Myth of no need of revision

[Logos1560]

There are always going to be some theologians and scholars who will never admit that we have a perfect Bible, because they want to hammer truth out on “their own anvil”!

Does your assertion apply to the KJV translators? Did the KJV translators never admit that English-speaking believers before 1611 had a "perfect" Bible? The KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops]. Did the KJV translators not consider any of their original language sources [printed editions of the original language texts] to be perfect since they did not follow any one of them 100%? The KJV translators consulted and followed multiple, varying imperfect editions of the original language texts. What do you claim was the perfect Bible before 1611?

According to a consistent application of your own assertion, did the KJV translators want to hammer truth out on “their own anvil” instead of accepting the English Bible read and loved by English-speaking believers of their day[the 1560 Geneva Bible]?

What you are forgetting is back then, “the Bible”, was “the Bible”!

Are you forgetting back then before 1611, the Geneva Bible was "the Bible" accepted, loved, and believed by English-speaking believers?

 

[stilllearning]

Actually you are describing the reasoning evident in your own KJV-only theory. A KJV-only theory makes the Scriptures in English dependent upon the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

Is showing partiality to one exclusive group of scholars in 1611 and implying that they were infallible and perfect in their understanding and translation of the Scriptures like Roman Catholic looking to the pope?

Good morning Logos1560

As I have said many times before, I am not KJVO!
That is, I have never said that the King James Version, is the only accurate Bible we have in English.
What I have been saying is that “most, if not all of the English Bibles” before 1881, were in agreement with each other(not carbon copies but close enough).
(The Bible is “the Bible”.)

Therefore, for anyone to say that “the Bible” only CONTAINS God’s Words, than we need someone to tell us which words in the Bible are truly God’s Word and which ones aren’t.
That makes those people who you trust to “remove verses that aren’t suppose to be there”, your popes.

For me, I believe that every verse in the Bible(KJB, WB, TB or the GB etc.), are God’s Word and that it is wrong to EVER remove any of them, regardless of what anybody says or any ancient manuscripts that may be discovered. (Do we need an ancient text to be discovered, for God to PRESERVE his Word for us “today”? NO!)

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I Admire Your Ability To Think In The Abstract!

You have made a similar claim before, but that does not make it true. I think a very scriptural case can be made against a KJV-only theory. I presented part of such a case in the thread entitled "Scriptural case for or against KJV-only" a few months ago.

Biblical faith should be based on scriptural truths and principles and not on mere opinions, wishful thinking, or speculations.

“The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One way or sense that a translation could properly be considered a servant is in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original language text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). A translation is a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation is servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:17. The words of the master original language texts determine which words should be in a translation. The words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The original language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to assert that the original language words have greater authority than the derived translated words that borrow authority from their source or sources.

Principles or truths from other scriptures would affirm this truth that a translation is a servant. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, it can be inferred or deduced that a translation is not above the underlying texts from which it is translated. "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). Likewise, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its role as a borrower, a translation can be properly considered servant to the master original language texts from which it was made and translated.

Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration. Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God. Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16). The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles. The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them. A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16). Which is greater: a translation or the underlying source of the translation? Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language?

Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)? Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)?

How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself? How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?

The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18). It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18).

That was an incredible, though unbelievable attempt to create something out of nothing. You still did not supply ANY verse that speaks directly and specifically to the argument in progress. All you did is to "create" another "theory" based on scriptures that have been removed from their intended meaning and context.
Basically what I get from what you are saying (the "big Picture" according to Logos1560) is that it is impossible for ANY translation to ever achieve equivalence with the Original Autographs (which no longer exist). Some of them may get "close" in your opinion....but none of them could ever possibly reach God's standard...which is always perfection. The originals were penned in languages that the majority of the world that now exists no longer speak...sooooo...we are all forced to be DEPENDENT on a select few "scholars" who are expert in the use and translation of these (now) minority (some would say "dead") languages to be able to truly understand the Word of God SINCE NONE OF OUR BIBLES CAN EVER BE COMPLETELY ADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINALS! NOPE....I don't buy it...particularly when you consider the types of men which God used to actually "pen" His originals....they weren't primarily the ruling class of "scholars" were they? Many of them were pretty common. Well...twist it how you will...I still disagree. God made sure I could have His Word in a Book that I can have absolute and unassailable confidence in. I just wish I could be a better example of the kind of man that THAT Book instructs me to be. I guess that's about all I wish to say about this matter...for now.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[stilllearning]

Are you suggesting that the KJV translators were in effect "crackpot egg-heads" if you applied your own assertions consistently?

