King James

Michelle: “If you can show me in the scriptures where God has said that He would allow additions/omittions/alterations of His words of truth - clearly stating He would, then I will show you the scriptures I have provided many times already to you.”

Take any two manuscripts at random. Each will have differences with the other, involving addition, omission, or alteration. Both cannot be 100% correct.

Take the Geneva Bible and the KJV (any edition). Aside from “spelling differences” and “typo errors,” these sources will differ with each other in regard to matters of addition, omission, or alteration. Both cannot be 100% correct.

If God is indeed preserving his word perfectly in the KJV (whatever edition you wish to declare valid for such purpose), then _where_ was God’s “perfect preservation” among the manuscripts or even in the predecessor versions of the KJV?

“Perfect preservation” either means perfect in and for _all_ generations, or we have to examine the actual evidence we possess to comprehend God’s promises in a "more perfect" manner than that which has been claimed.

 

This thread has long since left any discussion of King James and is back to the samo-samo versions "squabble."

Lets let it run for a few more hours to see if it improves. Personally, I don't hold our much hope.

It is now on page 5 and subject to closure.

 

I don't know if that is what she is trying to say or not. It seems her statements can only interpreted by a select few. But if she was trying to say what you said then she is wrong. There is no support anywhere that the translator's of any version were inspired, the original authors were in the original languages.

Bro Tony

 

I have no problem with that your position. In fact, I support that 100%. Why? Because you're not telling me or anyone else that I can only use the version you're using. You're simply saying that the KJV is the only version you will use. Nothing wrong with that. I completely support this.

What I do not support is the assertion by some that we are ONLY allowed to use the version they are using. I have never, NEVER been able to find scriptural support for this, and I have sincerely searched for such. Unless someone can show me where the scriptural support for this is, then I must conclude that such scriptural support is absent.

 

You're not going to like the answer:

I have compared the KJV to its source texts, and found some minor additions, omissions, and alterations, as well as a few places where the translation could have been beter stated They're minor, however, and don't alter scriptural doctrine at all. Likewise, I have compared the NIV to its source texts, and have not found any additions, omissions, or alterations. However, I did find a few places where the translation could have been beter stated. These instances are minor, and don't alter scriptural doctrine at all. Currently, I'm in the process of reviewing the MKJV to its source texts. To date, I haven't been able to find a single addition, omission, or alteration from its source text (the same source texts as the KJV 1611), though there are a few instances where the translation could have been better stated.

My conclusion so far: Of the KJV, NIV, and MKJV, none of them are perfect translations. They're all reasonably good translations, however. The original KJV contains some additions, omissions, and alterations which are overall minor. The MKJV is probably the most accurate to its source texts, but is a complicated read (as opposed to the koine Greek of the TR, which was an easy read to Greek speaking people of the time). The NIV is the easiest read, but since it uses miltiple source texts, it relies heavily on footnotes to note texxtual variances. None of these translations contradicts, comprmises, or detracts from scriptural doctrine. But, none of these translations is perfect.

Now, Michelle, I've already asked for scriptural support for your position, and you have not given me any. So let's try something else: Please provide support (scriptural or not) for your position that the KJV is a perfect translation. I can tell you factually, having compared the KJV to its source texts, that it is not. Would you like me to list some of those instances so you can discuss them one by one?

 

You might as well close the thread.

It is my opinion that michelle is really not sure what her position is in that she has presented a moving target everytime someone asks her to bear witness as to which of the revisions of the KJV is the "perfect" word (or words of God as she likes to say) of God.

Personally I would even accept the answer "all of them". At least it is an answer.

Of course, that answer might have a whole other set of difficulties of it's own.

HankD