Perfect or Almost perfect

[Salty]

In another thread a KJO stated:
"King James Bible and that is 1611. The reason you will not see different copyright dates is because it has never been “revised”. All they have done is to correct some minor printing typos "

So KJO does admit there were MINOR printing typos -

IMHO - even a MINOR typos would prevent that version from being perfect.

So is "almost perfect" good enough to be "perfect"?

and may I ask my other question again:
Why is the KJV more accurate than the previous English translations?

and if a previous edition was not perfect - why would God keep the perfect Word hid for some 500 years

Will be anxiously awaiting on your answers.

 

[TCassidy]

In another thread a KJO stated:
"King James Bible and that is 1611. The reason you will not see different copyright dates is because it has never been “revised”. All they have done is to correct some minor printing typos "

So KJO does admit there were MINOR printing typos -

IMHO - even a MINOR typos would prevent that version from being perfect.

So is "almost perfect" good enough to be "perfect"?

and may I ask my other question again:
Why is the KJV more accurate than the previous English translations?

and if a previous edition was not perfect - why would God keep the perfect Word hid for some 500 years

Will be anxiously awaiting on your answers.

Straw man argument. No KJVO I know believes printer's errors destroy inerrancy or infallibility. Any more than a single typo in a post invalidates the entire post.

The most logical reason the KJV was considered more accurate than earlier English versions is the evolution (can I say that word on the BB?) of the English language moving from Middle English (1100-1500 AD) to Modern English (1500 - Present) was complete by that time and the language had gained some much needed stability of both grammar and syntax and even (to a lesser extent) spelling.

The previous versions were perfect in the proper understanding of the word, but the language was in flux to the point that a new revision was necessary. Not to mention that the political situation under James VI/I had stabilized so that England, Ireland, and Scotland (first called "Great Britain" under James' rule who called himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland") could all read the same bible, and the new version would lack the decidedly anti-monarchy notes of the Geneva Bible of 1560 which was more popular than the earlier Authorized Version, the Bishops' Bible of 1568.

Let's hope our KJVO brothers (and they are brothers) can discuss the issue without resorting to the nastiness and name calling.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

James I especially wanted Bishops in his new Bible. "No Bishop, no king!"
There were none in Tyndale and none in the Geneva.

 

[Jerome]

There were none in Tyndale and none in the Geneva.

Huh?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Huh?

Just like the NIV.

 

[TCassidy]

Actually "bishop" appears 5 times in the Geneva bible.

 

[Jerome]

It was spelled 'bisshop'.

 

[TCassidy]

Found it. Bysshope in 1 Timothy 3:1. Bisshope in verse 2. Also in Titus 1:7 and 1 Peter 2:25.

 

[rsr]

The 1599 Geneva has bishop in the text five times. Yet see the footnotes, such as Philippians 1:1:

By the Bishops are meant both the Pastors, which have the dispensation of the word and the Elders, that govern: and by Deacons are meant those that were stewards of the treasury of the Church and had to look unto the poor.

The end note of Titus:

To Titus, elect the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans, written from Nicopolis in Macedonia.

The end note of II Timothy:

The second Epistle written from Rome unto Timothy, the first Bishop elected of the Church of Ephesus, when Paul was presented the second time before the Emperor Nero.

It seems to me that though the translators occasionally used bishop, they made it clear that what they meant was not what the Church of Rome or the Anglican Church meant, that is, a word that would subsume both elders and pastors.