God Telling the KJV is the Right Translation?

Great questions friend. But don't hold your breath. I've never ever ever ever ever heard a KJVonly answer them.

 

Hi, Phillip, I usually stay off this Bible versions forum. I found some of your statements and questions interesting. I only use the KJV, but do not think I qualify for what is termed on the Board KJV-Only. Anyway:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If the translators of the KJV were inspired, why did they also translate the apocrypha?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The translators were not inspired. I personally believe they DID accurately translate the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek scriptures into the English language. I am sure they did a fine job translating the apocrypha as well!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is my 1614 version of the King James Bible literally almost unreadable to the typical American? In other words, why have there been hundreds of changes made since 1611 and the 18th century? How can you claim that using the 1611 is the Bible you use when it isn't even close to the 18th century version you really use?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To say that the 1611 King James Bible is almost unreadable to the typical American is probably more of a reflection on the typical American than it is on the King James Bible. I am of average intelligence (I hope), I own a 1611 KJV, and I read it all the way through one year for my Daily Bible readings. Admittedly, the type, spellings, etc. all give own cause to take care, but I see no cause why anyone who can intelligibly read any other version of the Bible could not read a 1611 KJV. I am no authority in this, but I am very familiar with the present KJV, and noticed no major difference of real consequence in my reading. A reasonable person who has both KJV's has to admit there are changes in spelling and punctuations, and probably corrections of typographical errors, etc. as well, but to say it "isn't even close" is an exaggeration or misrepresentation of the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know MANY GOOD Christians who do not believe the KJV is the preserved Word of God and only it? Are they all wrong and you are right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Translation questions cannot be settled by majority vote.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about foreign language Bibles such as French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, etc. There ARE translational errors in these--does this mean you have to learn old English in order to read the Bible and if so that is the same argument being made about Greek and Hebrew?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
People should use the most accurate translation available to them in their language, and, if possible, study the original languages as well {If one wants to know the Bible from the original languages, one needs to devote a lifetime to learning these languages. The acquaintance that most of us have from a few courses or a few years of college or seminary often do us about as much harm as good}

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, how many of you KJVOs will actually say that the NASB is the word of Satan? or is inspired by Satan? I'd be ducking during the next lightning storm--actually I'd duck immediately. How are you going to feel if you face God and he says "You said MY WORD was from Satan?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I neither use nor recommend the NASB; but any part of the NASB that is accurately translated is as much the word of God as the KJV. If a "thou" becomes a "you" it is still the truth. {though the "thee's", "thou's", "ye's" and "you's" of the KJV do have advantage of denoting number and usage}.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, as asked many times by Pastor Larry, where in the Bible does it say the KJV is the uncorrupted Word of God?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nowhere. The Bible says the BIBLE is the uncorrupted word of God. If the KJV is an accurate translation of that Word, IT IS the Word of God.

Probably should have stayed away from this, since it will suit neither side!

 

i'm ok with this as long as the same standard applied to the KJB is also applied to the NASB n any other version.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
... but any part of the NASB that is accurately translated is as much the word of God as the KJV. If a "thou" becomes a "you" it is still the truth. {though the "thee's", "thou's", "ye's" and "you's" of the KJV do have advantage of denoting number and usage}.
....If the KJV is an accurate translation of that Word, IT IS the Word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

rlvaughn; very good post!

 

And I might add one of the most coherent posts on this subject I've read.

 

1266
posted November 12, 2001 10:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why is my 1614 version of the King James Bible literally almost unreadable to the typical American? In other words, why have there been hundreds of changes made since 1611 and the 18th century? How can you claim that using the 1611 is the Bible you use when it isn't even close to the 18th century version you really use?"

There are a few reasons.
1. Printing changes
Our most popular type style now is Roman. In 1611 it was Gothic, and looked very much different. This is a change in the typestyle, not a change in the translation.
2. Spelling changes
As spelling became established the spelling of words in the KJV were updated. Extra e's at the ends of sentences, double vowels and consonants were very common. Again, not a change in the translation.

3. Textual changes
There were about 400 printers errors that have been corrected. A word made plural or left singular, accidentally skipped, etc.. The great majority was corrected in the early years after the first printing.

"I know MANY GOOD Christians who do not believe the KJV is the preserved Word of God and only it? Are they all wrong and you are right?"

Yes. Unfortunately, the majority doesn't always win.

