The unreasonably small 10,000 character limit to posts on this forum has forced me to snip most of your questions in order to save on the size of the post. I assume you know what you asked.
I've now also split the post into two posts. What a terrific way to save bandwidth!!!
1. [snip] If all Bibles are fine to use, then why would those translations fall short for study or sermon prep?
Well, because a pastor isn't a lay person, he's a professional. A pastor using a NIV would be like a professional astronomer using an Celestron Telescope that he bought at Walmart. He could do it and if he's doing so while showing his grandson the rings of Saturn then fine, but it is not the proper tool for professional work. Likewise, for casual reading or sort of surface level daily devotionals and the like, translations, like the NIV will get the job done but if you're doing serious work, you need a higher quality tool.
To continue that logic, people all agree that things like The Message Bible are “bad” translations. But who gets to define that and why?
Such judgments are going to be subjective to one degree or another but there are people who would reasonably be considered experts in the areas of biblical language studies and translation who's criticisms should not be ignored.
Further, there are some of these modern translations that are right out in the open about what the intent of the publication is. It isn't as if it's a secret the The Message Bible is a paraphrase and not an actual translation. The producers of it are totally open about that and make no bones about it.
Because if you say The Message is a bad translation, couldn’t you say the same thing about any translation you wanted to?
You can say whatever you want about anything but saying it doesn't make it so. You have to use discernment and make wise and informed decisions about such things.
I do know the history of The Message so that may be a bad example. So let’s take the NIV. Many people bash on it and if we’re saying it’s right do to that because it’s a bad translation, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that not all translations are “fine to use?”
Such translations are fine to use for some purposes and not others. I'm not sure why that would be a difficult thing to understand.
My main concern with this question is that don't we either have to believe that we have a "perfect" Bible or not. I hear a lot of people say we don't have a perfect bible which kind of surprises me because isn't that a basic tenant of the faith?
No, it most certainly is not a basic tenant of the faith! Whoever told you such a thing is either a fool or a conman. RUN!
Translating from one language to another is not an exact science and some will do a better job than others. There are countless decisions that have to be made right through from beginning to end and not everyone will agree on each of those decisions. Many of these decisions must be made at the very beginning before a single syllable is translated, not the least of which is what source material(s) are you going to translate from and are you going to go for a word for word translation or an idea to idea translation or some sort of mixture of those two, etc. Different people will have different answers to such questions for different reasons depending on, not only their doctrine, but also their intended audience and the purpose of the translation.
The idea of a "perfect translation" is simply a fantasy that is impossible to even define never mind actually achieve.
2. [snip] If so, then doesn’t that have a big impact on our lives? I guess my point with this one is that someone has to be correct? In the case of Matthew 17:21, you either believe prayer and fasting play a role in this or not and that seems to have a major impact on our life.
No, it does not have a big impact on our lives at all! That's the beautiful thing about God's word. Such issues have about as much impact as would a spit-ball shot at a battleship.
The bible is a very think book. The shear volume of material within the scripture serves as an insulation against individual errors or omissions.
As evidence, try to think of even one single doctrine that is commonly talked about or preached, that has anything to do with the way you live your life or the way you respond to or interact with God that is nullified or even significantly altered because of any issues that surround Matthew 17:21.
I can tell you that if you're attempting to apply Matthew 17:21 directly to your life, you've already made significant doctrine errors to begin with and that this verse is the least of your concerns. You need to stay very very far away from anyone claiming to be casting out demons. They are lying to you (and perhaps to themselves as well).
3. Why the KJV and not the Geneva Bible or the Bishops Bible? [snip]
EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!!
No, KJVO only person will answer you honestly. The best they'll present will be transparently arbitrary, as I can see that you have already noticed.
4. KJVO advocates seem to have an issue with the Bible being updated.
Well, not quite! The King James Bible they like is itself an updated version of the King James bible. You've already asked, "Why not the Geneva Bible, etc?" but you could just as easily ask, "Which King James Bible?"!
"The first edition of the King James Version was printed in 1611 by Robert Barker in London. It appears that two issues were published that year, the printing being done possibly in two different shops to meet the expected large demand. The first two printings were large folio Bibles for use in churches, but smaller editions were soon produced for personal use, starting in 1612. With the proliferation of printings, early printer errors crept into the editions. For instance, the word 'not' was left out of the seventh commandment, in what eventually came to be called the "Wicked Bible," which said "Thou shalt commit adultery." As well, if some printed sheets were left over from one printing, they were incorporated into another. Almost no two existing "original 1611" King James Bibles are exactly the same. Eventually there were various calls for the need to correct and revise the King James Version because of printer's errors over the years and the changes in spelling and word usage. Corrected editions were published by the Cambridge University Press, the first being in 1629, followed by another in 1638. Several of the revisers were part of the original group of translators of the KJV. Carelessly printed copies continued to appear, some even printed on the European continent in Holland. Thus in 1762, the most significant corrections were completed in an edition overseen by Dr. Thomas Paris of Trinity College in Cambridge. The work of Dr. Paris was refined by Benjamin Blayney in 1769; this edition then became the standard King James Bible in use up to today. There were almost 1000 editions printed from 1611 to 1769, all with minor corrections." -
souce
