A Biblical attitude about the Bible

I agree but I do so while holding the position that there can be more than one legitimate version of the English Bible. Stillearning, why not be honest about your reason for posting instead of trying to set people up to indoctrinate them with your onlyism? Your intellectual dishonesty is glaring.

 

Does that mean that when the KJV translators tried to improve the earlier English bibles they actually made made it worse?

 

Ok TC now you have gone and made a valid point. Let's see how this one is skirted around? I can't wait.

 

Still Learning:God’s Word has always been and will always be........-/i]
Psalms 119:89
“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”

And it was settled long before the English language or the KJV was invented.



It can’t be destroyed nor improved upon........
Ecclesiastes 3:14
“I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it:
and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.”
--------------------------------------------------
Every attempt to “improve” it, takes away from it.

So, if that's your concrete attitude, you should use only the Wycliffe Bible, the first English translation, as every one since has been an attempt to improve upon it.


Satan’s efforts in casting doubt upon it, is so that we will stop fearing God.

We should stop fearing God if we believe He has abandoned superintending His word & doesn't seenta care if it's in OUR language or not. However, we who DO believe and fear God know He still oversees His word to us & makes it available in TODAY'S languages, for which we praise, honor, and worship Him.

 

Nothing. In fact, our best current English translations are the closest we've come to the first rendering of that Word.

 

The KJV has had a number of alterations from 1611 -- 1769 primarily. That's a period of 158 years. Is Satan responsible for those changes which Blayney and others have made to improve the text? It sounds as if you have a Blayney version.

 

Some things never change... or should that be some people never change?

 

A typo is not an error in the translation, it is an error due to printing. If a printer accidently prints "him" when it should have been "his", that does not change the translation. The fact that these errors can be identified and corrected shows an inerrant standard exists. In the very early days of the 1611, these corrections would often take years, we forget how tedious and basic printing was in those days. So, a printer might print 10,000 copies with several typographical errors. Over the course of time these errors are spotted and identified. Now the printer had to print a new edition which also took much time. And sometimes a new typographical error would be introduced in the new edition that would also take some time to identify and correct.

Almost all the changes in the KJV since 1611 have been typos. Other changes were the print type, from the Gothic type style which is very difficult for us to read today (but was not in 1611) to Roman type style which we easily read today. This does not change God's word in any way whatsoever, just as when we print or write cursive there is no change.

The vast majoritiy of changes were spelling. English was still a relatively new language in 1611 and there were many variations in spelling. We still see that today to an extent, the English spell "colour" while we spell "color". But they are the exact same word with the same exact meaning.

And spelling is the major changes in the KJV from 1611. As the spelling of certain words became standardized, the text was corrected to show the standardized spelling of a word. This is not a change in the word of God in the least. But this is the false argument anti-KJVs use to say there have been thousands of changes in the KJV from 1611. Every time a word was changed to reflect the standardized spelling, this word was counted. If a word appeared 150 times in scripture and the spelling was corrected 150 times, anti-KJVs would say "See, here are 150 changes in the KJV!". It is a dishonest argument.

If you had an original 1611 KJV and could read the Gothic type, you could read it along with your modern KJV and you would see they are almost identical.

 

Hi again,

The copies no longer exist but translators have been using the best and most cohesive group manuscripts in recent years.

I believe God's Word is perfect in its original manuscripts and I rely on the Spirit's illuminating power to give me eyes and ears to hear God's voice speaking.

 

I assume then that you favour the oldest Greek manuscripts, sometimes known as the 'Critical Texts' since they are indeed older and anything newer could not be an improvement.

I would suggest for your English Bible that you go back to the Geneva Bible, one of the translations the KJV team was trying to improve. They are readily available in a variety for bindings and in modern print and spellings.

If the KJV tried to improve it that would, by your logic, take away from God's word.