KJBO versus TRO
Posted: 26 May 2014, 23:06This is what appears to be the textual positions of people who at least may prefer the use of the King James Bible:
1. TRADITIONAL TEXT. This view is that the Eastern Orthodox manuscripts/Byzantine Family are the best, and whatever is in majority. The King James Bible is the best English Bible based on these. The King James Bible is open to revision in its underlying texts, as was done with the New King James Version. Some may advocate for a New Geneva Version. A lot of changes can be made in the translation. (They believe that no translation is perfect.) These folk reject all other KJB positions, and are among the strongest anti-KJBO people. They may also have some respect for the TROs, but call others heretics. “The authority is in the majority of Greek manuscripts.”
2. TEXTUS RECEPTUS. This view is that the formation of the accepted text that was improved upon through the Reformation, as based upon the widest amount of evidence, including even the Vulgate, but mainly the Byzantine Family, is the best, most especially because God used these by His providence in the getting the Gospel into many languages from Reformation. Principle of all such translations is the King James Bible. They therefore promote any TR translation, even if made from the KJB. They also would uphold the Greek text aligned to the KJB, and have laid aside Lloyd’s TR for Scrivener’s or Berry’s. While they might hold that the underlying texts of the KJB should not be altered, they will still think that the KJB has the possibility for improvements, either in translations, or more often, in updating the old fashioned language. (They do not accept the idea of perfect translation, though recognise that God must be able to use people to make good ones.) These TRO folk may be witnessed to attack both the NKJV and KJBOs. “The authority is in the underlying languages.”
3. ENGLISH RECEIVED TEXT. This view is that the English Bible, namely, the King James Bible is the best and, in fact, perfect text being gathered from the TR sources, and as an independent variety of the TR, is the final form of the text. Therefore, the text in English is matching exactly the words, but for the language, to the autographs. Moreover, the translation is exact, sense for sense, without addition, omission, alteration or substitution. While the KJB is not the only form of the English Scripture, or the only Bible in the world, it is, through various factors and providential signals, beginning to be regarded as the only Bible/Scripture Authority to be used. This means that the King James Bible will, if the logic is followed, have to be viewed in a fixed form, rather than in a continual perpetuation of editions with spelling differences or other even slight variations. However, because the Bible existed before 1611, there can never be the extreme of saying that it is the only Bible, or only edition, rather, that God has providentially brought it about so that in practice (i.e. in current use of the faithful) it is the only Bible. Moreover, if it is linked to true Christianity, at some point the Church using the King James Bible is going to be actually the true Church as opposed to the apostates who do not. “The authority is in the Authorized King James Bible.”
In other words, future “King James Bible only” would be prescriptive of the true Church, (a true Christian could be judged of his trueness on account of it as part of true doctrine), whereas today it is only descriptive (there are as yet true Christians who are not using the King James Bible exclusively). The problem is that most people who have made it prescriptive up to today have held to various positions on the matter which are extreme or illogical. There needs to be a temperate and reasoned move to promoting the prescription position. Foremost in this is (as based on numerous Scriptures themselves:
1. Recognising the KJB as the providentially appointed final text in the Church.
2. Recognising the KJB as a perfect translation in the global language, so that it is viewed as God’s exact message to the world.
3. Recognising the KJB has been presented in a final exact pure edition, accurate throughout, with the proper standard of spelling and Biblical English, without typographical error, without variation and without any other flaw to the jot and tittle.
_________________
A modernist is able to find common ground (that is, common error) between the TRO position and himself because both have accepted incorrect premises in their view of the King James Bible and of what the 1611 translators said in their Preface to the Reader.
Most specifically, both do not view the King James Bible as having representative authority. They both judge the correctness of the King James Bible on other sources, usually, what they think the original text reads as, and what they think those original words should mean. In other words, it is denying the received tradition as Providentially given for an endless quest for truth that can never be attained.