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators argued against the possibility of a perfect translation. The KJV translators argued against the one-perfect-translation only theory of their day--the Latin Vulgate only theory of some Roman Catholics. The KJV translators suggested that they were not prophets or apostles who received the Scriptures perfectly by a miracle of inspiration.

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."

The KJV translators considered their marginal notes to be a very important part of their work. They suggested that readers could consider the alternative rendering in their marginal notes as better in some cases than the one that they put in the text. They suggested that readers could consider the textual variant readings that they put in their marginal notes to be correct instead of the one that they followed in their text.

The KJV translators wrote: "Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily. For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. ... They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be captivated by one, when it may be the other."


The KJV translators asserted that all translations which would have included their own should be tried or evaluated by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles."

The KJV translators warned us against one-perfect-translation onlyists or today KJV-only onlyists.

One more response, and I have to go.

Logos1560, I truly appreciate your thought provoking responses to my posts.
(If I can’t support my beliefs, than I am in real trouble.)
------------------------
After some thought, I think I myself may be somewhat “crackpotish”(peculiar), in a good way.....
“But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” (1 Peter 2:9)

But the crackpots that I was talking about in my post, were those who....
“always reject the existence of a perfect Bible”!

Now nowhere in this “preface”, do I detect the translators denying the existence of a perfect Bible. It all depends upon how you define “perfect”; but I define it as being a Bible that accurately records what God gave to the Apostles.
For instance, God didn’t give them the Apocrypha, so it was removed.

At about some point between the years 1382 and 1769, the English Bible was a work in progress. But we ended up with a PERFECT BIBLE IN ENGLISH, and Satan hated it; and for years worked hard to cast doubt upon it. Then about 115 years ago, he started getting the upper hand, and today we have Baptists, who can stand up and boldly say, that neither the King James Version nor any other version of the Bible, is God’s Word.

What a shame.

 

[12strings]

sooooo...we are all forced to be DEPENDENT on a select few "scholars" who are expert in the use and translation of these (now) minority (some would say "dead") languages to be able to truly understand the Word of God...

But you are doing the same thing...You are saying we must trust the small select group of a few scholars from the 1600's to know what God's word says...and that if a different group of scholars, either before or after, translated a phrase differently, it must be wrong, because that one group of scholars God it right...and we know this how?

...SINCE NONE OF OUR BIBLES CAN EVER BE COMPLETELY ADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINALS! NOPE....I don't buy it...

No one said the KJV is not an adequate translation. It is very good, but there are other very good translations as well, which in a very few places are closer to the original languages in their rendering...None of which has changes any doctrine, despite those who say modern versions leave out the diety of Jesus.

God made sure I could have His Word in a Book that I can have absolute and unassailable confidence in.

I wonder what you would have said in the early 1600's when you heard theses scholars were getting together to revise Tyndale's Bible...would you have said, good, "there's a few places that could be improved." ....or would you have said, "God already gave us an English Bible, and no new version is going to be as good as the one we have now." ???

 

[Yeshua1]

Hello Yeshua1

I remember over the years, hearing about this error of saying that the Bible simply “contains” the Word of God. But it wasn’t until I discovered the BB, that I see downfall of this trap.

By saying that... “it is contained in the original language texts”, you are saying that we are dependent upon “scholars”, to tells us what God actually wants to say to us.

This is like the Catholics looking to the pope, to tell them what God’s Word really says.

God’s promise to preserve His Word is to ME, and I only speak English!
(The fact that the Bible was translated into English, does not diminish it’s inspiration.)
------------------------
Now I know what is going to be said....“God’s promise did not apply to translations!”
But.....the Bible proves that it does!

Our Lord Jesus Christ, chose to use “a translation”(the LXX), in much of His ministry, while He was here on Earth. Therefore placing His stamp of approval on “translations”!

the Holy Spirit ONLY inspired the Apostolic writers of the Word of God though!

originals ALONE inerrant/inspired no mistakes in them...

