1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Aug 13, 2013.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you actually suggesting that KJV-only advocates are entitled and right to make judgments concerning Bible translations based on divers measures and weights?

    When KJV-only advocates state their judgments concerning Bible translations including the KJV, are they righteous judgments based on consistent, just, true weights and measures or are they unrighteous judgments based on divers weights or measures?

    Since "a just weight and balance are the LORD's," He would not approve of the use of unjust weights, measures, or balances in the weighing, measuring, or evaluating of translations of His Word.

    The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies or translations would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5).
     
    #81 Logos1560, Aug 16, 2013
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Were you describing the view of the KJV translators?
     
    #82 Logos1560, Aug 16, 2013
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again it is clearly evident that faulty KJV-only reasoning cannot be applied consistently using just measures or weights.
     
    #83 Logos1560, Aug 16, 2013
  4. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    You Know....

    Mr.Norris....you know precisely what I was talking about in my comment and.......I AM familiar with the preface to the KJV and what they had to say. I think it is a testament to their genuine humility and their reverence for the God they worshipped (and the earthly king they served) and the work they accomplished in the translation they produced that they humbly suggested that it might not be an "end-all" work OR error-free. I honestly don't believe THEY THOUGHT that the work they produced was as good as it turned out to be. They were humble men who didn't brag about it and they didn't attempt to claim any "special" place or position for their work. They just honestly tried (and succeeded far beyond what they imagined or realized)) to produce a plain and honest translation of God's Word.

    With that said, I will only add that the Holy Bible is NOT "just another book" that can or should be handled like "just another book". It is a holy and supernatural work and it doesn't matter how many supposedly "better" and "up-to-date" versions of it men want to produce...the only way to ever understand God's holy and supernatural Book is for men to prayerfully seek His enlightenment of it by the Holy Spirit.(1 Cor.2:14)

    Bro.Greg:saint:
     
    #84 Gregory Perry Sr., Aug 17, 2013
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV was the attempt of a group of men to produce a "better" and up-to-date version of the earlier English Bibles.

    The KJV translators clearly stated that their endeavor, mark, or goal was to make a good English Bible "better". Why would you seem to condemn others for having the same goal as the KJV translators had?

    The KJV translators updated the archaic-type language in the Bishops' Bible in many places with the more up-to-date renderings of the Geneva Bible or of Tyndale's, but they inconsistently kept some of that archaic-type language from the Bishops' Bible in other places where the Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible already had more up-to-date, clearer, or more understandable language.

    Present KJV editions are attempts of men or editors to produce a better and more up-to-date version of the 1611 edition of the KJV. Cambridge had attempted to produce a better edition of the KJV in 1629, again in 1638, again in 1743, again in 1762, again in 1817, again later in the 1800's, again in 1873, again in 2005, again in 2011.
     
    #85 Logos1560, Aug 17, 2013
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Isn't it interesting that Tyndale's New Testament,though released 85 or so years earlier still has a more contemporary and natural feel to it than the 1611? We have had our share of threads citing example upon example of this. The revisers should have revised less.
     
    #86 Rippon, Aug 17, 2013
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In the thread entitled "Does KJVO equal Fundamental?" at the Fundamental Baptist Forum
    Even Peter Ruckman was not as extreme before 1970 as he would later be. Peter Ruckman at one time did not claim that Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 included translations as he would later try to imply.

    In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Tim 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (letter, p. 2).
     
    #87 Logos1560, Aug 18, 2013
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As Bible revisers, the KJV translators should have revised Tyndale's or the Geneva less in a number of places, but they should have revised the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible more by following more up-to-date, clearer, and better renderings in one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles.
     
    #88 Logos1560, Aug 18, 2013
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 5
Loading...