THIS is an Essentisl Tool for all KJVO to have and use now

[Dave G]

The Hebrew and Greek texts trump and have supremacy though over ANY English translation

Unfortunately, there are currently two Hebrew collated texts, and three Greek...
All of which differ when compared to each other in their respective languages.

Where can we find the Greek and the Hebrew?

 

[JesusFan]

Unfortunately, there are two Hebrew collated texts, and three Greek...
All of which differ when compared to each other in their respective languages.

Which if fine, as none of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as NO English translation was either

 

[Dave G]

why would the Lord not want to get out His message to us in modern English and not in 400 year old English, as He desires for us to be able to read with understanding?

I have a simple answer.
Instead of translators using 3 predominant collated Greek texts and two predominant collated Hebrew texts, and then trying to start all over, why not simply update the AV with more modern English words?

Regardless, I don't have any problem understanding the "KJV", but there is a learning curve to it;
A learning curve that I believe is well worth the effort.

That said, it seems you still do not understand what's really going on with all the translations being made in these last days, my friend.
Each time this subject comes up, you appear to take the side of the modern translations that keep changing...
The NA / UBS apparatus that keeps changing.

God, who says "I change not", doesn't change ...and neither do His words.

 

[Dave G]

Which if fine, as none of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as NO English translation was either

I agree that no translation is inspired in the sense that God spoke the words, like He did through His prophets and apostles, to the translators.
But that's not what I find concerning, Dave.

My question is,
Do you really believe that we actually have the inspired and preserved words of God today?
If so, where are they and how can today's English speakers find them?


As for the OP in the first post, thank you for the link.
I think it will help those who are still making use of the AV, to understand what many of the Late Middle English words mean in today's English.

 

[JD731]

The Scriptures do not teach that God ordained the making of the 1611 KJV. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. God would have been just as involved in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible as in the making of the 1611 KJV.

The believers who were Baptists that were involved in the making of the 1842 English Bible and the 1850 KJV NT with emendations were more likely to be guided by the Holy Spirit of truth than the doctrinally-unsound Church of England makers of the KJV who believed the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration and who were active in persecuting and even torturing people for their beliefs.

1842 revision of KJV by several Biblical scholars; Sixth Edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding
1850 and 1851 KJV N.T. with emendations edited by Baptists: Spencer Cone & William Wyckoff)

You answered a question I did not ask and avoided the question I did ask. Are you on record proclaiming that God is so disengaged in the maintenance of his word testimony that he allows men to present it in any form they wish?

 

[JesusFan]

I have a simple answer.
Instead of translators using 3 predominant collated Greek texts and two predominant collated Hebrew texts, and then trying to start all over, why not simply update the AV with more modern English words?

Regardless, I don't have any problem understanding the "KJV", but there is a learning curve to it;
A learning curve that I believe is well worth the effort.

That said, it seems you still do not understand what's really going on with all the translations being made in these last days, my friend.
Each time this subject comes up, you appear to take the side of the modern translations that keep changing...
The NA / UBS apparatus that keeps changing.

God, who says "I change not", doesn't change ...and neither do His words.

Changing due to recent advancements, as an ongoing attempt to get right back to the originals themselves, as who stated that the Kjv 1611 was to be the final say in English translations? The 1611 translators did not see it that way

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that no translation is inspired in the sense that God spoke the words, like He did through His prophets and apostles, to the translators.
But that's not what I find concerning, Dave.

My question is,
Do you really believe that we actually have the inspired and preserved words of God today?
If so, where are they and how can today's English speakers find them?


As for the OP in the first post, thank you for the link.
I think it will help those who are still making use of the AV, to understand what many of the Late Middle English words mean in today's English.

WSe have the very word of God to us in the English translations now avaiable to us such as Nas/Esv/Nkjv/ Kjv

 

[Logos1560]

You answered a question I did not ask and avoided the question I did ask. Are you on record proclaiming that God is so disengaged in the maintenance of his word testimony that he allows men to present it in any form they wish?

Your question was soundly answered. You dodge and avoid what I actually stated as you ask a question that attempts to put words in my mouth that I did not suggest.

It may be KJV-only reasoning that seems to suggest that God is not engaged in the maintenance of His word testimony in present-day standard English, but that is not what I suggested.

 

[Logos1560]

I have a simple answer.
Instead of translators using 3 predominant collated Greek texts and two predominant collated Hebrew texts, and then trying to start all over, why not simply update the AV with more modern English words?

Updating the archaic language in the KJV has been done, but KJV-only advocates attack and condemn English Bibles that do that.

These Bibles [the 1982 NKJV, the 1987 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, and Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament] did not try to start all over.

 

[Salty]

Updating the archaic language in the KJV has been done, but KJV-only advocates attack and condemn English Bibles that do that.

So very true - and that is a shame that some will not accept todays English (or as I prefer to say" "American"!