God preserved intact to us enough of them that we have essentially the written Word of God in the original language texts in use today, regardless if MT/CT/TR etc

So the english versions would be based upon those texts, and so we would have though not inerrant, an infallible version of the Bible tous in KJV/NKJV/Nasb/Niv etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

One more response, and I have to go.

Logos1560, I truly appreciate your thought provoking responses to my posts.
(If I can’t support my beliefs, than I am in real trouble.)
------------------------
After some thought, I think I myself may be somewhat “crackpotish”(peculiar), in a good way.....
“But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” (1 Peter 2:9)

But the crackpots that I was talking about in my post, were those who....
“always reject the existence of a perfect Bible”!

Now nowhere in this “preface”, do I detect the translators denying the existence of a perfect Bible. It all depends upon how you define “perfect”; but I define it as being a Bible that accurately records what God gave to the Apostles.
For instance, God didn’t give them the Apocrypha, so it was removed.

At about some point between the years 1382 and 1769, the English Bible was a work in progress. But we ended up with a PERFECT BIBLE IN ENGLISH, and Satan hated it; and for years worked hard to cast doubt upon it. Then about 115 years ago, he started getting the upper hand, and today we have Baptists, who can stand up and boldly say, that neither the King James Version nor any other version of the Bible, is God’s Word.

What a shame.

Why wouldn;t the geneva bible be considered that "perfect' version instead of KJV? reformers used that for their studying!

Do you really hold those translators were given apostolic like authority to make the "perfect translation?"

You do realise that NONE of them thought their work was either perfect or finished, that there would future editions/revisions/new translations using best available texts/sources as they had?

Why isn't theNKJV that perfect translation, for it used SAME textual basis as KJV!

 

[Oldtimer]

I think you are wrong on this, though niether of us will likely see the ultimate end...I predict that the KJV will continue to fall out of use among more and more Christians, for the following reasons:

Up front -- The primary Bible version that I use is the Authorized Version. It is the one that I PREFER to use when seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

That said, I own a number of other versions and do refer to them from time to time. Additionally, I use on-line resources to access versions that I do not personally own, when the need arises in study.

Next, I've almost stopped coming to this forum. Too many, IMO, look at the far end of the Bell curve to find the most extreme and minority viewpoint of those with a KJBO position. Then, use that extreme to verbally beat up on anyone who does not support their "any modern version" is OK positions.

IMO, any discussion of God's word should be done humbly and with reverance to our Creator. IMO, far too often His word is treated like a football on a muddy field. Get that ball over MY goalposts regardless of the bloody mayhem that's strewn along the yards traversed to that destination.

I'm just a simple layman with Oh so much more to learn to based on God's promise and instruction.
(Proverbs 2:3-6 and 2 Tim 2:15 - KJB http://www.biblegateway.com/ ).

Yet, even I can see the impact that 1881 had on the Bible. A point, that it seems so many ignore as it's far easier to nitpick certain passages of scripture to make their case. How many who see no problem with W&H have ever read their writings? Ever learned about their involvement with things Christans should avoid like the plague? (Acts 8:8-10)

You know, after reading so much of this muddy football tossing, the only thing that has kept me from becoming KJBO is a single passage of God's word, printed on the back of a business card, can help bring a lost soul to Christ. As far as I can determine, at least SOME of God's word is in every version. Yet, it seems that only one version is under CONSTANT subtle and not so subtle attack. That alone is enough to make me ask the question. Why?

12 strings, you wrote:

I predict that the KJV will continue to fall out of use among more and more Christians, for the following reasons:

Please add this reason to your list. I believe that God keeps his promises.

Amos 8: KJB​

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.​

Did 1881 start us down the path that leads to the fulfillment of His word? I have no doubt that it will come to past, in His timeframe. Are we watching it happen within our generations?

 

[Logos1560]

overgeneralizing without the facts

As I have said many times before, I am not KJVO!
That is, I have never said that the King James Version, is the only accurate Bible we have in English.
What I have been saying is that “most, if not all of the English Bibles” before 1881, were in agreement with each other(not carbon copies but close enough).
(The Bible is “the Bible”.)

You are evidently uninformed about the actual differences in all of the English Bibles before 1881.

