Featured Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?

Then I'll tell you plainly that the Apostle John made no grammatical errors, and anyone who says he did does not know what they are talking about. And there were no punctuation or spelling errors in the original either, because they had no punctuation and there was no standardized spelling. For the record, I'm a missionary Bible translator and Greek teacher (among other things).

 

God said that His word was perfect, that it was flawless, jesus promised that his Apsotles would have the Spirit to aid them to make sure ALl was recorded down perfectly, just as the oT prophets were without error in message, either spoken/written, same way NT Apostles!

Its absurd to think the originals had some mistakes, while the Kjv doesn't!

 

I still haven't figured out if Archie is a theological liberal or a KJVO man! The idea that the originals are full of errors is a liberal idea, but if he thinks the KJB corrects the originals and the authority is in the KJB, that idea comes from super radical KJVO Ruckman!

 

Since 1611 have there been any other faithful translations of the original languages into English?

 

We are in agreement here. In English when on furlough I only preach from and use the KJV.

Glad to know you don't follow Ruckman's heresy. :type:

 

Well then, you need to expand your knowledge. There have been many faithful Bible translations into English in the past 403 years. (For the moment not speaking of the many versions before 1611).

Did God have anything to do with the KJV? Has He had anything to do with the many other English translations since that time? (Not considering the many of foreign language Bibles).

 

"Horribly corrupt" huh? What authors have you been reading?

There have been a few dozen TRs. Which one is as pure as the driven snow?

 

There have been English translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts on which the KJV is based that are as faithful overall to those same texts as the KJV.

The 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and other believers, the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the Literal Translation by Jay Green, and the KJ2000 by Robert Couric are some examples.

 

Rippon, don't get worked up.

Rippon, you are correct, of course. There are a number of faithful translations of the Bible both before and after the KJV. However, you are spinning your wheels there. No KJV adherent will bother with facts, they are wholly devoted to KJV and that dedication is the basis of their righteousness. Think Pharisees and legalism. So don't waste your time, friend.

The good news is, if they have a relationship with Jesus as Lord, they are in Christ and therefore will be okay in Eternity. Once they get over the shock of finding people like you and me there, that is.

 

"Basically" means that they differ in some degree. Things that are different are not the same.

"Much more pure" means that they are not 100% pure. So the RT of your choice is not therefore perfect in your estimation --just very good.

 

Do you think that king Nebuchadnezzar had a perfect understanding of the Deity of God? Of course not. He didn't give an orthodox rendering that was suitable for you.

 

Jordon,here's a portion of the NET Note: "But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase 'like a son of the gods' is equivalent to 'like a divine being.' "

 

the Kjv of 1611 was revised in 1769, and the Church of england revised that in 1881 as revised edition, was that a faithful translation then, as it was authorized same fashion 1611 was?

 

have you figurd out yet while the Nasb/Niv correctly translate gread God and saviour jesus Christ, the Kjv version failed to so such though?
So those "inferior versions" based upon 'corrupred texts' supported jesus as God better than Kjv did?