Those Poor ‘Ole Misguided Anglican Translators!

All of this is human reasoning without any Bible basis.

 

Answer your own question.

It is clear from the Bible that translations were made, used, and considered God's Word. What is not clear is the notion that God chose one translation at any point in history.

God didn't direct the making of the KJV any more than the Geneva, NKJV, NASB, etc. In His providence, He allowed men at various times using their scholarship to translate the Bible. Some are better, some are worse. All are subject to the fallibilities of the men who did the work.

It is you and people like you who have arbitrarily decided on the KJV then ascribed that decision to God.

Does God run things or do you?

If God then you should be satisfied with what He has established... and KJVOnlyism ain't it.

Some are. Some may not be.

The NASB translators are/were the most doctrinally sound(in the biblical, conservative, fundamentalist sense) of any English translation group ever assembled. Their statement of faith states that salvation is by grace through faith without works.

That doesn't make their work good much less perfect. It does however make them more spiritually obedient than the KJV translators... who would have persecuted people holding the doctrinal views of the NASB translators- and people like you and me.

 

So that people in the street could understand it. Not too much unlike the fact that the NT originals were given in Koine rather than classical Greek. One was the language of the common believer. The other was a language of elites.

Prove that Christianity is at its lowest state ever. The gospel is still being spread throughout the world... even into China and other formally closed nations.

More martyrs died in the 20th century than all others combined. I have posted info on this board that compared Christianity in 1900 to 2000. There are not only more professing born again believers now than then... there is a higher percentage of the population that professes Christ.

Are there problems? Yes. But there were problems in 1611 too. Bible believers then were persecuted. Sound biblical doctrines were effectively outlawed by the state-church union. Moral conditions were not perfect at all either- Greed, lust, deception, pride, hatred, etc were all represented.

His Word doesn't need refining... nor did it in 1611. Its original wording needs to be indentified as closely as possible using the evidence God saw fit to preserve and it needs to be translated accurately.

I personally believe that not enough weight is given to the majority text... which differs from both the TR and CT versions.

God didn't speak when the KJV was created. The translators translated what He spoke 1500+ years before.

Before calling the words of the KJV the "speaking" of God, you have to provide some proof. If the KJV translators were not inspired, and even you admitted they weren't, then the words of the KJV are not inspired.

The message expressed by those words being derived from the originals indeed is inspired but not the words.

 

AVBunyan, let me ask you a few questions?

Was English really at its peak when the spelling and grammar was inconsistent in 1611?

How do you account for the many modifications of the KJV to the one we generally use today -- the Oxford 1769?

If the Bible was "perfect" why were the corrections required?

I also think you go over-the-line by saying "KJV rejectors" and "KJV doubters". Does anybody here know of anybody who rejects the KJV as being a very legitimate translation of the Word of God?

Finally, I ask you, why would this perfect Word-Of-God be in English? Do all languages get their own perfect Bible? Or are we so priviledged?

I humbly ask these questions based just on common sense, and only now mentioning the fact that C4K makes a very valid point that there are no promises of a perfect English translation anywhere in scripture (in the KJV or any other translation).

 

And many of us have grown weary of theological fairy tales like "advanced revelation" and "the English corrects the Greek" and the BB invasion by the KJVO on their self-appointed Inquisition calling the Bibles that we use and love "satanic counterfeits" (or at least until they were thrown off the board for doing so).

In a sentence: The whole KJVO theory crumbles when in 1613 the KJV translation committee said "Oops, we need to make some corrections and publish a revision".

Bottom line: They were honest in this matter and corrected their mistakes (and in many subsequent revision/editions).

HankD

 

Do you go to a dentist that uses only 17th century information and practices as well?

 

With that reasoning, God made a mistake for having the New Testament written in Koine Greek (i.e.-"common" Greek) rather than Classical Greek.

 

If the 17th century information and practices were better, then...yes.
</font>[/QUOTE]Break out the leeches and pliers.

 

And down enough brandy to pass out.

HankD

 

Here, here!!! [hic] ---falls off barstool while waving beer mug

====================================================

And the KJVO say that we are our own final authority? The entire piece that AVBunyan posted was a work of personal opinion and presupposition.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Here, here!!! [hic] ---falls off barstool while waving beer mug </font>[/QUOTE]OMGLOLROFLOL!!!

I'm laughing so hard that I'm falling off my barstool!

Hey, pass the nuts!!!!

 

All of this is human reasoning without any Bible basis. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother C4K -- Preach it!

All bad questions.
The main answer is that God wants everybody to
have a chance to hear His Word in their Language.
Like most, I don't go to Elezabethian Fairs
to show the my sword.

 

AVBunyan: "But you do reject the KJV in a sense
that you do not believe it to be infallible as
I do. You reject the infallible issue."

