A very silly KJVO argument...

You mean like the NIV who changes the word seed to descendants in God's promise to Abraham in Genesis, thus destroying the argument of Paul in Galatians 3? Or perhaps the omitting of commas from Exodus 12 making the stay of Israel in Egypt 430 years, thus making Paul in error in Galatians 3 when he says from Abraham to the Exodus was 430 years? Those kinds of errors are all over the place in the modern translations and I firmly attribute them to know it all scholars who, rather than checking themselves against God's word, exalt their own knowledge above the book they are supposed to be faithfully translating. Let it also be known they have no authority to change numbers like those found in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 36:9.

Let it be known, I would not oppose a modern translation, were it faithfully translated by one who holds God's word in equal regard as translators such as Tyndale and the Geneva and KJ translators. I've yet to find one modern english translation that meets that standard.

 

How many have you met and interviewed? I haven't met any myself. however, I have red up on the efforts to translate the NASB, ESV, and HCSB and feel that these would measure up to such a standard, but only if such a standard were laid out and accurately portrayed those who have gone before and not some pious pipe dream version of them.

There are many scholars who have worked on these translations (and others) who have devoted their entire lives and careers to the purpose of God's word. there have been a few down through the years who have taken a part who would not fit the bill, but then I don't think too much of the KJV translators due to their doctrinal stance (Anglican = English Catholicism).

The bottom line is that today's literal translations were done by men who were devoted to God, the scriptures, and the work. You could use one of them and know that it is the work of godly men who have done the best they could.

 

Yet it is amazing that for 7,000 or so years God's people were without His word because it was not pure according to you. Simply amazing.

 

Exactly. He promised to preserve his word to all generations. Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away but his words would not pass away.

No one on earth has the original autographs. If God can only preserve his inerrant word in the original languages, then God's word is long since lost and he did not keep his promise.

Can anyone here even prove if all the original NT books were written in Greek? Many scholars say some were not (Matthew for one). If so, then the Greek texts are not the original autographs and cannot be preserved if we are to believe the ridiculous arguments some here make.

This argument that the true meaning of scripture is impossible to translate into other languages without error is non-sensical. If that were the case, the church should teach everybody the original languages, and missionaries should do the same.

 

What kind of illogical reasoning is that? God's word was revealed over a period of roughly 1500 years or more. This is not the same as error.

And don't you think there were so called "scholars" in Jesus's day who questioned the scriptures? After all, Moses had written scripture somewhere between 1200-1400 years earlier. The land had been invaded numerous times and the temple destroyed. There were almost certainly critics who made the same attacks on scripture that you make today. And not all of the OT was written in Hebrew, I am sure they attacked that too.

 

Such twaddle. I'll take God's Word over the sophistry of the KJVOs any day.

 

Ann, are you aware this article was written by a member of Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God? A cult if there ever was one. Very similar to the Mormons, they teach that man becomes a god.

Hardly a good source for information on the scriptures.

 

I would agree with you, except the MVs are not the same as the KJV as some here have argued. The MVs are very different from the KJV (and each other) in numerous places.

The MVs are not just saying the same thing in a modern way, they are often contrary to the understanding given by the KJV for the same verse. IMO they lean heavily toward Catholic doctrine.

I will have to get back tomorrow with examples.

 

Of course thy are different from the KJV. otherwise they would only be a copy of it. Translations based uon different source texts or that follow a certain strain will be different in some points as well. That's just the way translations work.

That's funny considering that the KJV is an Anglican, or English Catholic, translation.

 

Then why do they change God's word? Why do they change numbers in the bible? Do they not believe God preserved His word? Do they not believe anyone before them was smart enough to realize that 2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 when he began to reign and 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he was 8 (or a son of 8 years)? Why do they change the numbers? They say it was a copyist mistake. If so, God didn't preserve His word. Were the Jews not smart enough to see this difference? Were the old translators?

Why, if they are so dedicated to faithfully translating God's word, do they change passages thereby introducing contradictions into the bible? In their bibles they have Paul in Galatians 3 making an argument based off the fact that a particular noun in an OT passage is singular. Well, when the person goes and looks up the OT passage in question, the scholar has a plural noun such as "descendants". This is just one example of many. This is why the old translators are far superior and why the classic english translations, even with the difficulty of language change, are superior.

