Thank you for clarifying your position. If I may, a couple of follow-up points.
Was God's word preserved in the portions of the Tyndale Bible that were completed?
Though inferior in some ways was God's word preserved in the Bishop's Bible?
And perhaps the one I am most interested in, could God's word be preserved in a New English Translation that worked from the same manuscripts as the KJV, but sought to update some of the archaic terms, in your view?
There can only be one version, verbatim, word for word unchangeable of the Word of God in English or there is NO Word of God in English. If you go making a New English Translation (and I believe their is a modern version by that title), then you are saying the Word of God is uncertain and subject to your own preference of choice of words. The King James Bible replaced all former versions and has never been replaced and never will be. It is the Word of God in English.
The King James Bible was commissioned by King James to once and for all make translation of the highest standard by the best scholars who could be assembled for the task. I have not been able to find a list a variances in the Bishop's Bible, but the Geneva Bible has many differences which were ruled out by the King James Authorized translation.
The Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible both followed the Textus Receptus. I really don't know if the Bishop's Bible differed with the King James Bible. If it did not, then it was the Word of God in English. I know the Geneva Bible had many big differences. Both of them were either replaced and/or corrected by the King James Bible.
There can't be more than one version of the Word of God. Incorrect versions had to be corrected or layed aside. This is what the King James Authorized Version did.
My Bible gives definitioins in thesaurus fashion of uncommon words, but it does not change them. If you go changing words, you are changing meanings. Different words ephasize different meanings. Try to understand God according to His Word, not change His Word to make Him easier to understand. Changing His Word will only distory His character and exalt your own feelings of superior intellect and that is pride.
Copyright laws demand a certain number of substantial changes from the derived source before a new edition can be copyrighted. Because of this, all modern versions while claiming to be updated language make changes that cause them to be read at a higher grade level than the King james Bible. It's better to leave the difficult words as they are and try to understand why God chose them. Context of God's Word is more important and not to be meddled with my changing words.
Research the old words, don't change them. There is nothing wrong with trying to explain meanings, but when you go changing the Word of God and saying we don't have it accurately preserved, then there is a problem which goes back to Genisis 3 when the serpent said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said..."...There is no need for a new translation. There will never be a translation used by God as the King James Bible has been, and there will never be a translation as hated as the King James Bible has been and is today.
The King James Bible put to rest the competition between different prior versions, Any new translation must be rejeceted before it is made. We have the Word of God in our language today, there is no need for another translation.
Thank you for asking honest questions and allowing for honest answers. I do not mean to be harsh with opponents, but the issue here is faith vx. pride....either we believe God desired for us to have His Word today without error, or we think we have to make it up for ourselves to suit ourselves, of course based on our own intellectual persuits and preferences which may be backed by all kinds of college degrees. This is intellectual pride and the Bible is against it. We have to let the Word of God speak against the self-deceiving, self-exalting, self-glorifying, and self-satisfying nature of our pride with is the seat of our sin nature.
People who cannot listen to this angle respectfully and cannot voice disagreement without insulting obviously are blinded by their own pride.
I have personally known several Godly men, with fruitful ministries of many souls saved and many lives changed in wonderful if not completely miraculous ways, who did not hold to the inerrant translation of the Word of God into English preserved in the King James Bible. These men would not stand around an argue about it and I respected them highly. They simply did not understand the controversy of the new versions and because God's hand was obviously in thier ministries, I did not feel compelled to make an issue with them. They held to all fundamental Biblical doctrines in full agreement with me, and i'm sure they would have burned their modern versions if they understood the history of them and saw how they changed key passages and doctrines. Men like Charles Stanley and J. Vernon McGhee with his "a better translation would be" simply made a mistake and would do better to say.."his can be understood as" and explain the passage rather than to question the preservation of the Word of God in English......but I'm sure not going to pick a fight with a godly man like Charles Stanley over the issue. As long as they hold to the solid doctrines of the Bible, I'll give them a pass. But people who come on here to fight agaisnt the King James Bible are making a mistake. If they have a ministry, they should humbly be focusing on it, and not focusiing on discrediting the Word of God..
