Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

[Logos1560]

Interesting that you always site "false weights and divers measures" which have absolutely nothing to do with translations

Are you actually suggesting that KJV-only advocates are entitled and right to make judgments concerning Bible translations based on divers measures and weights?

When KJV-only advocates state their judgments concerning Bible translations including the KJV, are they righteous judgments based on consistent, just, true weights and measures or are they unrighteous judgments based on divers weights or measures?

Since "a just weight and balance are the LORD's," He would not approve of the use of unjust weights, measures, or balances in the weighing, measuring, or evaluating of translations of His Word.

The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies or translations would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5).

 

[Logos1560]

encouraging me to accept the idea that there is no "perfect" translation or version of the Bible (that they ALL have mistakes in them)but that we have the "perfect" (so-called)word of God in the form of the plethora of the many manuscript fragments and versions and translations of the same that are in existence today. They would say that I need to "consult" as many different versions as possible (with some exceptions) in order to "get the sense" of what God is ultimately saying. Many of them might even tell me that I need to acquire a working knowledge of the "original" languages..Hebrew and Greek...and possibly Aramaic)

Were you describing the view of the KJV translators?

 

[Logos1560]

The TR (or whatever Byzantine text body one chooses) and the KJV are not alike. Which is right and which is wrong?

Again it is clearly evident that faulty KJV-only reasoning cannot be applied consistently using just measures or weights.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

You Know....

Were you describing the view of the KJV translators?

Mr.Norris....you know precisely what I was talking about in my comment and.......I AM familiar with the preface to the KJV and what they had to say. I think it is a testament to their genuine humility and their reverence for the God they worshipped (and the earthly king they served) and the work they accomplished in the translation they produced that they humbly suggested that it might not be an "end-all" work OR error-free. I honestly don't believe THEY THOUGHT that the work they produced was as good as it turned out to be. They were humble men who didn't brag about it and they didn't attempt to claim any "special" place or position for their work. They just honestly tried (and succeeded far beyond what they imagined or realized)) to produce a plain and honest translation of God's Word.

With that said, I will only add that the Holy Bible is NOT "just another book" that can or should be handled like "just another book". It is a holy and supernatural work and it doesn't matter how many supposedly "better" and "up-to-date" versions of it men want to produce...the only way to ever understand God's holy and supernatural Book is for men to prayerfully seek His enlightenment of it by the Holy Spirit.(1 Cor.2:14)

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Logos1560]

how many supposedly "better" and "up-to-date" versions of it men want to produce

The KJV was the attempt of a group of men to produce a "better" and up-to-date version of the earlier English Bibles.

The KJV translators clearly stated that their endeavor, mark, or goal was to make a good English Bible "better". Why would you seem to condemn others for having the same goal as the KJV translators had?

The KJV translators updated the archaic-type language in the Bishops' Bible in many places with the more up-to-date renderings of the Geneva Bible or of Tyndale's, but they inconsistently kept some of that archaic-type language from the Bishops' Bible in other places where the Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible already had more up-to-date, clearer, or more understandable language.

Present KJV editions are attempts of men or editors to produce a better and more up-to-date version of the 1611 edition of the KJV. Cambridge had attempted to produce a better edition of the KJV in 1629, again in 1638, again in 1743, again in 1762, again in 1817, again later in the 1800's, again in 1873, again in 2005, again in 2011.

 

[Rippon]

The KJV translators updated the archaic-type language in the Bishops' Bible in many places with the more up-to-date renderings of the Geneva Bible or of Tyndale's, but they inconsistently kept some of that archaic-type language from the Bishops' Bible in other places where the Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible already had more up-to-date, clearer, or more understandable language.

Isn't it interesting that Tyndale's New Testament,though released 85 or so years earlier still has a more contemporary and natural feel to it than the 1611? We have had our share of threads citing example upon example of this. The revisers should have revised less.

 

[Logos1560]

In the thread entitled "Does KJVO equal Fundamental?" at the Fundamental Baptist Forum

Originally Posted by C4K
[James] Could you possibly list a few IFB preachers, churches, or schools that took a KJVO position before about 1970?

I'll just start with one, the obvious one..Ruckman

Even Peter Ruckman was not as extreme before 1970 as he would later be. Peter Ruckman at one time did not claim that Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 included translations as he would later try to imply.

In a letter written to Robert Sumner in 1971, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Verbal inspiration has to do with 2 Tim 3:16 and deals with the original autographs, as we all know” (letter, p. 2).

 

[Logos1560]

Isn't it interesting that Tyndale's New Testament,though released 85 or so years earlier still has a more contemporary and natural feel to it than the 1611? We have had our share of threads citing example upon example of this. The revisers should have revised less.

As Bible revisers, the KJV translators should have revised Tyndale's or the Geneva less in a number of places, but they should have revised the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible more by following more up-to-date, clearer, and better renderings in one of the other pre-1611 English Bibles.