If these people were so faithful to God's word they wouldn't change numbers in God's bible (even though they say they believe in preservation) and word passages and translate words such that they introduce errors and contradictions into God's word? Oh I forgot, they have the old easy out of "well God did preserve His word in the original languages, but all the english have errors." Sorry, that doesn't work.

 

We don't have an answer why 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chr 36:9 don't match up. They don't match up in the Hebrew. Some translations fudge the date to make it match up, but I believe in laying it out like it is. Again, when I get to heaven I will ask about it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in Galatians 3 as it is late and mowing today took a lot out of me. If you are talking about Abraham's seed, "seed" is not necessarily singular. I could be off base here as I am not sure which verse(s) you are talking about.

Since you are so tore up about it, what would you have done with the situation? The KJV is as full of holes as any other translation. should we burn them all? Burn the Greek and Hebrew too since it doesn't offer a simple answer? you keep going on and on but you haven't offered a solution yet. Well, here's your chance.

 

Well, I'm glad that you believe it should be presented the way it is. Unfortunately, those modern translators you are arguing in favor of don't agree with you. They think they are smarter than every other bible reader that came before and "fix" what they perceive is an error. Again, this shows what they truly believe about preservation of scripture and how faithful they are to properly translate God's word.

Paul in Galatians 3:16 Paul wrote this: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith no, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to they seed, which is Christ."

His argument is based on "seed" in the promises of God to Abraham in Genesis to be singular. The modern scholars who are so faithful to God's word and know so much about original languages contradict Paul by placing a plural noun here. They know so much about Greek and Hebrew but so little about scripture.

Again, I say this shows the way modern translators treat the scriptures. Again, I'm not opposed to a modern english translation, but not in the way these modern translations have come about.

By the way, what holes does the KJ have? I'm curious.

 

Gal 3:16 refers back to Gen 22:17-18. Looking at it in INOT, it uses the word 'zera' [figuratively fruit, plant, sowing, time, posterity]for seed in verse 17. From what I can tell, zera can be singular or plural. It looks like Paul is speaking as an oracle of God in this particular matter.

The KJV is a translation and as such it falls into the same shortcomings as any other translation. The language of the KJV hinders the understanding of it. The KJV also suffers from poor word choices in some instances, but so do all translations. If a preacher has to re-translate or correct a translation then there is a problem. All have this problem and the KJV is not immune. As for examples I would have to send them to you as I encounter them. I tend to not record them at the time.

 

You can tell the arguments are getting weak when the KJV is the benchmark because all others are Catholic Bibles. KJVO stops at nothing to attack the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3)

Again, human sophistry has won in the KJVO circles, but as for me and my house, the battle has already been won by the Word of God.

 

How many times has the KJV been accused of being a translation of Catholics and baby baptizers?

It's interesting that the RC wanted nothing to do with the KJV and therefore made their own translation. :sleep:

 

Galatians 3:16 refers back to Genesis 13:15. Regardless, though the Hebrew word can be taken singular or plural, Paul tells you what God meant and the way we should translate it. Again, lack of dilligence creates an internal inconsistency.

I want to know what shortcomings it has. You say language. I say the language is archaic, but not a complete roadblock. One thing about the KJ that modern versions lack, though they do use modern language - it is internally consistent. You may come to a word or wording that is awkward in 2010. However, you'll see the KJ using these words or phrases consistently and thus this problem is easily overcome with dilligent study.

The only argument against the KJ is one of archaic language. However, I'll take the difficulties of the KJ language over having a modern language translation that takes it upon itself to correct numbers, that is internally inconsistent, and one into which the translators introduced contradictions. I'll take accuracy with a few archaic words than inaccuracy with modern words. By the way, I've never had to re-translate the KJ. I've had to define an archaic word or two while preaching, but I'd rather do that than worry about where the translators "fixed" things.

 

In many instances the archaic language makes the KJV far superior to the MVs.

And this may sound like a silly reason to support the KJV, but the KJV is easier to memorize than the MVs.

I think anyone who tries to memorize the KJV and the MVs will easily find the KJV much easier to memorize.