KJV Preference, the Poll

I hope that was intended as sarcasum! You do realize with no perfect translation you have no perfect word of GOd right? And uh, if it ain't all of God, were does that leave you on your salvation and doctrine beleifs? IF it all ain't God's word {i.e. it contains the word of God} how can you discern which is which?
One of the biggest problems I've seen talking with folks about their stand of the Bible is that they ain't sure which one is.
I heard recently that there are around two hundred translations,paraphrases,and versions. They all claim to be God's word, but they all leav things out, add to em, or read diffrently. Now if that ain't confusion tell me what is!
Now you all know my stand on the Bible by now {if ya don't all ya gotta do is read my profile!} and not only do I take it in faith, I've been reading up on the history of teh Bible {from Bible times till now.} and the manuscript families my Bible came from. It's interesting to say the least, and if anything from reading the diffrent opinions I have to say if anything my stand on the KJB is strenghtened. The KJB 1611 was changed over the years for spelling and printing errors....not content! I am convinced beyond all that when I read my Blessed Old Book, that I am reading God's very preserved Word.
God promised to preserve it. Now my question is, do you have God's preserved Word? If you say no translation is, then you deny God's promise.
I've heard the argument that "Well the original copies {hebrew OT, and Greek NT} were, but we no longer have that." My answer is, that the KJB was translated to English, and it's still God's word. If I asked someone who only spoke spanish "What's your name?" of course he wouldn't understand me {as I can't understand a word of greek.} but if I said "Como te llamas?" I would still be asking him the same thing....and in his language. Still the same, but I just used a diffrent language. The KJB is God's word for the english folk because it was translated from a pure line of manuscripts from the originals.
Now I know this is a long post, and I'd just love to say more {ya'll know how I love talking!} but I'm tired and need to get ready for church. I think it will be interesting in the least to see were this thread will go!
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB </font>[/QUOTE]Miss Abby, I surely hope you'll read this entire message (it took me about 45 minutes to type and edit with one or two fingers), but if you do not, please take special care to read my very last paragraph. Thank you kindly.

The various KJVs--1611, 1762, 1769, 1873, etc.--all differ from one another in thousands of places, and not just in spelling and punctuation, but actual direct content, as has been demonstrated on this board with direct quotes. So which one is right? And when the KJV editors included an alternate translation in the margin as being about as likely, were they wrong? When they cited variant readings in the margins from some of their manuscripts that differed with others, to leave it up to the readers to judge, were they wrong?

While it's an axiom that no piece of literature can be perfectly translated from its original language into any other, the KJVO position means that the original Greek and Hebrew was NOT inspired, that the books of the Bible used by the early Christians and the apostles, and read by Jesus, were NOT inspired--because they differ in thousands upon thousands of places from the KJV! And I'm not talking about that 0.10% of the NT text (aside from the longer ending of Mark and the pericope of the woman caught in adultery) that differs between the TR and other manuscript families: I'm talking about translation differences. (As someone who regards the Bible in the original languages as inspired and inerrant, I have to consider those translation differences imprecise and many as flat-out errors.)

Or, to put it another way, to be consistent:

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that the Eastern church (the celebrated keepers of the Textus Receptus), from the time of the apostles all the way to the present day have NEVER had and do NOT now have an inspired Bible--because the Greek differs in thousands of places from the KJV.

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that the Western church, from the early centuries all the way to the seventeenth century NEVER had an inspired Bible--because the Latin differs in thousands of places from the KJV.

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that Jesus and the apostles did NOT have an inspired Bible--because the Hebrew differs in thousands of places from the KJV.

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that all the churches worldwide, from the time of the apostles all the way to the present day have NEVER had and do NOT now have an inspired Bible unless they could or can read English--because the translations in their own languages differ in thousands of places from the KJV.

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that English-speaking readers, from the time of Wycliffe to the time of Tyndale all the way up to the seventeenth century, NEVER had an inspired Bible--because their English translations differed in thousands of places from the KJV.

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that English-speaking readers today in various lands and cultures who cannot read 400-year-old out-of-date English, but do understand English as it is normally spoken, in Singapore, South Africa, India, Jamaica, or Kansas City, do NOT now have an inspired Bible--because their translations differ in thousands of places from the KJV.

This view of inspiration and preservation vis-a-vis the KJV requires belief that in the entire history of Christianity from the very beginning until 1611--for nearly sixteen centuries--God's people NEVER had an inspired Bible--because whatever Bible they had wherever and whenever they were, it differed in thousands of places from the KJV. All these Bible versions differed from the KJV, and thus were imperfect, and therefore couldn't have been inspired...according to the reasoning of the KJVO view.

And regarding the above, remember, when I say "differs in thousands of places," I'm talking about differences in meaning--content--some subtle, some not. Am I trying to shake your use of the KJV? No. Every translation must be checked with others, and against commentaries, Strong's, Vine's, and so on, but the KJV is very good, and trustworthy for ordinary reading almost every time. Any translation errors where they occasionally pop up, and in the frequent places where full translation of the original meaning is not provided, are places where it is a pastor's job to explain as part of sermons, or where a diligent Bible student catches them by using all the study resources commonly available.

The best advice I can give to anyone reading a King James Bible:

If any verse in any literal translation of the Bible (such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, and the like) differs in actual content and meaning (not just saying the same exact thing in more modern language) from the way it is translated in the KJV, assume neither that the KJV is automatically correct nor that it must not be; rather, that should be the signal to discover WHY the difference exists! What was it about the vocabulary, grammar, context, manuscripts, etc. that caused a difference to arise? It's analyzing these differences that can really get you down to the meat of the Word, as well as to discover subtle distinctions that are hard to translate and get across, but which God gave to His people in the original languages.

 

Originally posted by BrianT:

Exactly: much of the time, NT writers quoted the LXX Greek version of the OT, and called it Scripture, even though it paraphrased and differed from the original Hebrew!

 

I know this is waaay off the subject, but I couldn't pass this one up. I don't even know if you really wanted an answer or not, but here it is anyway.

It was one of his sisters. The Bible hints that Adam and Eve probably had children before the fall.

Ge 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

This was immediately after the fall and immediately before God clothed them with the animal skins. So it would seem that Cain's wife very likely could have been living prior to the fall. And if not, then no big deal, there was no commandment not to marry relatives at this time.

 

Yeah, I'm sure everyone has been so sorry I wasn't around. Been a little busy preaching in prisons and going to Bible Institute and reading my Bible and all that to get on here much. Don't get used to my being here again. I'll likely disappear for a couple more months in about a day or so.

 

Ya Ed, he's just slumming right now. He's much too holy to stick around for too long with the likes of us.

 

yeah, i just like to stop by every now and then and see if any of you people have gotten saved finally.

before the moderator deletes this one...I'M JUST KIDDING!