Rafael, I enjoy the interaction as well. Do not take any thing too personally. You are assuming the position and so you get to be the front man. I am not just opposing you but things I have seen on web sites as well as people I have heard argue the position.
When the ship has holes in it and its filling up with water, as well as, the rudder being jammed in one position with no way to make corrections... jumping ship becomes the only option! But I have not gone far enough for you to presume that I have thrown the baby out with the water. If I have an agenda, it is this: A trustworthy Bible that is understood as well as accurate for today's audience. If we can identify some issues which appear to be errors or mistakes or discrepancies, I'd rather deal with them than pretend they do not exist. Is Satan out to get everyone on the KJVo wagon? No, I think he has multiple interests which work for him. Will God bawl you out for believing in a providentially preserved inerrant infallible single English Bible for English people? I think He will since such notions are not found in any English Bible without some incredible and untenable interpretations. Remember, it is the teachers of the KJVo position that talk about losing your faith and warn of impending doom and a crumbling foundation if you don't use the KJV or if you use a Bible with one faint error in it! Not those who do not use it. There are a lot of solid saints not using the KJV. We can move to superior translations without losing our foundation of faith. I think it is rather arrogant to think we have arrived when it comes to any particular doctrine and such is the KJVo bandwagon. Meanwhile, children are growing up misunderstanding God's Word and learning wrong interpretations of His doctrine in some areas because they simply are not grasping what the Bible really says. It is a problem that does not go away.
You said, "doesn't it seem logical that God would give us a preserved valid testimony where every word in it is true not just the general idea with some mistakes?" Brother, we can think up alot of things that seem logical, but what good is it when divorced from the facts. Do we ignore the evidence to defend preconceived notions or do we look at the evidence in all honesty. We can do just that without fear of losing our faith. You wonder how it is possible but I have done it and I have not lost my faith. That flat out denies all the fears that fly around the KJVo camp doesn't it? They used to think you would fall off the edge of the world if you sailed to far out in the ocean until a few sailed all the way around the world and came back to tell about it. I have sailed around the world and it is a sphere! It is not flat and you won't fall aff the edge!
The Bible has been preserved by his people, but obviously not perfectly. The textus receptus has deviated from the historical Greek text in several places. I know we’ve been told that the TR IS the historical text but that is not quite true! Blame Erasmus, blame the printers of the early editions of the TR or whatever, the evidence is there. Do I hate Erasmus and the printers for not providing us with the exact historical text, i.e., the Greek Bible used by the saints up until that time? Despite the aspersions cast on them, I thank God for them and admire them. There is also the Latin Vulgate which was used in the west some 1,000 plus years and it is very riddled with errors. Why didn't God preserve an infallible and inerrant Bible for those folks? If He didn't then, why now with the KJV. It is amazing how we survived and continue to survive under less than perfect conditions.
The existence of the historical evidence is an objective fact. How it is interpreted is subjective. I was not there, but I can look at the evidence we have and draw some conclusions. I can also evaluate the present effect of the evidence and draw conclusions. I can also hear the testimony of the Book to me and consider it, test it and determine its character. I can gage its effects on the saints. I believe it is possible and not at all fruitless. We can shape our subjectivity to the form of the objective facts or we can ignore the objective reality and concoct whatever we want and venerate it. That is what idolatry is whether we recognise that we are doing it. If I warn you of your error, will you become angry with me and dismiss me or say, "well you could be deceived too"? I say it not to be derogatory but to warn my Brothers and Sisters who are in danger.
Have you actually researched it and studied it out or have you read only somebody's book? Have you compared the various printed editions of the TR or taken someone's word for their content. Have you compared the various English Bibles that came before the KJV with the KJV? What percent of the text was or was not changed? Have you studied the history of the KJV? Who were the nonconformists? Were they considered by King James to be friends or enemies of the Church of England and himself? What is the Millenary Petition? What were the regulations for the translators given at Hampton Court? Why were those particular rules set? How did these things affect the final form of the KJV? What promotions did the translators receive within the Church of England? When did the KJV finally ascend over the Geneva as the people's Bible? When was the printing of Geneva Bibles banned in England? When was the importation of the Geneva banned? Have you really studied it out? It can be done without fear.
You ask a valid question, "What portions are imperfect?" The answer is not nearly so devastating as you imply (which implies a great deal of fear). Are you scared that all our "orthodox" doctrines will be devastated? Do you avoid finding the truth by dismissing any attempt at examining the evidence and say, "You just BELIEVE it, you can't PROVE it." Do you use the threat of "you will end up with a "weak foundation" or none at all to scare people from even thinking about taking their head out of the sand? That's not faith brother, that's fear holding you in ignorance. Are you afraid the evidence will destroy our doctrine? Well, it has not destroyed mine! So is that evidence of a weak foundation or a solid foundation? IF I testify that the evidence does show "divine origin and content" and that it is "fresh and powerful even unto the salvation of men" despite whatever "mistakes" it may have, why do you gain say it? I crossed the line and I am not destroyed! Can you not imagine a single "mistake" in or discrepancy since it was entrusted to humanity for a couple of millennia? I believe you have studied some books by those who are bent on denigrating anything but the KJV! Perhaps you have read some material supporting the modern critical text and was not satisfied. Neither was I and I have read and studied it out. I am not angry, I am concerned! Why tie a mill stone around your neck when a life vest is available? We have collected some 5,500 NT manuscripts and it proves that God's Word has been preserved. It is not too hard to get over the fact that most of those documents are in rough shape and incomplete. Now are we to be impressed with a few and very expected desrepancies or with the unity exhibited? You are worried that a little water spilled out and got a few specks of dirt dropped into the glass and many act as though such is practically empty and absolutely corrupt! I see something amazing, a full portion of good refreshing water! Getting bent out of shape over a few spilt drops and a few specks is a waste, it is extreme and unbalanced, it is unworthy. The drink you offer is not the purist nor the fullest, we can do better.