This may easily be judged so, because no such person can produce a final text and translation because their very methodology and principles which supposedly are to lead to "the best" always fall short, since they have as a basis the law of the spirit of error (i.e. that perfection is impossible). This is essentially saying to God that He is too weak, and that He cannot (or even is forbidden to) have one Bible for the world. In other words, they can accept perfect truth in the past (inspiration), they can accept it in the future (the Millennium), they can accept it in Heaven, they can accept it in the Spirit (in the heart of a believer), but they cannot accept it in natural form extant and observable right now on the Earth today.
The proper view, I think, is to believe the Scripture itself, which many times implies, promises and indicates that there should be, and is manifest for believers, a pure and perfect Bible.
If the objection is brought up concerning the past, that is, the same words existed in scattered form in the past before 1611, and believers existed before 1611, the answer is simple: God’s outworking in this manner has been progressive to a final point, He said that the Word is purified seven times, which is a process. He promised that the Scripture would be there throughout Church history and to the Gentiles, it is true, but the promise of a pure, final and exact form has only been understood as a doctrine after 1611. (How many true doctrines were restored to the Church after the Reformation!)
The King James Bible is of the same line as any good version that anyone could have ever used, or other contemporary good versions that have been used, but in the end, one has remained, one has stood above all, one has been chosen by God, because its very nature is supersuccessionary to all. This does not invalidate anything else, rather it confirms the others, for it is the one final form that replaces them (even a contemporary TR-based Spanish translation).
_________________
Are King James Bible only people and Textus Receptus only people really on the same team?
This is a really interesting concept, namely, that divided parties are on the same team. We may observe that there are TROs versus the more extreme KJBOs. The TROs tend to be more moderate, scholarly and reputable, but they also are weakly, compromised and short-falling. The more extreme KJBOs tend to be more strong, certain and consistent, but they also are unruly, simple and foolish. Rather than take the World War Two solution, which includes alliances with Russia and the French, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), take the Cromwellian solution, (The LORD taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me).
Moderation never meant placating differing factions, or merely taking “middle ground”, especially if they do not agree upon the same foundation. No war can be prosecuted against the antichrist (spiritually and naturally) from a divided support basis, nor from just trying to bring together different factions which all have their own faults and are against each other anyway.
I will quote somewhat from my book, which has upset certain KJBOs quite a lot:
The Holy Ghost had indeed worked to gather together the pure Word. The words outlining this doctrine should, by God’s grace, form an expeditionary army of a new model, which would either persuade or repel present King James Bible proponents. There must be a move away from petty name calling, unscholarly works and fearfulness of Jesuit powers, into a clear and true understanding of God’s Word in English, and the consequences of establishing the Word to consume the power of the Antichrist false “Word”. Instead of thinking in terms of pervading worldliness and apostasy, Christians must think in terms of the prevailing Word, that it is a day star in comparison to the world, a city on a hill which cannot be hid. In doing this we must guard against those who would think to overthrow Bible-ordered tradition to construct a tyrannical rule upon the Earth.
The long term solution is one united body of believers with one true doctrine. At this point there is division among believers on almost every doctrine. If a proper King James Bible doctrine can be put as foundation, then this is great progress. In the outworking of this, it would be evident whether or not, for example, tongues for today, is a true doctrine.
Unless we recognise ourselves within a providential continuum, where God is using us (regardless of past things) to begin from the true Word (the KJB), and to receive His true doctrines, and to align ourselves to Him (or rather, to allow Him to align us), and that we may fully see which doctrines are vindicated and raised up by God, and which are not, it is by deference to Him, rather than pettiness, blindness and pride, by which great ends may be accomplished. In this we will see whether God has raised us up for His cause or no, that is, by His signal workings according to His ends rather than the contrivance of one or other man.
“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14). God should visit us, and should raise us up for the cause.
“And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up” (Acts 15:15, 16). That is, a restoration of the King James Bible and the consequential working of God in the Church.
