Originally posted by Scott J:
Not God inspired words. The book of Jonah says 'fish' so the NT should say 'fish'. 'Fish' and 'whale' are not the same word. Remember your claim that "whales" included "fish". If it was limited to a great fish in the OT then it should be nothing more nor less than a great fish in the NT. Things different are not the same.
i don't see that at all. if bob points at something and says "automobile" and fred points at the same thing and says "truck" both can be right. there is no error in the kjv here.
If the shoe were on the other foot and the NKJV had this disagreement, you would claim it as proof positive of its corruption.
i suppose i grant jesus a little more authority than the nkjv translation comittee.
OK. I will agree with you. Most people in the 21st century do not understand conversation to mean behavior nor prevent to mean precede nor communicate to mean share/give etc, etc, etc.
i'm not for archaic words in the kjv, but i doubt our ability to update them without putting in more problems than we remove. imo people are so wraped up in their modern day isms they have a hard time seeing what the bible really says.
in any event, it's not
that big of a problem. my 11 year daughter knows most of the archaic words already.
So in other words, the KJV was perfect when translated but now has to be translated to be understood? ...
yes. but by that standard, a perfect translation (or original inspiration!) would be impossible. let's say we had the autographs. by your standard they would shortly become flawed documents as they were written in living languages.
presumably you would not claim inerrancy for your translation of what the KJV meant originally, would you?
no, but since i try to be honest and take water from a pure stream, i feel comfortable watering me and my family with it
i think that with an older dictionary and strong's one can get a very good indication of what the translators intended, but no it's not an inerrant process, afaik.
Somehow it is OK for KJVO's to change the words of the KJV to make it understandable but translators today are forbidden from going back to the original language texts to translate them?
there's less room to really mess things up, i don't think they are really comparable. we have no choice but to try and interpret what the kjv means, especially where the words are archaic. i distrust modern scholarship, especially textual criticism that does not take god into account and treats the holy bible like just any other book. i distrust modern translation comittees because we live in an age of apostasy, where everyone seems to want to be nicer than god, with "nice" defined by modern sensibilities.
The only way this line of reasoning is legitimate is if the KJV translators were on par with the original writers of scripture... and they were not.
i think providential preservation is the answer. the kjv, and the traditional texts it is based on, have been used greatly by god, and i trust them. i think the burden of proof for any changes rests squarely on the shoulders of the advocates of the critical text, and that they have never met it. the wide acceptance of the critical text has more to do with the infection of modern christian minds with a godless rationalism and worhsip of science (so-called) than with anything else imo.
Here's an interesting parallel. ... People today do not understand that certain words mean something different today than in 1611. So, they require a "preacher" to tell them what the Bible means.
my "preacher" is the 1828 websters, with my strong's and occaisionally my oed. granted there are some archaic words in the kjv, but it's nothing like trying to read a dead language
your argument may be valid in another 1000 years or so
The scriptures were written for the common man... not those with special knowledge or training.
i understand what your are saying, but i think you overstate things a bit. i doubt the common man could really follow the book of hebrews, regardless of translation, without a decent biblical education.
