Changing The Word of God.

Agreed!

But by that reasoning, why not start with Wycliffe's translation (1395) as a 'common translation', since it had been around and used, long before the 1611 KJV?

Who are the "we"? Mongolians, Hungarians, Brazilians, Chinese people, and many others don't speak English as their "mother-tongue". Are you saying that they (or at least, those who would translate the bible into their languages) should learn the English of the KJV as a "bridge language" between Hebrew/Greek and their own language? Why? Why can they not translate from the original Greek and Hebrew into their languages, as the translators of the KJV did? The title-page of the 1611 KJV says: "The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament and the New, newly translated out of the Originall Tongues.....(etc.)"

Please don't misunderstand me - the KJV is a great translation. BUT it is a translation. If we make it the standard for translating the bible into other languages (including contemporary English), we will end up with a translation of a translation.

 

I know of countries that do not have a translation of the Bible in their "mother tongue." To make a translation from a translation is committing "translational suicide." You will never come up with an accurate translation. No translation is inspired. No translation is free from error. Inspite of the best efforts of the KJV translators their translation was not without error and they were one of the first ones to admit, as they say in their dedicatory or introduction. It was not "faultless." Every translation loses meaning.
In Romans 6:2, "God forbid," is the expression used, where neither "God" nor "forbid" are in the original Greek.
Throughout 1Tim.3 where the office of a deacon is described, there is no such thing as an "office." The word "office" is not found in the Greek.
There is no such thing as a unicorn.
In Phil.3:20, "our conversation" is not in heaven. Perhaps our citizenship is, but not our conversation.

These are some of the weaknesses of the KJV. There are many, many more. Every translation loses meaning. What did the KJV translators do? What did they say:
"The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament and the New, newly translated out of the Originall Tongues.....(etc.)"

This is the only way to give a nation a translation. To translate from the original tongues, or languages, not from another translation. Translation to translation ends up in inaccuracy. It passes down errors which becomes greater errors. The standard is the original languages from which new translations always should be made. If that is not our standard we are in big trouble.

3) Create your 'new' interpretations of the original writings as individual manuscripts, with references to the KJV Bible scriptures that you believe may hold a different meaning, and why.

What I am trying to say, is, "Have a 'common Bible' interpretation, as a starting point." This way, we all have the same KJV text as the starting point, and all 'speak the same language'. Branching out from the KJV Bible to other translations, would be through personal preference. At the moment, we are seeing people choosing a 'new' bible, over the KJV Bible. In many cases, the knowledge of the KJV Bible has been lost to those who have discarded it. We no longer talk the same language. :jesus:[/QUOTE]

 

Ann, I respectfully disagree to some extent with your use of "study" to make your point.

Study Definition:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/study
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/study
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/study
http://www.yourdictionary.com/study (expand the included dictionaries)
http://www.definitions.net/definition/study

Within these modern dictionaries, there's an equivalent to "endeavor diligently".

Personal opinion coming up. :type:

I do like your use of the word "study" and the definition referenced "To endeavor diligently". II Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, ...

And, Prov 13:4 The soul of a sluggard desireth, and have nothing: But the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.

I've read the arguments over and over again regarding the KJV and change in usage of language. Including the difficulty with understanding specific words. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with using a good dictionary to look up words, such as "sluggard". Doesn't matter if it's a word from any version of a bible or a hobby magazine. We commend students for using a dictionary in their secular studies. Yet, there's a constant demand, stated need by many, that a dictionary shouldn't be a part of bible study.

I've seen it stated by many something to this effect: I shouldn't have to pull out a dictionary to understand the Bible. The KJV is too hard to read. What happened to "endeavor diligently"? The word "sluggard" comes to mind, as does "a workman that needeth not be ashamed".

In closing, just to see what would turn up I did a verse comparison of Proverbs 13:4. Found here. http://www.biblestudytools.com/proverbs/13-4-compare.html Of the English ones that I could read, it's interesting to note how many different ways the meaning of this verse was changed in an effort to avoid "sluggard" -- found in any dictionary.

 

There's a problem with that, though. When we encounter words like "sluggard", "phylactery" and "bewray", we would know that we might need a dictionary. Those words are not in everyday use today.

But what about words like "carriage", "compass", "prevent", and "peculiar"? Words that are still in current use, but with completely different meanings to now to what they meant back in 1611. OK, in some cases, the context will show that the word must obviously have changed its meaning, but if not, how would we know we even needed to consult a dictionary? Think of Isaiah 10.28:

He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:
​

Why should we even think that "carriages" there has any different meaning to "wheeled vehicles"? Yet it does have a different meaning. I'm told it means "equipment" or "supplies".

Or think how Paul, describing a sea voyage, in Acts 28.13, says:

And from thence [B]we fetched a compass[/B], and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
​

Why would we think of looking up "fetch" or "compass" in a dictionary? We know what both those words mean now, and if we apply those meanings here, it seems to make sense: "we obtained a direction-finding device." But Paul is not saying that at all. He is saying that the ship circled around. Indeed it's exactly the same Greek word that in Hebrews 11.37 is translated: "wandered about".

And the same thing applies to the word "study". I have just looked in two English dictionaries.

The first, Encarta World English Dictionary, gives 5 meanings for the verb "to study": 1. to learn about something 2. to take an educational course 3. to investigate something 4. to look at and consider something 5. to learn lines (of a play).

Collins English Dictionary gives: 1. to be engaged in the learning or understanding of a subject 2. to look at someone or something closely.

So, even supposing someone reading the AV (KJV) somehow realised that they needed to look up "study" in a dictionary, that person would have to have some way of knowing which dictionary.

 

1. This sounds very different and much subdued from saying other translations are from satan.

2. You are correct that we no longer talk the same language. We do not speak the same language that the KJV was written in. Therefore we need a different translation that is in our language.

 

I'm sorry that you feel my mention of languages other than English is a different problem, but as you do, fine, I'll confine myself to English.

What I was trying to do in my earlier post was to ask why the 1611 translation of the bible into English should be the standard against which otrher translations into English are made or evaluiated. This was in answer to your suggestion:

Start with the KJV Bible, as a 'common translation', since it has been around and used, long before these new 'bibles'.
​

That sort of reasoning just doesn't seem right, because the KJV was by no means the first translation of the bible into English. Somebody alive in 1611 could have said, "Why do we need this new bible? What's wrong with the Geneva, or Coverdale, Tyndale or Wycliffe? They have been around and used for many years now." It is not just modern translations that differ from one another - if the 1611 was exactly the same as the Geneva, and so on back to Wycliffe's translation made in 1395, then what was the purpose of the later translations, including the 1611?

Does that make what I was trying to say before any clearer?