Featured KJVO vs any other translation(s).

As a newly returning member & not one of that much background in all the details of "Which Version is THE BEST one; to me as someone indicated in her/his posting, THAT question is more of personal preference; eg What is THE BEST hair style, shoe color, house in which to live, etc., ad nauseum. Since apparently the original thread seems to have been closed, I'm not able to join that CON versation. If that's the case, I guess I'm proof of the adage, "You're MANY $$$$ too late 2 + Ur UN INN LITE10 but INFALLIBLE(!!!???) Dos Centavos!!" If I can, may I as a basically un-learned & usually inept observer add any Spectater (Makes U HUN greey[!!] flame to the already "Pack your M-16s (While it's STILL legal!!)!!! We're gonna shoot dem dare HAIRY ticks!!!" ??

 

(This BB post is subject to the BB Admins' decision, & I'll defer to those who AREN'T paid E-nuff 2 do watt day do!! ) (1)) Do NOT assume that I'm a KJV "hater," because I'm NOT. I am the person who spent the time, etc., to examine the issue of "'BAPTISM' is merely a transliteration of the Koine Greek put there by the KJV translators to confuse the "Non-Immersers" of an aspect of that Divinely-Ordained ordinance which has been made available online for some time now. It is a fully documented & bibliographed paper that I first presented as my term project for Eng. 202 way back in 1974.I observed from the historical etmology of "Baptism" from its pre-NT times up to the early 1600s, its usage in England from the early beginnings on that island nation up to the time of the KJV translators' work, AND from the KJV translators themselves stating that "Baptism" WAS, in fact, the preferred mode of Baptism in 1611. (2) English IS a "living" language as opposed to the Koine Greek but quite similar to folks such as we are. R U the very same person today as U were when U took that trip down your mother's birth canal? Have your PREFERENCES on ANYTHING ever changed from that time to today? Mine have, and so does the English language. I thrill over the fact of how Abraham answered Isaac's question about who the sacrifice was: "God will HIMSELF provide the sacrifice"! And when God the Son shed His blood on that "Old Rugged Cross" and proclaimed, "It IS Finished," HE DID become the ONLY sinless & pure sacrifice acceptable to a thrice-only God!! (Insert "Amens" right here!) (3) BUT, for example, in James when he refers to someone in "GAY" clothing, some folks may tend to question those men in the early 17th Century choice of that word rather than "FASHIONIBLE" in out 21st Century way of thinking about that person. (4) In Acts 12:4 the noun "Easter" is absolutely an incorrect translation for the Jewish Passover. Easter as we know it today (w/ eggs & bunnies) is a carryover from the Babylonian pagan fertility rites, NOT how GOD instructed Moses in Exodus to remember HIS delivering HIS people from Egyptian slavery to a new life directed by HIM! (Insert "Amens" here too!)
Just these 4 things has to make a simpleton such as I am wonder just how much time & effort we are wasting over "What is THE BEST English translation when there's a lost & dying & going to an eternity of people, some of which might be in OUR OWN families that, in my case especially, haven't seen much evidence of whom I SAY I worship & follow (James DOES hit me where I NEED it!) but don't live out what I SAY. In Matthew 25, our Savior reminds us that "Inasmuch as ye (haven't) done unto the LEAST OF THESE, you (haven't) done it to ME!" Need we to stop & remove that log in our own lives before trying to free that splinter in someone else's life? Yes, I fully realize that whenever I point my wavering finger at y'all, there's 3 x's as many fingers pointing back at me. Selah.

 

For me personal if reading the KJV floats you boat, fine with me, OTOH, to insist that ONLY the KJV is 110+% accurate in every jot & title is carrying one's own personal preferences too far. I do use the KJV to sometimes read, but I don't believe calling any & every one who doesn't hold to that position an unsaved & a heretic goes far beyond "Speaking the truth IN LOVE!!" God calls His children to not be carried away with every single position that comes down the road. Lucifer tried to merely cast doubt on what God told our first parents to do, and he hasn't given God's people a break ever since. Don't we have more important things to do than to hurl insults to our fellow Christians over which English translation is (and always had been) THE very best, infallible and unchanging message to God's people on terra firma? I'd much rather be helping people on the Titanic to save their collective lives than to criticisize the manufacturer of her deck furniture, wouldn't you?

 

