Suppose for a Moment, if you will.....

[Yeshua1]

Sigh...

If God wanted it to happen, it would have.

He didn't. And He's a lot smarter than we give Him credit for.

Get used to it.

well , he already did give to us the perfect "bible', it was called the originals!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Brother, I use the NASB and I, by faith, and conviction am convinced that it is the very word of God handed down from the beginning translated into modern day English just as your revised KJV is.

"Just" as the KJV is, is simply NOT POSSIBLE. The two translations simply do not say the same things or make the same points at all times. They are simply NOT two different ways to always say the same things. The differences are manifold.
You only have two available options:
1.) One is right in those different places and the other is wrong
2.) Neither is right and they are both wrong
Either way...They aren't "BOTH" the word of God in the sense that there are simply too many places where they simply DO NOT say the same thing or even teach the same idea.

You can't even say the KJV because you yourself don't use an original KJV.

How do you know? It has always been available and modern re-prints are easily purchased.... 10 bucks at Barnes and Noble at the moment. I have one myself....I also have an actual 1631 (and the hard part is simply the small print) :laugh:

I doubt you could read it unless you are well versed in old English.

I doubt then, that you have ever seen one, because it is not signifigantly more difficult than a modernized revision.....one only has to get used to two things....the "S-es" tend to look like a miniscule "F".

And they liked to randomly adde an "E" to the ende of practicallye every thirde worde in the texte.....and that they didde somewhat inconsistently throughoute the booke.
There's a goode fellowe...it isn't as harde as you might assume it is.
Otherwise, there is essentially no diffence whatsoever.

Also...I think you mean "Elizabethan" English more specifically. You appear to have never seen the text of the Originals or a reprint or you wouldn't have said this.

The translator's notes would contradict your position.

It's not his "position"...he is throwing out a hypothetical which he doesn't personally believe to be the case.

The addition of the Apocrypha would cause problems.

It would not, any more than the maps and liner notes or marginal commentaries do in practically any other printing of the Bible regardless of translation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Suppose, just for a moment, that at the hand of God, a Bible version rolled off the presses, in the English language, that no one could question the validity. That He, in His infinate power, in some manner declared it to be an absolute. If you see it, hear it, touch it, the Holy Spirit convicts you that it is a faithful translation in every detail of what God inspired to be recorded for mankind. It does not carry a copyright and is placed into public domain.

What would happen?

I will say this......your hypothetical is exposing more than we might realize. except for some rather poignant responses earlier, the KJV-detractors simply REFUSE to answer your question. I find it quite telling that there are many on this thread who simply refuse to answer an obvious hypothetical. That tells me a LOT about where they are coming from. :wavey:

 

[Rippon]

I will say this......your hypothetical is exposing more than we might realize. except for some rather poignant responses earlier, the KJV-detractors simply REFUSE to answer your question. I find it quite telling that there are many on this thread who simply refuse to answer an obvious hypothetical. That tells me a LOT about where they are coming from. :wavey:

A hypothetical is fiction. Reality is nonfiction. I live in reality. The KJVO stance is in a world of their own making. It is not a God-ordained world.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

A hypothetical is fiction. Reality is nonfiction. I live in reality. The KJVO stance is in a world of their own making. It is not a God-ordained world.

I know....the purpose, however, of posing a hypothetical is to pose or force a particular answer to an idea which is inherently relevant to the LARGER issue at hand.

You are CLEARLY avoiding answering the hypothetical.....

Anyone who poses a hypothetical KNOWS that it's a hypothetical....but you can't (or won't) answer the hypothetical.....
There is ALWAYS a reason someone refuses to acknowledge said hypothetical.

You are refusing, and it tells us a lot about your intents and your true beliefs.

Solid positions which are reasonably held, can usually respond to relevant (if implausible) hypotheticals....your position can't apparently, and it tells us what we need to know.

 

[Rippon]

You are CLEARLY avoiding answering the hypothetical...

How astute of you.

There is ALWAYS a reason someone refuses to acknowledge said hypothetical.

Ah,maybe because they are untrue,never has nor will happen; in short an escape from reality. God hasn't done what the hypothetical envisions. It's a wasted effort. It's about as useful as asking if there is a rock so large that even God can't pick it up.

implausible hypotheticals

You got that right.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Here's your answer, from the Bible:

1 Cor. 1:18-25-

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

[Yeshua1]

"Just" as the KJV is, is simply NOT POSSIBLE. The two translations simply do not say the same things or make the same points at all times. They are simply NOT two different ways to always say the same things. The differences are manifold.
You only have two available options:
1.) One is right in those different places and the other is wrong
2.) Neither is right and they are both wrong
Either way...They aren't "BOTH" the word of God in the sense that there are simply too many places where they simply DO NOT say the same thing or even teach the same idea.

