A Biblical attitude about the Bible

Thanks SL. I got it. Improvements are bad unless you think they are acceptable.

Sounds like human reasoning to me.

 

This is a key aspect of this POV. The typesetters were more powerful than God and they messed up His plan of preserving His perfect word. So men had to go back and improve on imperfect perfection. It took them a few attempts, they finally got it right, though no one can tell me when they did.

 

I am glad you said 'us'. Does that mean you approve of the KJV team's efforts to improve on the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and others?

Were they not men attempting to improve on God's word?

 

You are equating the KJV with the original texts by your argument here. We all agree that the Bible is perfect. The KJV is a translation, it wasn't given to us by God. Throughout your post here you kept equating the translation with the original documents.

Well, then I guess the KJV crossed that line as well.

 

But why not go back at least to the GBO if every attempt to improve is wrong? At least you could do back a translation when 'evil men and seducers' were less 'worse and worse.'

Surely, not using the oldest English version readily available is not wise?

(BTW, just to be clear, I DO NOT accept your premise that 'evil men and seducers' refers to men and women of God)

 

Good point. As they very possibly were on the KJV team which, in reality, was not much more than an Anglo-catholic team working to satisfy an anglo-catholic king.

And this team's 'improvement' to God's word is to be our standard for all English Bibles before and since?

 

Theoretically, nothing. I've known of IFB pastors who've gotten saved. The one thing we can look at among many of the Mvs is that they are professing believers. Some have questioned this with the KJV, right or wrong. Probably just the separation of time.

I don't think any person unsaved can truly be a Bible scholar. They can't understand what they're reading. They're blinded to truth.

 

What's wrong is that it isn't true. The KJV wasn't given to us by God in the same way that the original writings were.(That would be called double inspiration)

You changed the words that I used which said something different from my quote. I never said that God wasn't behind the translation of the KJV. I'm pretty sure that the KJV translators prayed and asked God for help just like the ESV and the NASB translators did during their translation time. What I said was that the KJV wasn't given to us by God. I mean this in the sense that God didn't give us the English words to use like he did the original writings. The KJV translators were not kept from making errors. And they did make some.

The Bible was not ever written in English by God. Men have translated the Bible into English. Some of them are very good(KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV...) Some are bad(NWT...) some are not really translations but paraphrases(message...). All of these were done by men trying to translation the Bible into English. Some did good, some had an agenda(NWT).

In the same sense that the NASB is God's Word, and the ESV is God's Word.

So says who? Are you referring to footnotes like the NASB has in Luke 17:36 which says "Early mss do not contain this v"? And when the KJV has a margin note in Luke 17:36 that says "Verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies" that is a different line?

 

I really don't understand the KJO position. I mean they start with a 6th century text that has smoothed out the harshness of earlier text (indicating some corruption in favor of fluidity). Then copied extravegantly because of the support of the Byzantine emperor in the last bastion of what was the Roman Empire and the most civilized place at the time. Finally later being copied in a minisculed format. This text then with the aid of the printing press became even more popularized. Still the text itself was not a complete NT text. So Erasmus attempts to fill in gaps so he used several divergent NT text he had available which dated to the 12th century. And where he feels Revelation is incomplete he translates it back from the Vulgate where no early NT text even has the last 6 verses. Which left the only complete greek text of the NT in one work which dates to 1516. No where near the autographs. Then this work gets copied a bunch of times and edited and from Stephanus 3rd edition it doesn't get reprinted 160 times that in 1633 Elzevir preface their 2nd edition Greek testiment with Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus - where we get the phrase Textus Receptus because it basically says we give all nothing changed from the prior 160 printings of an already corrupt text. Yet some how this Greek testiment becomes comparitive to the Autographs and every thinks this is the uncorrupted text from the autographs because of a misreading of Elzevir's preface to his second edition. This documents is used by the kings commission of 1611 and its the only good translation? Sound ludicrous doesn't it? Why are people so dogmatic about such obvious problems with the source text and the 1611 AV?

 

Then why don't you use the 1611 KJV? Why are you using "anothe line?" (1769, 1823, etc.)

Things that are different are not the same. Remember that gem?

 

Good luck with that. My KJVO logic thread went no where. :laugh:

 

Fanaticism does not know what logic is.

 

God allowed you one of many translations in English. He had His word written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. All translations from these original languages are works of men no matter how well intentioned.

God arranged it... just like he arranged for the ASV, NIV, ESV, and any other valid translation. The problem is you are too hung up worshiping the KJV to see that.

According to you God retired from the bible business in 1611. If He did then how is the KJV "perfect" since it has been corrected so many times? The real problem is, though, that God never retires, nor does He slumber. And yet you want to presume to tell us that He did retire and has left man to their own devices for 400 years.
=================================================

Actually, I would disagree. The KJV translators were Anglicans, English Catholics. I have serious doubts as to the condition of their souls on this acount. The Anglican church held to the same things as the RCC... trusting in the church for salvation, praying to dead people, yada yada yada. They were as saved as the Catholics of the day... probably fewer as divorce was allowed.
=================================================

OK, you just earned a bear hug.

 

Really? Are you sure you want to make that claim? I find that very difficult to believe. THOUSANDS???


I'd challenge you to quote even 50 from memory.