What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?

It was and still is a good and faithful translation to us, but the simple truth is that modern translators have much more source materials to draw upon now than they did to translate, and know mor eof the history/geography/biblical languages than they were able to know.

 

Is KJVO (which I reject) Satanic in origin, the result of unregenerate minds?

Is it the same authority as OSAS? Which I condone.

Or is it the same authority that claims salvation can be lost and regained or lost once for all time?

 

But there is conflict between versions, which has to lessen confidence

 

You would say that the KJV is "the very word of God to us in English for today"?

I agree it is the Word of God. However, it is not written in English for us today.

The KJV was a bit antiquarian in 1611. So it is certainly not suited for most native speakers/readers of English --and even less so for folks with English as their 2nd or 3rd language.

The KJV revisers would certainly have been in concert with William Tyndale's view that the language of the text should be understandable to common people of the day. That cannot be said of the KJV.

 

But you do acknowledge that the Byzantine text (there are variations) differs with the TR in many places. And of course there are dozens of different TR editions.

The Byzantine and Majority text aren't identical, but close enough. The TR would be like a stepson to those texts.

That belief of yours is a modern-day fabrication. Go back to The Fundamentals of more than a century ago and you will find no mention of your modern notion in any of those original twelve volumes.

What about the commonly accepted view that it rests on the basis of an inferior text?

What about its errors?

I don't think you have used the word perfect with respect to the KJV.

You should at least be aware of half a dozen of the better known ones before announcing that the KJV is the best.

 

The following was written by Edwin H. Palmer in 1975, so take that into account.

"Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible...For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable."

 

The following was written by Dick France. It was chapter 7 in the book edited by Scorgie, Strauss and Voth -- The Challenge of Bible Translation. His contribution is called The Bible in English : An Overview.

"The Bible is expected to speak in Elizabethan English. The colloquial language employed by Tyndale so that the Scriptures would be accessible to the ploughboy has thus become, with the passing of time, the esoteric language of religion, and the more remote it becomes from ordinary speech the more special and holy it seems." (p.193)

"But the Bible, or most of it, was not written in a special 'holy' language. The Hebrew prophets spoke in vigorous contemporary idioms, and the New Testament writers used 'market Greek.' A translation that will do justice to the intention of the original writers must put intelligibility before the maintenance of traditional language that no longer communicates effectively." (p.193)

 

God' Secretaries: The Making of the KJV by Adam Nicolson

"By 1870, it had become obvious not only that the manuscripts on which the King James Bible had been based were no longer the best available, but that the Jacobean Translators had made many mistakes in translation." (p.233)

 

From the Challenge book Moises Silva has an essay called Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Reflections.

"Literalness in translation, however, is something of an illusion." (p.39)

"...intensive training translating clauses and sentences that cannot be rendered word-for-word and thus requires restructuring would give students an entree into the...authentic character of the foreign tongue...a nonliteral translation, precisely because it may give expression to the genius of the target language...can do greater justice to that of the source language." (p.43)

 

From Bill Mounce 6/22/2007

"Best thing to do is read several translations. If you use the NIV and NLT, you can be pretty confident you are reading what the Greek means."

 

Not really, as most of the time, really are saying the same thing, just in a different way!

 

I meant that the Kjv was in English, not in Greek or Hebrew!

 

Its just that the formal ones give to us many times a more accurate translation to us from the original languages!

 

Most of the time it's just the opposite of what you have claimed.

 

You have quoted me in reply to someone else. Your "answer" has no relevance to what I had said to him.

You mix things up so often.

Keep track of who you are replying to.

Read what you quote.

 

to change a tense changes meanings

 

I think some folks are stashing half a dozen or more KJVs in their drawers.

 

I prefer the KJV. I attended a KJVO only church until I learned they taught the KJV was perfect and without error.

The question that came to mind was: compared to what?