk 1. Is it also too lengthy to read in a single sitting?

• Sermon, is an hour too long to listen to in a single setting?

In other words, at what length, is the standard, by which I may judge is the proper length for you?

Also, if you cannot read my replies in a single sitting because of length, may I suggest to you, reading my replies in sections which are selected by yourself in appropriate length in your estimation, being piece at a time, and take your time with responding? I am in no rush, and if you need several days to read, and then reply, so be it.

[2] 'layout', I am not the author of this website, nor designer thereof, and cannot alter it's 'layout', but there is a solution I can offer you, to assist you, and that is to make a suggestion of solution to your dilemma in the "forum and website suggestions" page, which may be found here - https://www.beastsmark.com/forum/forum-and-website-suggestions

If you can provide a detailed explanation of why you are having difficulty with the 'layout' at that link (and creating a thread there to discuss it), tsaphah, I am sure, will take into consideration to make the experience of engagement in discussion all the more enjoyable, for not only you, but all.

[3] 'cellphone', I cannot affect the medium by which you personally engage on this website, however, I can offer you some suggestions to improve your experience here:

• [A] Friend, with a PC, or MAC desktop, or laptop or tablet (borrow / utilize).

• [B] Neighbour, who has the same.

• [C] Coworker, who has the same.

• [D] Schoolmate, who has the same.

• [E] Church member or ministry, who has the same.

• [F] Public Access (ie. Library, Church, School, etc), which has the same.

• [G] Personal engagement through email (I will need your personal email to engage in this way, and any emails, I can then post on the website forums for the both of us)

• [H] Personal engagement through facebook (meta) (or facebook messenger; and for that I will need your facebook (meta) account or facebook messenger account for personal face to face time)

• [I] Personal engagement through Zoom meeting interface (and for that I will need the proper appointment of time). In those engagements, my answers do not change, nor become less lengthy. I will generally be referring back to what has already been written here, and much more in detail, having easier access to my personal library and files. Such conversations will last beyond 2hrs I would imagine.

I hope these suggestions are helpful to you, that you may more easily engage.

[walkingman117] "Thank you for the response. Because of its length, the layout of the website, and my being on a cell phone, it's very difficult for me to follow. So... To the question of Who decides which Bible is the one that God determined? Your answer is The individual, by studying the information available in history. Am I understanding you correctly?"

No, you have not understood my answer, to your question, correctly, for my answer was not, and never has been, nor ever will be, "The individual, by studying the information available in history."

My answer, clearly, and in some detail (to which I now refer back to for details), was "God".

• "In short, God predetermined His word (Bible), for it is His workmanship. God inspires (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:19-21) and preserves it (Psa 12:6-7). God designated, not mankind. Isaiah 8:20. God spoke the Ten Commandments personally, and all else that claims to be inspired of God, must agree with that "word"." - https://www.beastsmark.com/forum/main/comment/62771729af1e8d0016424235

Mankind can only "Amen" (second) God's decision in any matter. Anything else, is plainly diverting from God's decision, and sets oneself up in the place of God, which is anti-christ.

For instance, on contradiction, a case example:

1 Samuel 13:1

• 1 Sam 13:1 KJB - Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

• 1 Sam 13:1 HOT - בן־שׁנה שׁאול במלכו ושׁתי שׁנים מלך על־ישׂראל׃

The Geneva, Young's Literal, The Living Bible, etc, and even Jerome's Latin Vulgate gets this right.

Yet:

NWT/JW:

• 1 Sam 13:1 NWT - Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, a and for two years he reigned over Israel.

• Acts 13:21 NWT - But afterward they demanded a king,+ and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin,+ for 40 years.

Contradiction of 2. 40.

NIV:

• 1 Sam 13:1 NIV [©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011] - Saul was thirty[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

• 
  

• Acts 13:21 NIV - Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years.

• a. 1 Sam 13:1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew does not have thirty.

• b. 1 Sam 13:1 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Acts 13:21); Masoretic Text does not have forty-.

Contradiction. 42. 40. No Hebrew for 30.

• In fact the so-called LXX, LXX+ [Strong's and Robinson's Morphological Analysis codes], and Brenton's LXX, I have on E-sword does NOT list 1 Sam 13:1, it is MISSING, DELETED as in the GNT.

ESV:

• 1 Sam 13:1 ESV - Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel,[a]

NASB:

• 1 Sam 13:1 NASB - Saul was [a]thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty two years over Israel.

• Acts 13:21 NASB - Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.

Contradiction. 42. 40. No Hebrew for 30.

DRA:

• 1 Sam 13:1 DRA - Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

• Acts 13:21 DRA - And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years.

Saul was an infant as King?

NEB:

• 1 Sam 13:1 NEB - Saul was fifty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two years.

• Acts 13:21 NEB - Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, who reigned for forty years ...

Contradiction. 22. 40. No Hebrew for 50.

CEV:

• 1 Sam 13:1 CEV [Bible Gateway] - Saul was 30 years old[a] when he became king, and he ruled over Israel forty-two years.

• 1 Sam 13:1 CEV [E-Sword] Saul was a young man when he became king, and he ruled Israel for two years.

• Acts 13:21 CEV - but the people demanded a king. So for forty years God gave them King Saul, the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin.

• a. 1 Sam 13:1 LXXL; Syr twenty-one; MT lacks a number; 13:1 is omitted in LXXB.

• b. 1 Sam 13:1 Part of the number is missing in MT (… and two years) and all ancient witnesses. Acts 13:21 says Saul ruled forty years, as does Josephus (Ant. 6.14.9 [378]), though Josephus also says Saul ruled twenty years (Ant. 10.8.4 [143]).