"How about foreign language Bibles such as French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, etc. There ARE translational errors in these--does this mean you have to learn old English in order to read the Bible and if so that is the same argument being made about Greek and Hebrew?"

No. They must find what's closest for them. However, it is no coincidence that English is the most widely known language and that God chose to preserve his words in the English language. And we have a duty to spread the message of the cross to all.

"Finally, how many of you KJVOs will actually say that the NASB is the word of Satan? or is inspired by Satan? I'd be ducking during the next lightning storm--actually I'd duck immediately. How are you going to feel if you face God and he says "You said MY WORD was from Satan?""

I'll say this, and I won't duck. The NASB contains the words of God, but some of those words have been perverted. And who do I think is behind that? Satan.

"Finally, as asked many times by Pastor Larry, where in the Bible does it say the KJV is the uncorrupted Word of God? "

We were promised that the words of God would be preserved. The words of God are perfect, and sure, and I cannot see where there can be more than one correct translation of his word, because his words are a direct reflection of HIM.
Gina

 

Gina:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"How about foreign language Bibles such as French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, etc. There ARE translational errors in these--does this mean you have to learn old English in order to read the Bible and if so that is the same argument being made about Greek and Hebrew?"

No. They must find what's closest for them.

We were promised that the words of God would be preserved. The words of God are perfect, and sure, and I cannot see where there can be more than one correct translation of his word, because his words are a direct reflection of HIM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These two statements are the direct antithesis of each other; how do you reconcile them?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, it is no coincidence that English is the most widely known language and that God chose to preserve his words in the English language. And we have a duty to spread the message of the cross to all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where and when did God promise to perfectly preserve his word in English?

Where and when did God give the Great Commission to primarily the English speaking world?

 

In my most humble and lowly opinion they should translate from KJV.
Then again I'm a KJ kinda guy

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Finally, as asked many times by Pastor Larry, where in the Bible does it say the KJV is the uncorrupted Word of God? "

We were promised that the words of God would be preserved. The words of God are perfect, and sure, and I cannot see where there can be more than one correct translation of his word, because his words are a direct reflection of HIM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to list the verse where the KJV is identified.

This is the very issue I am trying to get to. You have no verse to support this, you just claim it to be so and then expect everyone to believe it. Yet all the verses that people cite in support of the KJV are in my NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, etc. In other words, if you started with the NASB and your presuppositions, you would be arguing against the KJV.

You say you cannot see that there can be more than one correct translation of his word. Why? It is a translation. If you have ever worked in another language, you understand that there are multiple ways to translate the same phrase – all of them correct.

Take for instance, the phrase from John 3:16: hina pas o pisteuon eis auton mn apoletai all’ exe zoen aionion.

Consider just the first part: hina pas o pisteuon eis auton

1. That whosoever believeth in him
2. In order that all who believe in him
3. So that all believing in him.
4. In order that all the believers in him
5. So that all who believe in him.

I could several more. Which is the correct translation? They all are. And you could multiply this list for every phrase in the NT. There are multiple ways to correctly translate almost any phrase.

You list a number of errors (printer’s, typeset, spelling, etc.). Why was God not able to get it correct the first time around? Surely, God should be on the cutting edge of grammar and language and it seems to me that the Bible should set the pace, not follow the conventions of society. Additionally there are substantive changes that cannot be attributed to spelling or printing, places where the name of God was omitted in 1611 and later added in, places where whole words and phrases were changed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> originally posted by Gina
We were promised that the words of God would be preserved. The words of God are perfect, and sure, and I cannot see where there can be more than one correct translation of his word, because his words are a direct reflection of HIM.
Gina[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, if there is only one correct translation, why are you arbitrarily choosing the King James Version? It is neither the oldest nor the most accurate.

The Great Bible and the Breeches Bible both predate the KJV. In fact the translators of the KJV were denounced by the conservatives of 1611 because they had changed the Bible.

Furthermore, the set of original language manuscripts available to the translators of the KJV did not include many that we now know were "preserved" but just hadn't been found yet.

These manuscripts continue to be analyzed and studied in minute detail by imminent scholars trying to determine which wording is most likely to be that of the original writers. This is NOT an effort to undermine the Bible, but rather is an earnest search for the best original of it so we can then use that to translate into modern languages.

Finally, a point about language. It is not static. It changes, and there are multiple dialects of all major languages. I really don't think God gets huffy if the followers decide to translate the Bible into a new language, even if that new language is the product of natural language change in the dialect of the majority.