In a perfect world

I will not join it. :smilewinkgrin::thumbs:

 

Record and testimony are not same meaning. The KJV shows 2 words. No problem here.

MVs show ONE word: testimony -- My testimony is true (John 5:31)
and not true (John 8:14.) Problem here.

Never mind!

 

Just to help him out

http://tinyurl.com/d9p8lr

 

The 5000 manuscripts(which the KJV uses some of these) were copied down by men. They were not carried along by the holy Spirit.

 

actually they are. They can be synonymous.

The word in Greek is μαρτυρία

It is translated in the KJV as:

drum roll please!!!!

witness 15 times
testimony 14 times
record 7 times
report 1 time

The word in chapter 8 is the same Greek word, just a slight difference in form(this one is the verb, the other is noun)

μαρτυρέω

Here, the KJV translates it as:

Witness 28 times
bear 21 times
record 13 times
bare 9 times
testify 8 times
report, testified, testifieth, beareth...

so it looks like the KJV translators thought that "testimony" and "record" were synonymous.

 

You repeat an invalid question based on unproven KJV-only premises.

The Scriptures do not teach that any translations [including the KJV] were directly written by the Holy Spirit or were directly given by inspiration of God.

Where does the Bible state or teach that the making of translations involves the miracle of direct inspiration or actual writing of a translation by the Holy Spirit?

The actual Scriptures given by inspiration of God were in the original languages and were given to the prophets and apostles.

The making of translations under the guiding of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers is different from the miraculous giving of the Scriptures in the original languages by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

 

According to a consistent application of the undefined accusation that you may repeat from Will Kinney, the KJV translators would be proven to be supposedly "bible agnostics" since in their preface to the 1611 they asserted that English translations should be considered the word of God in English "notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

The KJV translators regarded the existing, preserved Scriptures in the original language to be the standard and authority for the trying of translations, which would include their own translation.

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators [William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible] including the KJV translators. It is that view of the KJV translators that Will Kinney claims is supposedly the view of "bible agnostics". Thus, Will Kinney makes the translating of these "bible agnostics" in 1611 superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

This is beyond bogus. It is actually offensive.

You do realize the KJV is itself an "update," right?

 

I saw that. In a perfect world no king would have butted into Bible translation, those guys in 1611 would have left the Bible alone, and we would have celebrated the 450th anniversary of the Geneva Bible in 2010.

 

Of course, I don't believe that, I treasure my KJV. But isn't this how the concept of one version onlyism works?

 

You are correct, for in a perfect world we:

1. Would not have a King James Version.
2. We would all read and understand Hebrew and Greek.
3. The original manuscripts would not have been lost.

 

In a perfect world there would be no sin. No need for the Bible or original manuscripts because we would have no need of a Savior. We would be entirely faithful to God in our no-fall status.

 

Why would we have to read KJV when we all know
Hebrew & Greek?:laugh:

 

Then there was Adam.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, Paul doesnt let Eve off the hook either.

 

Do you mean the KJV versions of 1611/1789/1984 etc that ALL in place contridict each other?

remember this...

The Greek/Hebrew texts that were the originals WERE inspired by God, inerrant/infallible

God Preserved the Greek/hebrew texts in order for us to have accurate and infallible transaltions today...

NO English version had "Holy Spirit" involved as He was in originals!

So CAN state in your opinion KJV best English version, but NOT only version God uses today, not that others are Satanic based, not valid to use etc...

We can be thankful that regardless if MT/CT used. essentially have the originals in place, and regardless if NKJV/NASB/NIV etc essentially God word to us for today!

 

I guess I should give my thoughts on this. I have used the KJV my entire life. When I was growing up, in the world I lived in, I never knew there even were other translations. Everyone I knew used and loved (and had no problem understanding) the KJV. It seems to me that in the last 25 years there are Bible "versions" coming out of the wood work. All of a sudden the KJV is "outdated", "hard to understand", "full of mistakes", "not the best translation", etc. I'm amazed at that. NO one made those kinds of comments 40 years ago. The KJV was honored, cherished, used, and loved by most every Christian. It has served the Christian community well for 400 years.
Now there are over 100 different Bible versions. Some using this text, some using that text. Some have certain passages in them, some leave those passages out. And yet, I'm told, and expected to believe, that ALL these different Bible versions are the Word of God. I'm just some average guy, but I've got enough common sense to know that that makes no sense. I've read KJV vs. MV forums for years now, and I've seen nothing that would convince me that the KJV is not the best translation I could have, and I'm sticking with it. You may use whatever translation you want, as I stated before. My men's Sunday School leader uses the NIV, and my pastor preaches from the NKJV. There are probably just as many in our congregation that use the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. as those that use the KJV. IMHO, the KJV outshines them all.