Contradiction. 42. 2. 40. No Hebrew for 30, or "young man".

MSG:

• 1 Sam 13:1 MSG - Saul was a young man when he began as king. He was king over Israel for many years.

They didn't even try to attempt an accurate translation and just fudged it.

MEV:

• 1 Sam 13:1 MEV - Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty-two years over Israel.[a]

• a. 1 Sam 13:1 Lit. “The son of a year was Saul in his ruling and two years he ruled over Israel.” Most translations read in Saul’s age and length of reign from external evidence (Josephus) or from the New Testament (Paul, who mentions a forty-year reign for Saul in Ac 13:21).

GNT:

• 1 Sam 13:1 GNT - MISSING, DELETED

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge [E-Sword]:

• "... reigned one year: Heb. the son of one year in his reigning, This verse is variously interpreted; but probably it only means, according to the Hebrew idiom, that, during the first year nothing remarkable occurred; but after two years (or in the second year of his reign), the subsequent events took place. Exo_12:5; Mic_6:6 *marg. ..."

[walkingman117] " ...Suppose someone presented you with both a 66 book Bible and a 73 book Bible. They asked you which one was the right one. You would say the 66 book Bible. And that's based on God's personal revelation to you. ..."

I know you asked this of tsaphah, but I have already given my answer in lengthy detail, but the short answer is:

If someone presented me with a '66 book' claiming to be the Bible, and a '73(+) book' claiming to be the Bible, I would have to examine the books themselves first of all in what they themselves say, and find that in both of the books themselves (whether the 66 or 73), inherently in each, they both claim to be 66 books in length (texts and examples already cited in previous reply), and know for certain that the '73(+) book' contradicts itself, and fails. The '66 book' then holds true of itself, and then the only matter is to test everything else about it, according to itself.

The answer never came from me. The answer exists apart from me or any revelation to me. It exists as the absolute ontological truth, whether you, tsaphah or I ever existed to discover it's existence.

So, I do not say '66 book' based between the two (66 & 73+) upon "God's personal revelation to [myself]". I simply "Amen" what the 66 book already said of itself, as inspired and preserved of God. God said '66'. I said, "Amen".

[walkingman117] "I agree, it's not a problem. For the question: Is the Church above the Bible? In the sense of picking out the scriptures and following your train of thought, the answer is No. It is the individual, aided by personal revelation, that decides what the right Bible is. Suppose someone presented you with both a 66 book Bible and a 73 book Bible. They asked you [tsaphah] which one was the right one. You [tsaphah] would say the 66 book Bible. And that's based on God's personal revelation to you [tsaphah]. So in that sense, that personal revelation is above the Bible because it enables you [tsaphah] to say what is scripture and what isn't. Am I following your train of thought correctly?"

Yes, you have correctly concluded the logical position of brother tsaphah. You have taken the reasoning and gone down the road to its final destination.

That is why I cannot ever hold that position. It's self defeating.

[tsaphah] "... I trust that God is in charge of His Word. ..."

Yes, fully agree (God is in charge of his word) brother tsaphah! Amen! Now, if anyone in this forum or thread can help me, as I have a question, "Where can I find a perfect copy of it (God's word) so I can hold it in my hand right now?"

I make the distinction between "word" (letter, Bible), and "Word" (Person / Being Jesus).

For me this is not a hard one for me personally. According to the scriptures I personally believe that if God can guide holy men under inspiration of His Spirit to write His Words to mankind. What makes anyone think that God is not in control of His Word to determine what scriptures he wants in the bible and what he does not want in the bible that is to go to the whole world? To question that man is above the bible in helping to put the bible together, in my mind is to say God is not in control of His Word and man is and that is not biblical and is a contradiction of the scriptures. In writing the scriptures God uses holy men to write His Word just the same as God used those to put the books of the bible together. Summary? God is in control of His Word man just does what God wants. Anything less shows a lack of faith in God in my opinion

God bless

The quote (apologies for the lengthy citation below, but for future reference and those who may later read and need the source material) comes from this Roman Catholic article, "THE CATHOLIC RECORD (Saturday, September 1st, 1923 ed. London, Ontario, CANADA, Volume XLV, #2342, page 4)"

• ""SABBATH OBSERVANCE"

• A short time ago this staid city of London experienced a tempest in a teapot over Sabbath observance. It was proposed to allow the children to use the municipal swimming pool during the sweltering weather we were then having. Immediately there was a ministerial chorus of protest. One reverend Boanerges valiantly declared that they would not rest until they had routed "the hosts of hell." Presumably he saw in apocalyptic vision the infernal armies lined up behind His Worship the Mayor and others in their impious assault on the sanctity of "the Sabbath."

• Imagine the consternation in the ministerial association and the jubilation amongst the hosts of hell when they read in the London Free Press of this dastardly flank attack on their citadel of sabbatarianism:

• "That Sabbath observance in the strict sense of the law of Israel, whether on the traditional or any seventh day, is no concern of the Christian, was the assertion of Rev. J. Marion Smith, of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Toronto, in his evening sermon yesterday at the Talbot Street Baptist Church."

• And this under a two-column heading: "Sabbath Observance Not Any Part of Man's Duty as a Christian!" True, Mr. Smith was speaking to the "interogative subject," "Can a Saved Man Be Lost?" That is quite a big subject in itself; but we shall take first his pronouncement on the Sabbath, which evidently struck the reporter and the city editor as the more sensational if not the more important part of the sermon. The report of the Free Press Continues:

• "Quoting St. Paul, he declares that making any point of the old Mosaic law a test of righteousness is t