How do you know? It has always been available and modern re-prints are easily purchased.... 10 bucks at Barnes and Noble at the moment. I have one myself....I also have an actual 1631 (and the hard part is simply the small print) :laugh:

I doubt then, that you have ever seen one, because it is not signifigantly more difficult than a modernized revision.....one only has to get used to two things....the "S-es" tend to look like a miniscule "F".

And they liked to randomly adde an "E" to the ende of practicallye every thirde worde in the texte.....and that they didde somewhat inconsistently throughoute the booke.
There's a goode fellowe...it isn't as harde as you might assume it is.
Otherwise, there is essentially no diffence whatsoever.

Also...I think you mean "Elizabethan" English more specifically. You appear to have never seen the text of the Originals or a reprint or you wouldn't have said this.

It's not his "position"...he is throwing out a hypothetical which he doesn't personally believe to be the case.

It would not, any more than the maps and liner notes or marginal commentaries do in practically any other printing of the Bible regardless of translation.

Option 3
BOTH are the word of God to us in english, as ONLY originals were inspired and perfect in all that was written, so both translation are the wrd of god, as they essentially teach same things, and are both infallible witnesses!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Option 3
BOTH are the word of God to us in english, as ONLY originals were inspired and perfect in all that was written, so both translation are the wrd of god, as they essentially teach same things, and are both infallible witnesses!

Not an available option, as I said, "In the same sense"....unless God simply doesn't know what he intended to say in many places.

The key phrases I'm referring to were these phrases:

"Just" as the KJV is

That's impossible.

The two translations simply do not say the same things or make the same points

Subsequently....they are at those points:
1.) One the "Word of God" and the other a poser
2.) Neither one the "Word of God"

Your third option does not exist at the points of disagreement. God is not the author of confusion.

and are both infallible witnesses

If they disagree with one another....then, by definition, they are NOT infallible witnesses. You have to accept the fact that the variant translations of the Bible simply do not agree with each other. Thus, some or all of them are flawed...those are your only options.

If your translation ommits a verse that mine contains, then one or both of them are wrong....they cannot Both be correct.

 

[Oldtimer]

Subsequently....they are at those points:
1.) One the "Word of God" and the other a poser
2.) Neither one the "Word of God"

Your third option does not exist at the points of disagreement. God is not the author of confusion.

That's part of the premise of this thread. EVERY verse in EVERY English Bible ever printed is either option 1 or option 2. There is no 3rd option.

Bringing in a 3rd option is simply another way to avoid answering the question.

What would happen?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not an available option, as I said, "In the same sense"....unless God simply doesn't know what he intended to say in many places.

The key phrases I'm referring to were these phrases:

That's impossible.

Subsequently....they are at those points:
1.) One the "Word of God" and the other a poser
2.) Neither one the "Word of God"

Your third option does not exist at the points of disagreement. God is not the author of confusion.

If they disagree with one another....then, by definition, they are NOT infallible witnesses. You have to accept the fact that the variant translations of the Bible simply do not agree with each other. Thus, some or all of them are flawed...those are your only options.

If your translation ommits a verse that mine contains, then one or both of them are wrong....they cannot Both be correct.

Both the Nasb and kjv versions are 'flawed', as neither EXACTLY what the originals were, but each ARE infallible, as they will do the task assigned to them, to let us know God, and to apply his principles into our lives!

We don't need perfect versions, only a perfect saviour!

 

[Rippon]

I'd say that the KJV was dominant from 1750 to 1950 for the most part, although a weakening was happening in the first quarter of the 20th century. That's only 200 years.

From Alister McGrath's book --"In The Beginning."

"The 'new translation' --as the King James bible was still termed even late in the seventeenth century --was still regarded with some misgivings at the opening of the eighteenth. Yet it was during this century that a decisive change in attitude toward the 'new' translation developed. It is virtually impossible to point to any defining moment or event that crystallized the perception that this was indeed a great work of religious literature;but at some time during this century, perhaps around 1750, such a perception settled over the work, and would remain in place until the end of the First World War. If the first 150 years of its history were encumbered with hints of discontent,criticism, and suspicion, its next 150 years were characterized by something at times approaching uncritical adulation." (289,290)

 

[Logos1560]

Just a reminder.....Things that are different ARE NOT the same.

Bro.Greg:saint:

The present twenty to thirty or more varying KJV editions with a number of differences with each other are not the same. Some present KJV edition printed since the 1980's from a computer based text have a whole new set of differences.

The present KJV editions [besides 1611 reprints] are not the same as the 1611 edition.

The 1611 edition of the KJV has hundreds and thousands of differences when compared to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision.

The KJV is not the same as any one edition of the original language OT text or any one edition of the original language NT text available to the KJV translators.