“That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” (Acts 15:17). There cannot be great reaching of the Gentiles until there is at least a remnant of believers agreeing in one, having one Bible, and so the Church, and so being witnessed of throughout the world.
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts 15:18). Surely, if that is the plan of God, give space and allow Him to raise up those whom He would raise up according to His purposes. Who can resist God and win? But if we submit, what should we see upon our enemies, who champion error, division and continual corruption of God’s Word?
_________________
"But thou hast fully known my doctrine" (2 Tim 3:10a). "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear" (2 Tim. 4:17a). This requires that the full translation occur so that we (all Gentiles) may fully know the doctrine in English. Are the Gentiles going to hear only the full truth today if they go to the Greek? Or if it is yet being unlocked and revealed from the Greek? Is it not rather that God has providentially supplied and sanctioned the English Bible to take out from the scattered Greek and Hebrew one good Bible for all?
I certainly agree the only valid use for the Greek is as a secondary and confirming witness to the English. However, it is an important issue as to the exact sense, that is, the full scope of God's message being present in English. By this I mean that by translation etc., we now (since 1611) have the full, exact and express message of God in English, which is fully and utterly in English. And reading the King James Bible now is as if God spoke English throughout the inspiration of the Scripture, for the manifest infallibility of it in English.
Burgon said concerning the translators, "When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English."
The argument is not whether or not the Scripture in English is sufficient for salvation, because very born again believer really will have to admit that. The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".
If the text and translation are "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added" then the text and translation cannot be altered.
Having said that, I will now show that changing one jot or one tittle is a change of the Word of God.
Every word has meaning. Every word, its sounding, its placed in the sentence, is exact, is perfect, proper, in its order. Yea, in the Pure Cambridge Edition, we may rely even on the very spellings, the punctuation, in short, in every whit whole.
Changing and altering even one letter, one sound, one word is going to alter these things (some to a greater degree than others):
1. The visual appearance.
2. The sound/rhythm.
3. The subtle associations of meanings, the impact upon the bowels (feeling).
4. The proper use of Biblical English.
5. The sense.
6. The truth.
7. Faith in something which was received as fixed, certain and sure.
Certainly “rasor” to “razor” is slight (the sense changeth not), “thinketh” to “thinks” is not slight, and something like “hewed” to “shown” is wild (New Cambridge Paragraph Edition).
“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation” (Psalm 95:10a) should never be made “For forty years I was grieved with that generation”.
Even a slight change, like one letter, is still a change. It may not be a change to the actual meaning, but it is a change nonetheless to the RECEIVED WORD as is now final. (There are lots of "differences" which may be discovered when comparing to 1611. Such things were needful and were occurring under the providential hand of the Lord. There is no way that any changes now can be God-led. The very desire for change now is really inspired by the spirit of error, because it is never going to accept that the state of the King James Bible as it now is, that is, its very presentation, is final. It will at least try and change spellings. But final is final. And that means no changes, not even of one letter.)
_________________
There is a distinction between being TRO and being more specifically KJBO. Edward Hills wrote that the KJB is an independent variety of the TR. It is, in fact, the final form of the Received Text.
TROs tend to allow for changes to the KJB, as well as promoting foreign translations. Invariably these translations do not even match the text of the KJB is specific places, perhaps because they are using Scrivener's Greek as standard rather than the KJB. This is probably because TROs see the original languages as more authoritative than English.
The problem with the TRO view is that it cannot properly answer how to determine a difference or variation between TR readings, and allows for differing translations.
Another problem is that TRO Bible study might mean going to the Greek and defining the Greek. For example, D. A. Waite talks about Greek words and interpreting the Scripture on that basis, rather than what the English says, and what the English means. This problem manifests itself in some of the definitions of the Defined KJV too.
David Cloud talks about the possibility of altering the English, which even Edward Hills suggested, but also showed why it would not work, saying, "But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated."