Even in just the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision [Tyndale's to Bishops.], there are most if not all the same type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as there are between the KJV and post-1881 English Bibles. There were differences of whole verses. Some pre-1611 English Bibles did not have two or three verses that are found in the KJV. At least two pre-1611 English Bibles had three whole verses in one Psalm that is not found in the KJV. There are even more differences in either added or missing phrases and clauses. There are differences in meaning of renderings. There are differences in grammatical forms used. There are differences that would involve interpretation or doctrine. If the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was included, there are even a great number more differences. I have reprint copies of the pre-1611 English Bibles including some editions of Wycliffe's Bible and have done some comparison of them.

There were actually a number of different English Bibles after 1611 and before 1881. There was the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible. I have a reprint copy of it. It would have some of the same textual differences and translational differences as would be found between Luther's German Bible and the KJV.

I mentioned earlier John Wesley's 1755 New Testament. I have a copy of a later edition of Wesley's complete English Bible. There were many differences between Wesley's translation and the KJV. In his introduction to a comparison of Wesley's N. T. to the KJV, Fred Corson wrote: "With a fidelity for the truth, Wesley strove for
accuracy, conciseness, and clarity. The validation
of his scholarship is attested by the fact that in
the revision of the New Testament in 1870 at least
three quarters of his twelve thousand changes
were accepted and incorporated in the new text"
(Wesley's N. T. Compared with the A. V., p. xii).

I also mentioned the 1842 revision of the KJV made by Baptists and other believers. It has a good number of differences with the KJV. I have a copy of this Bible.

There was a 1851 English translation of the Syriac New Testament from the Peshitta made by James Murdock. There are many textual and translational differences between it and the KJV. I have a reprint copy of it.

There was a 1853 English Old Testament by a Jew, Issac Leeser.

There was the 1862 Young's Literal Translation.

There was the 1866 American Bible Union Version that has textual and translational differences if compared to the KJV.

There was the 1808 Thomson's Bible, which had the first English translation of the Greek Septuagint for its Old Testament. Charles Thomson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and seceretary of the Continental Congress.

Having compared the KJV with the pre-1611 English Bibles and several pre-1881 English Bibles, I find that that your claims above are overgeneralized, misleading, and inaccurate. I could give page after page of the same type differences in those pre-1611 English Bibles and pre-1881 English Bibles that KJV-only advocates would complain about in post-1881 English Bibles.

 

[Logos1560]

today's KJV is not the 1769

At about some point between the years 1382 and 1769, the English Bible was a work in progress. But we ended up with a PERFECT BIBLE IN ENGLISH,

In other words, you seem to be saying that there was no perfect English Bible before 1769. Along with being uninformed about the pre-1611 English Bibles and pre-1881 English Bibles, you are evidently also uninformed about editions of the KJV.

I understand that many sources assert that today's KJV is the 1769 so I realize that you could be misled by them. It would be accurate to say that most [not all] present editions of the KJV are based on the 1769, but it would be inaccurate or incorrect to claim that they are identical to the 1769.

All errors were not removed from the KJV by 1769 as some KJV-only authors have claimed. For example, KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42).

While it corrected some errors, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV actually also introduced some new errors. One error introduced in the 1769 Oxford at Exodus 6:21 remained in Oxford KJV editions over 100 years until at least 1880.

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294).

I have been examining a KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769 and have been comparing it to around 300 other editions of the KJV [18 printed in the 1600's, over 70 printed in the 1700's, over 70 printed in the 1800's, and many printed in the 1900's and after 200].

Over 200 changes have been made to the KJV after 1769, some even made after 1880 in Oxford KJV editions and after 1900 in Cambridge KJV editions. There are actually twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today.

 

[Logos1560]

Then, use that extreme to verbally beat up on anyone who does not support their "any modern version" is OK positions.

Are you inventing an extreme that may not exist and that you do not show to exist? Which posters here supposedly advocate and support an "any modern version" is OK position?

The fact that many posters disagree with unproven, non-scriptural exclusive only claims for one English Bible [the KJV] does not suggest that they oppose use of the KJV as a translation or that they support an "any modern version is OK" position.

Are you distorting and misrepresenting the actual position of believers who disagree with a KJV-only view?

The KJV is a good overall translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you inventing an extreme that may not exist and that you do not show to exist? Which posters here supposedly advocate and support an "any modern version" is OK position?

