I have an idea. Let’s say we re-write our Constitution…

You do understand the difference between an English work written in English, and a Greek and Hebrew work translated into English, right?

 

john6:63, the problem with your post is that they already had a Bible before the KJV. You have already accepted the re-written Bible.

 

They have re-written the U.S.Constitution I've seen it in Spanish. Current Spanish not the Spanish of 1789. But the official one is still in English, The English of 1789. Personaly I would have no problem with updating the spelling when I read it in English.

 

They have re-written the U.S.Constitution I've seen it in Spanish. Current Spanish not the Spanish of 1789. But the official one is still in English, The English of 1789.

And the official Scriptures were written in hebrew, Greek, & Aramaic. Are you saying our ENGLISH Bibles aren't "official"?


Personaly I would have no problem with updating the spelling when I read it in English.

Some probs with your analogy:

First, the Con has a group of AMENDMENTS, for which the original made allowances; God's word does NOT.

Second, all the makers of the Con are dead, while the maker of Scripture is not only quite alive, but still THE BOSS.

Third, we do NOT have the ORIGINAL writings of the Scriptures before us, while the original Constitution still exists. Therefore, there's NO DOUBT whether any copy or translation of it is accurate or not.

BTW, if many translation of the Con were to be directly cross-translated back into English, they'd read differently from the real thing.

There's simply no Scriptural basis for the KJVO myth.

 

Not the same, to begin with the autograph of the Constitution still exists.

HankD

 

Well, your view is quite flawed then. The KJV translators were indeed updating scripture to fit the language of the day (note the use of phrases like "God save the King", "God forbid", and "we do you do wit") If you truly insist on leaving scripture in its original language, then you should accept it only in the Hebrew and Greek of the Received Text, and not the updated language of the KJV translators.

BTW, the Constitution IS rewritable. It's called the amendment process.

 

I'm not KJVO!

 

Good thread and good reasoning. I've noticed that John6:63 hasn't replied to any of this. Is he/she a hit and run poster?

AVL1984

 

Why, oh why, didn’t they leave the US Constitution alone and not try “modernizing” it?

Senators would still be appointed by the state legislatures and not be in a popularity contest among uninformed and less-informed voters...

The President and Vice President would be of opposing political parties, which then would make the VP’s role as President of the Senate more meaningful and interesting when tie-breaking votes are required...

When presidents die in office there would be no unelected VP appointed to become the heir apparent....

Women could stay at home and not worry about voting except in Dr Bob land (the “leave it to the states” policy currently under debate regarding another subject)...

No one under 21 would be voting, so politicians would not need to cater to the kiddie vote and could actually discuss issues and implementation strategies....

Presidents could serve as many terms as they wanted (we would now be coming to the end of Clinton’s third term, with every likelihood he would win reelection to a fourth)....

Congressmen could raise their salaries every few months if desired....

We could still have legalized slavery and involuntary servitude.....Oops....

 

I'm still waiting for scriptural support for this referring to one sole translation.

Uhhh, that's one of the reasons we have Bible studies. To become educated in scripture, clarifying points of confusion. Most typically, scriptural confusion is not the result of miltiple translations, but lack of scriptural understanding.

Since God is not the author of translations, including the KJV, for one to apply this verse to the translational topic results in the twisting of scripture.

Oh, so now you're switching geas to the "source text" argument. Yet, if someone pulls out a non-KJV translation that was translated from the same TR as the KJV, I'm sure you'll come uo with some non-scripturally supportable excuse to argue against that translation as well.

Kindly tell us which verse this is. Also, kindly explain whym when the KJV adds text to the TR, it's not considered perverting scripture.

The KJV translators simply were looking to update teh Tyndale. Since 1612, the KJV has had three MAJOR revisions in its history, due to evolving language. The fact that it has not been revised in 225 years suggest that it is time for another.

Interesting that you point that out. Because the KJV was not widely received, and considered by some critics to be of poor quality, King James authorized that anyone using any translation other than the KJV would be subject to imprisonment. The Puritans, being persecuted by the Anglicans for years, saw that as the last straw, and set off to form a colony in the New World. The Pilgrims that set foot on our shore in the 1600's did NOT carry with them the KJV. They carried with them the Geneva.

Printing the verses in the bulleting is a good thing. It allows the worshipper to make ample notes in the bulleting during the sermon. But this is hardly a supporting arguement for KJVOism.

 

John 6:63:So God promised to preserve His word and so when a group gets together, studying the bible, and each has his or her own bible version, confusion between verses can sometimes present themselves, as I?ve witnessed, and I thought God wasn?t the author of confusion.

No, GOD isn't, but certain people or groups of people are. F'r'instance, the British had a perfectly valid and legit Bible, in the English of their day, the Geneva Bible. But certain Anglican officials, and the Scottish king who took the British throne, didn't like that version...so they used their authority to have a new one made.

Since many MV?s use different texts to translate from, which ?text? is thought to be preserved by God? I can?t believe that say the NIV is preserved and the KJV is persevered as well, when a certain verse in the NIV can pervert the deity of Christ. So again, which text?

ALL of'em, till someone can actually PROVE one is "official while the other isn't.

The Four gospels differ greatly among themselves in their narrations of the same events. Which one is the "official" account? If you say, "All", then you MUST apply the same reasoning to the various ancient mss or you'd be using a DOUBLE STANDARD.

My problem is that the KJV has been around for hundreds of years. Why change it?

You should ask that of the officials of Cambridge University since they still hold a copyright on the KJV...and THEIR current version is VASTLY DIFFERENT from the AV 1611, of which I have two replicas.

Now, the NIV didn't change the KJV...it's a SEPARATE VERSION. But the makers of the various KJV editions DID change it.


Why did the Geneva bible stop being printed, was there a problem with it?

To King James, there was a prob. Among the GB's footnotes was one denying the "divine right of kings", that it was OK to resist a tyrant. And the Anglicans didn't like the GB, written by Calvinists(under the auspices of Calvin himself!)being the "standard" bible of England.

When Archbishop Laud took over the reins of the AC, he banned the printing or sale of any other BV in English within the realm, with permission from King Charles, KJ's son.


Do both the Geneva and the KJV translate from the same text?

I THINK so, but I'm not sure. I turn to the more knowledgable folks here for a correct answer.

 

Well, John6:63, glad to know who you are. Glad to know you admit you don't know everything on the subject. I don't believe anyone does, totally.
As far as preservation, I believe God preserved both underlying texts. If he didn't we wouldn't have them today. I find nowhere in the Bible, though that God is going to preserve his word in one single language or version. The multiplicity of texts and variations pretty much lead me to the conclusion that the MV's and the KJV hold all the doctrines and fundamentals in place, and that we can fully trust that we are holding the Word of God in our hands when we use either set.

AVL1984

 

I hate to differ here, but the articles of confederation were a lousy substitute for the real thing and because of them we almost had a Civil War 80 years early.

 

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

NASB But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

The KJV perverts the deity of Christ. Confusion.

HankD