TROs also use jargon, such as "VPI" and "VPP". Sure, they might be avid "KJV supporters" (they tend to say "KJV" instead of KJB), but this support does not go so far as to encoruge Bible Colleges to teach English so that they might learn the Scripture better, etc.
In short, they view the Scripture as being primarily in the originals, and do not definitively believe that it is 100% perfect in the English. For example, D. A. Waite says that the KJB is accurate, but that it cannot present 100% what was in the originals because, according to him, it is impossible to get 100% of the sense from the originals into English.
This actually denies that every jot and tittle is pure and perfect in the KJB. Jots, we are told, are in the Hebrew or Greek. But "jot" is an English word in the English Bible with an English meaning listed in an English dictionary!
Again, if the Scripture cannot be 100% in text and/or translation, then how can Scriptures such as these be true?
Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Ro 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
It is therefore the work of Christ to order in His Church such ministries, offices and investments as are necessary and right, according to His working, to set about to provide in the earth His true Scripture, and the furthering of the knowledge of it.
Unashamedly, I say that we had rather have one standard, according to Isaiah’s prophecies, than to have what the Dean Burgon Society labours to have, which is thousands of translations to every tribe and dialect, rather than conformity to one standard for all, made common, and proved to be true.
I find that David Livingston taught the brightest and most zealous natives English, and that they would be set to be the future spiritual leaders. I find that in Australia, the Aborigines were taught English, and it took until 2007 for a complete Bible (a modern version) to be made in just one of their dialects. I say that the aims of Richard Hakluyt, Oliver Cromwell and others were higher, and that the William Carey Bible Society is viewing things with the limitations of the nineteenth century, rather than having the nineteenth century truth advancing (in what Dean Trench referred to as “manly” English) for all.
1. TRADITIONAL TEXT. This view is that the Eastern Orthodox manuscripts/Byzantine Family are the best, and whatever is in majority. The King James Bible is the best English Bible based on these. The King James Bible is open to revision in its underlying texts, as was done with the New King James Version. Some may advocate for a New Geneva Version. A lot of changes can be made in the translation. (They believe that no translation is perfect.) These folk reject all other KJB positions, and are among the strongest anti-KJBO people. They may also have some respect for the TROs, but call others heretics. “The authority is in the majority of Greek manuscripts.”
2. TEXTUS RECEPTUS. This view is that the formation of the accepted text that was improved upon through the Reformation, as based upon the widest amount of evidence, including even the Vulgate, but mainly the Byzantine Family, is the best, most especially because God used these by His providence in the getting the Gospel into many languages from Reformation. Principle of all such translations is the King James Bible. They therefore promote any TR translation, even if made from the KJB. They also would uphold the Greek text aligned to the KJB, and have laid aside Lloyd’s TR for Scrivener’s or Berry’s. While they might hold that the underlying texts of the KJB should not be altered, they will still think that the KJB has the possibility for improvements, either in translations, or more often, in updating the old fashioned language. (They do not accept the idea of perfect translation, though recognise that God must be able to use people to make good ones.) These TRO folk may be witnessed to attack both the NKJV and KJBOs. “The authority is in the underlying languages.”
3. ENGLISH RECEIVED TEXT. This view is that the English Bible, namely, the King James Bible is the best and, in fact, perfect text being gathered from the TR sources, and as an independent variety of the TR, is the final form of the text. Therefore, the text in English is matching exactly the words, but for the language, to the autographs. Moreover, the translation is exact, sense for sense, without addition, omission, alteration or substitution. While the KJB is not the only form of the English Scripture, or the only Bible in the world, it is, through various factors and providential signals, beginning to be regarded as the only Bible/Scripture Authority to be used. This means that the King James Bible will, if the logic is followed, have to be viewed in a fixed form, rather than in a continual perpetuation of editions with spelling differences or other even slight variations. However, because the Bible existed before 1611, there can never be the extreme of saying that it is the only Bible, or only edition, rather, that God has providentially brought it about so that in practice (i.e. in current use of the faithful) it is the only Bible. Moreover, if it is linked to true Christianity, at some point the Church using the King James Bible is going to be actually the true Church as opposed to the apostates who do not. “The authority is in the Authorized King James Bible.”