Actually what the 1611 KJVO advocates claim is THE only TRUE Bible for ALL human beings past, present, & future haven't done any really serious historical works beyond that of their own preconceived notions. EXAMPLES: Some 1611 KJVO advocates claim that THEIR Bible is "Authorized,' which it is, but NOT as some would want us to believe by GOD HIMSELF. To the contrary, the KJV was actually "Authorized" by King James VI of Scotland. He was determined by the English Parliament (Then controlled by its House of Lords--those who had mainly inherited titles of nobility usually from their family's 'Noble One.') to be the nearest successor to the English throne upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I---but even his successorship was called into question by some because he wasn't a direct relative of the Tudor Family. James VI was of the Stuard "Dynasty. His mother was none other than Mary, Queen of the Scots & a supporter of the RCCH in Scotland (She shouldn't be confused with the English Queen, "Bloody" Mary, although each rather consistently supported the RCCh in their respective kingdoms.) And, just why did James VI / I "authorize" a new English translation of the Bible? It was NOT that he personally had that much of a "Godly" desire for a more readable English Bible, but rather that he couldn't stand all the marginal notes of the Puritians' Geneva Bible. The Puritans (Whose initial goal was merely to "Purify" THE Church of England (a/k/a The Anglican Church). While the Puritans should be commended to an extent, that was primarily their initial goal: To "purify" the Church of England, which was merely a breakaway "Church" from Rome under Henry VIII. He desired some "Church" approval of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon of Spain. ( Aragon was a region in the Iberian Peninsula. Henry 8th really only wanted to have some title of the wealth that Spain had been realizing from her "less than humane treatment" of the native peoples of the newly discovered gold mines in the New World.) Marriages between ruling families of Europe back in those days was more of a political &/or economic factor. If there happened to be any "romantic affections" between the H & W, fine; if not. so what, "Show Me The MONEY" was really the main goal "back in the good old days"!! ANWAY, the Geneva Bible was replete with not very flattering marginal notes of most of the OT kings. James VI was already fed up with Scottish Reformers such as John Knox & Co. That's mainly why the new English king "Authorized" this new English-language translation. OTOH, to their credit, the various translating committees from Cambridge & York DID a good job of translating into contemporary 17th century English. OTOH, printing errors seemed to permeate most of the latest editions of their work. EX: One edition "Slightly Modified" the Commandment of "Thou shalt NOT commit adulltry" by omitting "NOT" in an edition dating back to the early 1630s. So much for the "infallibility" of the KJV!! The 1611 version underwent a series of revisions beginnging in 1689 & continuing on to the late 1800s when Westcott & Hort produced their "revision." Actually the 1611 KJV took its NT translation from what's commonly referred to as "The Received Text." but the RT was NOT received from God in Heaven. The RT was primarily the work of two humanist Greek scholars Erasmus & Stephanus. Their work was probably as good a Greek text as could be had, but to claim "Immortal Infalliblity" for it is. IMHO, a stretch. I've read several KJVO texts & found that most of them conveniently gloss over what are actual errors. EX: Acts 12:3 in the KJV has the word "Easter" where in should read the Jewish "Passover." Moreover, English is a "living" language (unlike Classical Greek & Latin). Words and/or their meanings do change somewhat over the centuries. EX: In James 2:2 ff the KJV mentions a person in GAY attire. To the 17th century reader that term simply meant "fashionable" &/or "rich." Today GAY means something quite different. So you see, IMHO, Yes, the 1611 KJV version does do a very good overall job in conveying the majority of God's Word for English-speaking people. OTOH, how about those who speak only, say Spanish or French or Arabic, etc. As I posted in the beginning of this post, to claim that the 1611 KJV is THE ONLY VERBALLY INSPIRIED Word of God is something that needs to be re-examined. If it works for you, fine; but to adamantly insist the the 1611 KJV is the ONLY VERBALLY (& thus complete) Word of God for all mankind is not something I'd be willing to die for.

 

That could possibly be, however, my point of my post was simply that I see it of very little advantage to single out ONE single 17th century English translation of the Bible (NOT an original translation of the Hebrew, Amamaic nor the Koine Greek in which the H S inspired God's Word to be written, mind you, & then rise up many centuries later to proudly proclaim that the 1611 KJV IS THE ONLY inspired translation for ALL people EVERYWHERE is, IMHO a rather ill-based doctrinal tenet. Now I understand some peoples' desire to have a readable translation for English-speaking folks. but, OTOH, English is NOT the primarily language of ALL people on the earth; in fact, when one considers languages such as Chinese, English ISN'T THE language spoken by even a majority of the entire human race.. If these adherents of the 1611 KJVO would just stop their ravings & really consider what they are DEMANDING of the entire human race, IMHO, really seems to be far-fetched. EXAMPLES: If God's Word reveals humankind the way of salvation, & since salvation is only revealed in God's Word, how were non-english speaking peoples saved prior to 1611? Moreover, what if a person's language was one NOT of English---Chinese for example. Would not that person be required to learn 17th Century English if he/she would ever have ANY remote hope of ever learning God's plan of salvation??? If the KJV suits you, fine with me, but to INSIST that the 1611 KJV is the ONLY Holy-Spirit inspired Word of God, IMHO is to demand something that even God Himself doesn't demand of us. "Dat's my story, ..... & I'ma gonna stick wit it!!"

 

I've only posted what I've personally encountered in my own reading on this particular subject: Namely that these 1611 KJVO advocates ARE 110+% RIGHT & ANYONE who dares to disagree with their position is hretic...END of DISCUSSION!!!!! IMHO Acts 1:8a tells us what we are to do & what we are NOT to do. I'll admit that my knowledge of what God's Word has for me in this day & age is somewhat limited (& being a 75 YO handicapped vet doesn't help much either!!). That being said, I welcome anyone's positive advice in conducting my Christian life in such a way that brings honor & glory to the One who saved me by His blood. Thanks in advance for anyone who cares to help me in my journey here in this life (& in the life to come too!!) Thanks & may God bless y'all REAL GOOD!!

 

Not to belabor the point(s) that I hopefully were trying to make, IMHO it's seems a bit odd that some folks (i.e., the ones who INSIST (& henceforth DEMAND of the rest of us!!) that the H S ONLY inspired the 1611 KJV translators.....AND NOBODY ELSE, Past, Present & Future!! Are, IMHO, merely projecting their innate ignorance upon we who are called by God to "be My Witnesses .... to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8)