Sorry, i believe that the KJV is infallible - and
i have three infallible copies all written in a
language spoken hundreds of years ago.

AVBunyan: "I personally reject the modern versions as being
reliable or being the word of God.
This makes me a version rejector. Nothing
bad meant towards your character or admiration for the KJV.'

By your standards, you bash my Bibles.
My infallible bible is a modern version.
Come to think of it, so is your KJV1769 edition -
an MV Well my MV Holman Christian Standard Bible
(HCSB) is a modern version and it is the infallible
written word of God and
and contains the infallible written word of God.

And i'm still offended by people who select monikers
with "AV" in them. But i'm not allowed to tell
how offensive i find it nor call the people using it
rehempsiable names for misusing the label "AV".

As an American and a Baptist i find the AV = Authorized
Version, an affront to my beliefs.
In 1762 and 1769 when the KJV was radically altered,
the real Americans had no use for paying to the
crown the Bible Tax. These real Americans were
in open rebellion to the King's tax on Bibles.
Their were many copies similar to the KJV made
in the 13 colonies. They were not AVs.
Real Baptists and real Americans don't like the
AV label.

 

And i'm still offended by people who select monikers
with "AV" in them. But i'm not allowed to tell
how offensive i find it nor call the people using it
rehempsiable names for misusing the label "AV".

As an American and a Baptist i find the AV = Authorized
Version, an affront to my beliefs.
In 1762 and 1769 when the KJV was radically altered,
the real Americans had no use for paying to the
crown the Bible Tax. These real Americans were
in open rebellion to the King's tax on Bibles.
Their were many copies similar to the KJV made
in the 13 colonies. They were not AVs.
Real Baptists and real Americans don't like the
AV label.

__________________________________________________

I guess we'er even Ed, my man. I am offended by people who are offended by a Screen Name on a message board.!!!
You will notice the offended baptist wavey NEVER uses more than one hand to wave with.
And I am ALSO offended by Christians who think it is right to overthrow their government because of taxes. Jesus would have said, "Render unto Ceasar..."

But that is off topic, as you know very well, don't you Ed?

"Not allowed to tell how offensive I find it..."
but you did ANYWAY didn't you Ed?

My, my, my, Whole lotta offense going on here huh?

ANYBODY FOR FOOTBALL?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Dear Ed,
What is the meaning of "rehempsiable"? I love you man and you crack me up sometimes.By the way I was thinking about getting an HCSB but am waiting for the HCSBAV to come out.

 

Plain Old Bill: //"What is the meaning of "rehempsiable"? //

reprehensible

Plain Old Bill: "By the way I was thinking about getting an HCSB but am waiting for the HCSBAV to come out. "

I'll write "Authorized Version" on the title page of
one and send it to you. That will make it a Holman
Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) AV
BTW, most editions of the KJV printed in the USofA
1762 to the present have "Authorized Version
printed on the title page. However, i think they
though that GOD authorized the version, cause we
American & Baptitst sure
wouldn't be impressed by some British King being
the authorizer.

 

AV Bunyan: Good point - please allow me to clarify. I know many of you folks see the KJV as a reliable version and even call it the word of God and have respect for how God has used it. But you do reject the KJV in a sense that you do not believe it to be infallible as I do.

Have you ever taken the time to analyze WHY we say it's not infallible? The reason is simple, and can be found right here on this board. The discrepancies and booboos in the KJV have been proven to exist. P-R-O-V-E-N...not just GUESSED AT as most of the KJVO points are.


You reject the infallible issue. Based upon that you do reject or have doubts - this is what I am referring to.

When one sees a discrepancy, that's the natural thing for anyone with a lick of common sense to do.


I personally reject the modern versions as being reliable or being the word of God. This makes me a version rejector. Nothing bad meant towards your character or admiration for the KJV.

But, unlike us, you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on which to base your claim, except GUESSWORK, FABLES, FISHING STORIES, DOUBLE STANDARDS, and in the case of some people, outright LIES.

quote:[/QUOTE]Do you go to a dentist that uses only 17th century information and practices as well? [Wink] [/QB]

If the 17th century information and practices were better, then...yes. [Wink]

But they're NOT. They treated migraines by trepanning(cutting a hole in the skull to relieve pressure and release the bad 'vapours' & 'humours') and for anesthetic they used a cigar shoved where it was in contact with mucous membranes other than those in the face.

For that most-highly-developed science, that of warfare, they relied mostly upon theit trusty old swords, same as their ancestors had for over 5000 years. Firearms were almost as dangerous to the user as they were to the enemy.

The Scripture translators of that day had far fewer sources available than those of today have.

And the English of then being better than today's? Get real!