In other words, future “King James Bible only” would be prescriptive of the true Church, (a true Christian could be judged of his trueness on account of it as part of true doctrine), whereas today it is only descriptive (there are as yet true Christians who are not using the King James Bible exclusively). The problem is that most people who have made it prescriptive up to today have held to various positions on the matter which are extreme or illogical. There needs to be a temperate and reasoned move to promoting the prescription position. Foremost in this is (as based on numerous Scriptures themselves:
1. Recognising the KJB as the providentially appointed final text in the Church.
2. Recognising the KJB as a perfect translation in the global language, so that it is viewed as God’s exact message to the world.
3. Recognising the KJB has been presented in a final exact pure edition, accurate throughout, with the proper standard of spelling and Biblical English, without typographical error, without variation and without any other flaw to the jot and tittle.
_________________
A modernist is able to find common ground (that is, common error) between the TRO position and himself because both have accepted incorrect premises in their view of the King James Bible and of what the 1611 translators said in their Preface to the Reader.
Most specifically, both do not view the King James Bible as having representative authority. They both judge the correctness of the King James Bible on other sources, usually, what they think the original text reads as, and what they think those original words should mean. In other words, it is denying the received tradition as Providentially given for an endless quest for truth that can never be attained.
This may easily be judged so, because no such person can produce a final text and translation because their very methodology and principles which supposedly are to lead to "the best" always fall short, since they have as a basis the law of the spirit of error (i.e. that perfection is impossible). This is essentially saying to God that He is too weak, and that He cannot (or even is forbidden to) have one Bible for the world. In other words, they can accept perfect truth in the past (inspiration), they can accept it in the future (the Millennium), they can accept it in Heaven, they can accept it in the Spirit (in the heart of a believer), but they cannot accept it in natural form extant and observable right now on the Earth today.
The proper view, I think, is to believe the Scripture itself, which many times implies, promises and indicates that there should be, and is manifest for believers, a pure and perfect Bible.
If the objection is brought up concerning the past, that is, the same words existed in scattered form in the past before 1611, and believers existed before 1611, the answer is simple: God’s outworking in this manner has been progressive to a final point, He said that the Word is purified seven times, which is a process. He promised that the Scripture would be there throughout Church history and to the Gentiles, it is true, but the promise of a pure, final and exact form has only been understood as a doctrine after 1611. (How many true doctrines were restored to the Church after the Reformation!)
The King James Bible is of the same line as any good version that anyone could have ever used, or other contemporary good versions that have been used, but in the end, one has remained, one has stood above all, one has been chosen by God, because its very nature is supersuccessionary to all. This does not invalidate anything else, rather it confirms the others, for it is the one final form that replaces them (even a contemporary TR-based Spanish translation).
_________________
Are King James Bible only people and Textus Receptus only people really on the same team?
This is a really interesting concept, namely, that divided parties are on the same team. We may observe that there are TROs versus the more extreme KJBOs. The TROs tend to be more moderate, scholarly and reputable, but they also are weakly, compromised and short-falling. The more extreme KJBOs tend to be more strong, certain and consistent, but they also are unruly, simple and foolish. Rather than take the World War Two solution, which includes alliances with Russia and the French, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), take the Cromwellian solution, (The LORD taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me).
Moderation never meant placating differing factions, or merely taking “middle ground”, especially if they do not agree upon the same foundation. No war can be prosecuted against the antichrist (spiritually and naturally) from a divided support basis, nor from just trying to bring together different factions which all have their own faults and are against each other anyway.
