Answer your belief on the KJV

[Dr. Bob]

S&T - God DID preserve His Word. That's why we know and point out the errors of various translations.

Erasmus did much good. But also much evil. HE looked at a few Greek documents (and Latin ) and made his text. Should not WE do the same and carefully evaluate and discern God's preserved Word?

Or did God do ANOTHER work of inspiration in 1611?

 

[robycop3]

[/b][/QUOTE]The translators put them in to clarify what they thought needed more explanation than what the greek or hebrew said. They thought that some sentences would not make much sense without the added words. [/QB][/QUOTE]

What difference would it make? Originally, God told Elijah that He had 7k men who hadn't bowed to Baal-no image mentioned. Sure, there were images of Baal, as there were for almost every make-believe god, but what was clarified by the AV translators' ADDING to God's word as it was presented to them in the mss they were working with? Why not simply translate it as written, which basically followed the original statement God made to Elijah?

So much for the KJVOs' claims of perfection...

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:

AA stated:

The Latin word for "tree" is ligno, which some scribe mis-copied as libro, the Latin word for "book."

S&T:
I wonder how many people will end up in hell because they didn't have the "superior" translation that you are referring to.

None, because our eternal salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on whether Rev. 22:19 reads "book or life" or "tree of life."

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
originally posted by Archangel7

quote:
Why did they put those italicized words in at all? They are neither present in nor implied by the Greek text. Clearly they are unwarranted additions to the word of God.

The translators put them in to clarify what they thought needed more explanation than what the greek or hebrew said. They thought that some sentences would not make much sense without the added words. </font>[/QUOTE]That was the normal practice of the KJV translators, and in the majority of cases the italicized words are legitimate. However, Rom. 11:4 makes perfect sense *without* the words added by the KJV translators (as just about every other English translation before and after 1611 amply illustrates). So why did the KJV translators *add* unnecessary words to the word of God? </font>[/QUOTE]You have to ask them. I simply restated what they said in the translators to the reader - which is missing in all modern KJV's. If people would read that, KJVOnlyism wouldn't exist.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
TT said:

ps. I too love the KJV. Memorized it, preach it, wouldn't trade it for the world. I just don't worship it. As a youth Pastor, I can't get used to kids memorizing all the other translations. That's why I carry a parallel. KJV, NIV, NLT, and NASB.

S&T:

Once again, I am not KJVO. I have many bibles that I use for comparison. My point is that your name can not be written in a tree. Book is used in the majority of phrases. Why did they switch to tree in that version?

S&T, Sorry to confuse you with ith KJVO crowd. If you notice in your other bibles that it does not say anything about a "name" taken from the tree of life, but they use the words
"share" - NIV,GNB
"part" - CEV,ASV,ALT,MSG
"Portion"- GW, ISV

Also notice that KJV doesn't even use the word "name", but it uses "part". Why not use the word "name" in that context.
I just noticed something else in the Strongs lexicon the word "book" or biblos is defined as
"properly the inner bark of the papyrus plant, that is, ( by implication ) a sheet or scroll of writing: book" (boldness mine)

I wonder if there is some conection between bark and tree, or am I "barking up the wrong tree?"

Anyway, since in vs 14 KJV mentions "tree" that sets the context for the remaining verses.