<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Ok, so I'm the one missing something here. Am I mistaken in believing that only the KJV was translated by the most capable scholars under the direction of God and that it is the only one that translates from the original Greek and Hebrew into any language, whereas the other translations are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, you are mistaken in believing that the KJV was the only English translation that was "translated from the original Greek and Hebrew" and that modern versions are merely "other translations [that] are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints [them]."
Even Dr. Cassidy would tell you this: MVs are translated from Greek and Hebrew, like the KJV. We would disagree on which text is the best representation of the original.
You said in a later comment that you had studied all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the KJV was it (but you forgot why). One might call into question the veracity of that comment if you
really thought that the KJV was the only English version translated from Greek and Hebrew.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Doesn't changing words in the original change meanings of whole verses? Looking up the translators of newer versions, what happened to the people trying to come up with a better version? Didn;t the Bible tell you that would happen to anyone trying to add or take away from the Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who is "changing words in the original?" Instead of assuming the KJV to be right where it differs from MVs, consider this: maybe the KJV is wrong sometimes and the MVs are right. Do the MVs subtract from the word of God (take away from) or does the KJV add to the word of God in those instances (which carries an equal penalty according to Revelation)?
As far as I know, nothing out of the ordinary had happened to translators of the modern versions in a proportion greater than that which might be explained by chance. (Some may have died, some may have gotten cancer, etc., but this isn't anything out of the ordinary [contrary to what some KJVOs would have you to believe]; it isn't a punishment for translating--if so, then one must remember that the KJV translators are all dead!)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Of course I may be mistaken, but this is what I've read and studied. I don't remember right off who all the translators were, but the one who sticks in my mind most is Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who was getting ready to fin;ish his "correction" of the "mistranslated" KJV Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps you might consider better sources. Joseph Smith was not a translator. To my knowledge, he did not even know Greek or Hebrew. He fabricated a book (separate from the Scriptures) and called it "inspired."
Furthermore, even if he were a translator, he is still from a cult. The translators of the NIV, NASB, and other reputable translations are all Christians (although they are not all Baptist, but neither were any of the 1611 boys).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Also, isn't it interesting that despite the wide trend of churches using other versions, the Mormons, which I consider to be the scariest and most underestimated threat to Christianity still insists on using the KJV...I think the fact that they use a KJV to look good says a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Go figure. Isn't the KJV supposed to be all "good?" Yet, it produces 'fruit' like the Mormon Church!
Before anyone gets too excited, I am only kidding; anyone can twist scriptures.
The Jehova's Witnesses also used the KJV until they came up with their own translation (Adventists still use only the KJV). Its inferior rendering of passages where the Granville Sharp rule applies lends credence to their heretical view of Jesus by detracting from his deity in some passages.
Sincerely,
[ April 23, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]