Could the 1611 KJV have been better?

accompted

Ed: Since accompted and accounted share the same root and same meaning I think we can construct a logical argument that they are merely different forms of the same word.

A.F.

 

Could the 1611 KJV have been better?

After nearly 400 years of continuous daily use it is hard to see how.

Even now it isn't worn out. It is merely out of fashion.

I think the KJV is a gift to the English speaking world from The Lord. That gift is beyond price and shouldn't be tossed aside in contempt. It is beautiful and perfect.


A.F.

 

But is the AV 1611 perfect? Of course not.

 

Evidence? I have looked at the "evidence" for a long time now. The more I look at it the less impressed I am. It has been discussed ad nauseam in this forum.

Changes? The changes are insignificant in the KJV that most people use. Those changes have been blown out of proportion by those wanting to prove that the KJV has changed in order to make a point.

Better wording? I doubt it. Second guessers are never satisfied. That is part of the reason why there are so many versions now.

You are grossly in error if you think you can win my approval by suggesting that a gift from God is imperfect.

A.F.

 

Ed if this was the only kind of change made in the NIV you might have a point even though I still would have no use for a NIV, but this is not the only kind of change as I have pointed out before there are changes made in the NIV that cause a contradiction of the Word of God which never existed.

 

I like to see what the translators themselves had to say about their work, that way the second-guessing is minimized:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611

HankD

 

It is true that a gift from God is perfect. The original autographs were perfect. However, the KJV is not a gift from God any more than any other humanly translated Bible version. The KJV is the work of a great group of translators. But these translators were only human, and as humans they made mistakes. And since the original autographs are no longer in existence then there is no absloute perfection in any of the modern Bible versions (KJV included). What we have are merely various humanly translated versions of God's perfect word.

 

Why does God not allow us to have a perfect translation of his Word in our own language? Seems like he would care more about us than that doesn't it. What you are doing friend is saying that God abilities are limited by human imperfections.

 

Well what about those people, cultures, tribes, etc down through the ages who had NO translation whatsoever or only partial or poor translations of His Word?

The question has been asked "Could the 1611 KJV have been better?", the general consensus of those who answered seems to be "yes it could have been".

A few believe it is perfect (which one we are not sure 1611 - 1769).

If so, then are the English speaking peoples the new "Hebrews" or "chosen people"? and has the mantle of "inspiration" has been passed on to them from the Prophets and Apostles and special while others are not so special? Several radical KJVO leaders believe and teach just that and say that the 17th century English now defines the Greek and Hebrew.

The poster above is making a rhetorical observation in the statement
"What you are doing friend is saying that God abilities are limited by human imperfections".

Well, that may very well be true, He apparently has left the translation, publication and dissemination of His Word in the hands of men just as He has left the leadership of His Church in the hands of pastors and deacons.

In both cases there have been failures. It is not God's fault, it is ours.

Perhaps we should have spent spent more and better time and taken this task of preservation and transmission of the Holy Scriptures more seriously.

Perhaps there is yet time to sacrifice the resources and do the archeological work to broaden the base of ancient Scriptural documents.

There is an article in the NT Times which amazed me. The Quaker Pet Food Division had pet food sales exceeding 500 million dollars in 2005. Heinz has purchased them and expects over a billion next year as their sales were in excess of 600 million.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DF113EF936A25750C0A963958260

And yes I have pets, this is just another observation of how we (including Christians) in the western culture prioritize (or mis-prioritise) values.

We are to fault, and certainly not God.

HankD

 

You didn't deal with the question that I put forth. No one has yet. Let me make it easier for you.

Question: Why do you believe that God was either not able or did not choose to overcome human imperfection and provide us with a perfect English translation in one volume?

 

So you believe that after God inspired his holy men of God to pen down his Word that he just lifted the hedge of protection from around his Word and by doing this has left us with the poor marred translations of his Holy Word from which it will be impossible to ever have an accurate understanding because of contradictions and errors made by man. This is pitiful. If I believed this about God my faith in his provision for me would be non existant.

 

Do we need more levity inserted or just more truth?

I'll go for the truth . . .

:1_grouphug:

 

Deacon, it appears you are putting words in someone else's mouth. God did indeed inspire the writers of the original autographs. And He has protected His word down through time. God's word is perfect in English translations, whether the KJV or more modern versions, in that it conveys what is necessary for us to avoid the judgment of hell. All legitimate Bible versions contain the plan of salvation and a guide for us to live by. However, all the translations since the original autographs have been done by the hands and minds of mortal men. The perfection and inerrancy of God's word does not extend down to include each individual word. There are errors in all the modern versions including the KJV. But despite small errors in some of the words, God's word remains perfect in that it is what He has chosen to hand down to us. He has in fact protected His word and it is as pure in the NKJV and the NASB as it is in the KJV. We do not have the "poor marred translations" you refer to, but the fresh and living word of God. If I believed that God had the power to protect and deliver His word in only one single English Bible version, my faith in Him would be severely compromised and diminished. I believe God is powerful enough to preserve His word for all generations, not just in one specific version that is becoming more and more antiquated as time goes on.

 

Deacon jd: //Question: Why do you believe that God ... did not choose
to overcome human imperfection and provide us with
a perfect English translation in one volume?//

Actually God already put down an answer:

1 Corinthians 1:27 (KJV1611 Edition):
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world,
to confound the wise:
and God hath chosen the weake things of the world,
to confound the things which are mighty:

God has chosen the foolishness of having many
books (Bible Versions) to confound the
self-proclaimed wise One-Bookers.
God has chosen the weak things of the world
having many books (Bible Versions) to
confound the self-procclaimed mighty One-Bookers.

 

Ed, that is a very interesting way of looking at it. I never thought of that. Thanks. I'm not a one booker by the way. I do prefer the NKJV though.

 

Besides, if we had a perfect version, that would cut our sermons back by at least 20 minutes, the time we use to explain what is really meant by the passage at hand.

Oh, good grief. What is a preacher to do?

Cheers,

Jim