I will quote somewhat from my book, which has upset certain KJBOs quite a lot:
It became very clear to me that the prosecution of the war concerning the Word of God by genuine Christians was not being waged so wholly on Biblical principles, but was mainly concerned with fighting over the same ground in regard to modern versions, and often adopted the very premises of thinking that were foundational to the modernists’ arguments. Therefore, it has been my intention in writing to move the King James Bible debate on, and away from the misguided zeal and extremism of certain King James Bible only supporters and their ignorance on the editions issue. The Scripture could even apply to them, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes” (Matthew 21:42b). The King James Bible adherents were builders. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6a). Since they rejected the true doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, it was not they who received the revelation of the pure edition of the Word, that is, the Rock. Jesus said, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:24). Many Born Again Fundamentalists had rejected nothing less than Christ’s words concerning receiving the Spirit and the sign of tongues.
The Holy Ghost had indeed worked to gather together the pure Word. The words outlining this doctrine should, by God’s grace, form an expeditionary army of a new model, which would either persuade or repel present King James Bible proponents. There must be a move away from petty name calling, unscholarly works and fearfulness of Jesuit powers, into a clear and true understanding of God’s Word in English, and the consequences of establishing the Word to consume the power of the Antichrist false “Word”. Instead of thinking in terms of pervading worldliness and apostasy, Christians must think in terms of the prevailing Word, that it is a day star in comparison to the world, a city on a hill which cannot be hid. In doing this we must guard against those who would think to overthrow Bible-ordered tradition to construct a tyrannical rule upon the Earth.
The long term solution is one united body of believers with one true doctrine. At this point there is division among believers on almost every doctrine. If a proper King James Bible doctrine can be put as foundation, then this is great progress. In the outworking of this, it would be evident whether or not, for example, tongues for today, is a true doctrine.
Unless we recognise ourselves within a providential continuum, where God is using us (regardless of past things) to begin from the true Word (the KJB), and to receive His true doctrines, and to align ourselves to Him (or rather, to allow Him to align us), and that we may fully see which doctrines are vindicated and raised up by God, and which are not, it is by deference to Him, rather than pettiness, blindness and pride, by which great ends may be accomplished. In this we will see whether God has raised us up for His cause or no, that is, by His signal workings according to His ends rather than the contrivance of one or other man.
“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14). God should visit us, and should raise us up for the cause.
“And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up” (Acts 15:15, 16). That is, a restoration of the King James Bible and the consequential working of God in the Church.
“That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” (Acts 15:17). There cannot be great reaching of the Gentiles until there is at least a remnant of believers agreeing in one, having one Bible, and so the Church, and so being witnessed of throughout the world.
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts 15:18). Surely, if that is the plan of God, give space and allow Him to raise up those whom He would raise up according to His purposes. Who can resist God and win? But if we submit, what should we see upon our enemies, who champion error, division and continual corruption of God’s Word?
_________________
"But thou hast fully known my doctrine" (2 Tim 3:10a). "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear" (2 Tim. 4:17a). This requires that the full translation occur so that we (all Gentiles) may fully know the doctrine in English. Are the Gentiles going to hear only the full truth today if they go to the Greek? Or if it is yet being unlocked and revealed from the Greek? Is it not rather that God has providentially supplied and sanctioned the English Bible to take out from the scattered Greek and Hebrew one good Bible for all?
I certainly agree the only valid use for the Greek is as a secondary and confirming witness to the English. However, it is an important issue as to the exact sense, that is, the full scope of God's message being present in English. By this I mean that by translation etc., we now (since 1611) have the full, exact and express message of God in English, which is fully and utterly in English. And reading the King James Bible now is as if God spoke English throughout the inspiration of the Scripture, for the manifest infallibility of it in English.
Burgon said concerning the translators, "When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English."
The argument is not whether or not the Scripture in English is sufficient for salvation, because very born again believer really will have to admit that. The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".
If the text and translation are "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added" then the text and translation cannot be altered.
Having said that, I will now show that changing one jot or one tittle is a change of the Word of God.
Every word has meaning. Every word, its sounding, its placed in the sentence, is exact, is perfect, proper, in its order. Yea, in the Pure Cambridge Edition, we may rely even on the very spellings, the punctuation, in short, in every whit whole.