The fact that many posters disagree with unproven, non-scriptural exclusive only claims for one English Bible [the KJV] does not suggest that they oppose use of the KJV as a translation or that they support an "any modern version is OK" position.

Are you distorting and misrepresenting the actual position of believers who disagree with a KJV-only view?

The KJV is a good overall translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

I agree with BOTh the KJV and the modern versions as being BOTH word of God into English for us, but also reject the JW version, or the Mormons or ANY version NOT accurantly translating off the Greek/hebrew texts as being valid!

 

[Oldtimer]

Are you inventing an extreme that may not exist and that you do not show to exist? Which posters here supposedly advocate and support an "any modern version" is OK position?

The fact that many posters disagree with unproven, non-scriptural exclusive only claims for one English Bible [the KJV] does not suggest that they oppose use of the KJV as a translation or that they support an "any modern version is OK" position.

Are you distorting and misrepresenting the actual position of believers who disagree with a KJV-only view?

The KJV is a good overall translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

Logos, I respect that you are a well learned, intelligent, articulate man. At the same time I also know that you have read, just as I have, the extremes on both side of this issue. I also know, that with the depth of your studies, you probably encountered what I've said many times -- far more times than myself.

Insert - Oh, almost forgot. Did you miss the "Bell Curve" reference which does not place everyone within a specific square box?

Do you know how many times I've encountered "The KJV is a good overall translation" followed by a "but"? Equivalent to giving someone a guick pat on the head before delivering a swift kick elsewhere.

Do you really want me to spend several hours with a search engine and BB search :type: to post page after page that supports a position that you know exists? How many references, that you've probably already seen many times, in your studies, would be sufficient? I haven't kept a complied & cross referenced list of them for quick and easy access.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Are you inventing an extreme that may not exist and that you do not show to exist? Which posters here supposedly advocate and support an "any modern version" is OK position?

Logos, I respect that you are a well learned, intelligent, articulate man. At the same time I also know that you have read, just as I have, the extremes on both side of this issue. I also know, that with the depth of your studies, you probably encountered what I've said many times -- far more times than myself.


supports a position that you know exists? .

I do not know that such a position exists since I have not encountered any position that I would consider an "any modern version is OK" position.

While they may be many that would accept many modern versions, I do not know of any that actually claim all modern versions are OK.

For example, many who accept modern versions would reject the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses, the Inspired Version by Joseph Smith, etc.

 

[Logos1560]

How many who see no problem with W&H have ever read their writings? Ever learned about their involvement with things Christans should avoid like the plague? (Acts 8:8-10)

As I noted earlier, my disagreement with a KJV-only view has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. I have not recommended the Greek text of Westcott and Hort or the later Critical Text nor English translations made from them.

Westcott and Hort held the same basic overall Church of England doctrinal views that the translators of the KJV held. Many who would condemn Westcott and Hort for their acceptance of a Church of England doctrine such as baptismal regeneration will say nothing against the KJV translators acceptance of the same Church of England doctrine. There seem to be some double standards or divers measures often used by KJV-only advocates who throw out their accusations against Westcott and Hort.

How many who defend the KJV have ever read the writings of the translators of the KJV? Were the translators of the KJV involved in no questionable activities or practices?

Several of the translators of the KJV were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted people for their beliefs. At least two KJV translators were directly involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Adam Nicolson claimed: "Andrewes [KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes] could happily see a good, God-fearing, straight-living, honest and candid man like Henry Barrow condemned to death; and a debached, self-serving degenerate like Thomson [KJV translator Richard "Dutch] Thomson] elevated to the highest company" (God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, p. 100).

Nicholson noted that Richard Thomson "was known as one of the wittest of all translators of the wildly obscene epigrams written by poet Martial in the Rome over which Nero presided" (p. 100).

Adam Nicolson referred to this KJV translator as "the drunk pornographer Thomson" (p. 192).

 

[Jkdbuck76]

How did the Lord communicate to us before 1611?

Some kind of "heavenly language?"

Acrostic algebra, my friend.


BTW, that was intended to be a VERY sarcastic comment.

 

[Yeshua1]

Acrostic algebra, my friend.


BTW, that was intended to be a VERY sarcastic comment.

I think you nailed it, just also ahd to added needed a pair of glasses like j smith got from Moroni!