Matthew Johnson wrote:

> >So the older the manuscript, the closer to the original.
>
> That is CERTAINLY FALSE. Codex W, for example, is older than
> Koridethi, but the scholarly consensus is that Koridethi is
> FAR more accurate.

It's a pity that you seem to wish only to disagree. I think I really
COULD actually learn something from you if you would condescend to
communicate instead of condemn.


> >> Let's see what is written in the scriptures: Proverbs
> >> 16:10 "A divine sentence in the lips of the king: his
> >> mouth transgresseth not in judgment." And what does this
> >> prove? There is only one Bible written in english that
> >> has been authorized by a king, The King James version.
>
> >The King referred to in Proverbs was Solomon, who 'sat on
> >Jehovah's throne.' (1 Chr. 29:23)
>
> WHY, oh WHY, are you so sure of this? Do you really think
> that all of history has produced exactly ONE infallible
> king?

Where did I say that was the case? I simply referred to the verse he
was quoting.

>
> >>For God uses kings to accomplish his will, for we can read
> >>again in Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart in the hand of
> >>the LORD, the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever
> >>he will." And think that God would not use a king to
> >>authorize such a great task as this, to have the word of
> >>God to be copied without error in english?
>
> >When Proverbs was written, ancient Israel had divinely authorized kings, who
> >were required to write a copy of the Law of Moses for themselves, and know
> >it well.
>
> And if YOU knew it well, you would know how few of their
> kings actually _exhibited_ this knowledge you speak of! Many
> of them actually introduced idolatry.

What makes you think I don't know this? Is it relevant to the KJV?

>
> > English did not exist then. Bible translation did not
> >exist then, either. The Bible was in the original ancient
> >Hebrew. Only.

Wow, you must actually agree with the above statement, for I see you
said nothing. Pity. I am so glad that Jehovah God and His Son, Jesus
Christ are not like that. "si iniquitates observabis Domine Domine quis
sustinebit?" Psa 130:3

>
> >> For the other versions, or more like perversions of the
> >> scriptures are just the interpretation of men, after the
> >> imagination of their hearts. For they have changed the
> >> truth into a lie with some adding to the word, while
> >> others take away from the word, and no lie is of the
> >> truth.
>
> >The only 'truth' against which to measure is the oldest Bible manuscripts
> >available, for they are the closest to the originals.
>
> NO. There is no substitute for following the scientific
> principles of textual criticism, a