Changing and altering even one letter, one sound, one word is going to alter these things (some to a greater degree than others):
1. The visual appearance.
2. The sound/rhythm.
3. The subtle associations of meanings, the impact upon the bowels (feeling).
4. The proper use of Biblical English.
5. The sense.
6. The truth.
7. Faith in something which was received as fixed, certain and sure.
Certainly “rasor” to “razor” is slight (the sense changeth not), “thinketh” to “thinks” is not slight, and something like “hewed” to “shown” is wild (New Cambridge Paragraph Edition).
“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation” (Psalm 95:10a) should never be made “For forty years I was grieved with that generation”.
Even a slight change, like one letter, is still a change. It may not be a change to the actual meaning, but it is a change nonetheless to the RECEIVED WORD as is now final. (There are lots of "differences" which may be discovered when comparing to 1611. Such things were needful and were occurring under the providential hand of the Lord. There is no way that any changes now can be God-led. The very desire for change now is really inspired by the spirit of error, because it is never going to accept that the state of the King James Bible as it now is, that is, its very presentation, is final. It will at least try and change spellings. But final is final. And that means no changes, not even of one letter.)
_________________
There is a distinction between being TRO and being more specifically KJBO. Edward Hills wrote that the KJB is an independent variety of the TR. It is, in fact, the final form of the Received Text.
TROs tend to allow for changes to the KJB, as well as promoting foreign translations. Invariably these translations do not even match the text of the KJB is specific places, perhaps because they are using Scrivener's Greek as standard rather than the KJB. This is probably because TROs see the original languages as more authoritative than English.
The problem with the TRO view is that it cannot properly answer how to determine a difference or variation between TR readings, and allows for differing translations.
Another problem is that TRO Bible study might mean going to the Greek and defining the Greek. For example, D. A. Waite talks about Greek words and interpreting the Scripture on that basis, rather than what the English says, and what the English means. This problem manifests itself in some of the definitions of the Defined KJV too.
David Cloud talks about the possibility of altering the English, which even Edward Hills suggested, but also showed why it would not work, saying, "But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated."
TROs also use jargon, such as "VPI" and "VPP". Sure, they might be avid "KJV supporters" (they tend to say "KJV" instead of KJB), but this support does not go so far as to encoruge Bible Colleges to teach English so that they might learn the Scripture better, etc.
In short, they view the Scripture as being primarily in the originals, and do not definitively believe that it is 100% perfect in the English. For example, D. A. Waite says that the KJB is accurate, but that it cannot present 100% what was in the originals because, according to him, it is impossible to get 100% of the sense from the originals into English.
This actually denies that every jot and tittle is pure and perfect in the KJB. Jots, we are told, are in the Hebrew or Greek. But "jot" is an English word in the English Bible with an English meaning listed in an English dictionary!
Again, if the Scripture cannot be 100% in text and/or translation, then how can Scriptures such as these be true?
Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Ro 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
It is therefore the work of Christ to order in His Church such ministries, offices and investments as are necessary and right, according to His working, to set about to provide in the earth His true Scripture, and the furthering of the knowledge of it.
Unashamedly, I say that we had rather have one standard, according to Isaiah’s prophecies, than to have what the Dean Burgon Society labours to have, which is thousands of translations to every tribe and dialect, rather than conformity to one standard for all, made common, and proved to be true.
I find that David Livingston taught the brightest and most zealous natives English, and that they would be set to be the future spiritual leaders. I find that in Australia, the Aborigines were taught English, and it took until 2007 for a complete Bible (a modern version) to be made in just one of their dialects. I say that the aims of Richard Hakluyt, Oliver Cromwell and others were higher, and that the William Carey Bible Society is viewing things with the limitations of the nineteenth century, rather than having the nineteenth century truth advancing (in what Dean Trench referred to as “manly” English) for all.