Can we survive drinking water with a few impurities in it? Can we eat food and live even though it has some bacteria in it? Can we read God's Word even though it has a few "mistakes" in it? The notion of perfection is a vanity. Nothing touched by humanity remains perfect. Am I a critic of the KJV? Absolutely! It is not hard to be a critic of something that has plenty obvious imperfections. Yet, it has sustained me and nourished and blessed me. You ask how that can be if it is not perfect, I tell you it has blessed me even though it is imperfect. The fact is that we have had to get along with less than perfection, lets not pretend otherwise. Do I hate the KJV because I am a critic? No, I love the KJV! It is my first love and it is my favorite despite its imperfections, (like my wife)! But that does not mean it is the best for all, no quite the opposite.
The words change meaning over time and that does indeed make the KJV inaccurate. The words are not communicating the same message as translated for the original audience. That is a fact. I can blame people AND the KJV for misrepresentations! Some due to obsolete language and some intentional. The KJV is in no way a neutral translation. It was carefully designed to promote the hierarchy of the Church Of England and Englands King. You see, the nonconformists did not believe in a pope, nor did they believe in a king as the notes in their Geneva Bible so unequivocally pointed out. But King James believed in the doctrine of "the divine right of Kings" (Do you know what that involves?) and realized that they and their Geneva Bible notes were a threat to his position. That is why one of the rules for the KJV was NO NOTES! King James ranted, "No Bishop, No king!" The nonconformists ideas of reform for the Church of England threatened the episcopacy and the crown.
with theology degrees that don't know Calvin practiced the sacraments, well, so did Burgon and Scrivener were members of the Church of England and thus practiced the sacraments. Why do fundamentalists want to promote the Bible of a sacerdotal church and its King who thought tyranny was his right? And yet fundamentalist Baptists think Burgon would be their buddy! Burgon would be kicked out of the Baptist church and I don't think the Baptists would stay when it came time to do the sacraments. Oh well, I had a baptist friend with a graduate degree in theology that could not believe that Calvin practiced the sacraments! The KJV is definitely a major culprit in promoting false ecclesiology and assumes a sacerdotal church.
It would be easier to have people learn the original languages than sort out the KJV's language anymore (An exaggeration!). Believing the Book is why I want it corrected otherwise I would not care. We can always have a better translation. It is not a threat, just something that needs to be done. Language changes and that is another fact. Does it need to be reconstructed, no nothing so radical. It is not so bleak a picture as we might be scared into believing. Fear-mongering is a common practice among the big name KJVo promoters.
Do you know how many modern NT versions there are based on the Textus Receptus? Our KJVo brothers would have us believe there is only the KJV as is evident from the categorical statements on their web sites. There are nearly three dozen TR based NTs in existence! Well, says the KJVo pro, we are concerned only with the popular versions. Well, then, I challenge them to remove the false statements and or modify them. And maybe if they started using the viable alternatives they would be more popular, but no, only the KJV will do. Does that not smack of idolatry or something close to it?
Actually, I prefer the Byzantine Majority Greek Text by Robinson, and Pierpont (deceased). This is the text that the historical church actually used. The TR was derived from the Byzantine Greek, and I might say, imperfectly at that. Do not confuse it with the Hodges and Farstadt Majority Text being promoted by E. Pickering. With respect to the story of the adulteress and the book of Revelation, Robinson and Pierpont did not use stematics like Hodges and Farstadt did. Stematics was employed by the creators of our modern mixed mutt, the Nestle - Aland / United Bible Societies derivative.
Concerning my comments about idols; is it a misrepresentation when one is so devoted to one particular Bible version that they spite themselves and everyone else to uphold it...isn't that version now an idol? And mini-popes, well, a little explaining. The Church of England is a mildly reformed break away from the Roman Catholic Church and is set up similarly. It promotes a hierarchy of Bishops with the King as head. The King essentially replaces the pope. Now the protestant denominations have inherited the Church of England's Bible and how do they set up there churches? Like a miniature Church of England, a pastor replaces the pope/king and the board of elders replaces the hierarchy of Bishops! This is the chief complaint I have concerning the KJV: it is in the passages concerning the structure of the church that the KJV was intentionally mistranslated. We have followed this error and have further substituted rulership for leadership which are to be distinguished. This error is also due to the intentional mistranslation of the KJV! Rulership uses authority (usurped I might add) to coerce people into doing the will of the ruler. Leadership uses no authority but rather servant-hood in love and respect to lead by setting a living example... and that too is another subject.
I can't believe you think I am a Methodist Pastor! OUCH! I am not a Pastor (although I pastor my family)!