drummer4Him said:
Mentioned elsewhere, we have had long and unhappy dealings with KJV Only folks. The statement "...the infallible KJV..." above is just a fraction of the unsupported and obviously errant teachings of these folks. I hasten to say that many (not all) KJV Only adherants are genuine believers.
The comparison of the KJV and the NIV in a post on this thread that makes a comparison between the two re the so-called "Lord's Prayer" as found in Luke 11:2ff is a good case in point.
PLEASE compare the Luke reference with the presentation of said prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. You will find that they are not only not identical, but that in Matthew we find the phrase "...forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." i.e. in the same manner. If forgiveness for the Christian is predicated upon his/her absolute obedience to this prayer, then there will be lots of Christians that will not be forgiven, and if not... good luck. It is plain that this was spoken before the New Covenant came into being.
Will risk being clobbered (again) by posting a study done years ago re the subject at hand.
QUESTIONS
Who was it (among the KJV Only advocates) that decided the work of King James translators was inspired, and how did they reach that decision? Were there Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholars among them? And if not, upon what basis did they come to their decision? If there were scholars among them (and I have so far read nothing written by KJV Only advocates that would indicate scholarship in the necessary disciplines; rather their work seems mostly to consist of counting the differences between the KJV and "modern" versions), who gave them the right or authority to follow in the footsteps of the Roman Church, which for centuries forbade the publishing of the Scriptures in any but the Latin tongue?
Which one of the several editions of the KJV is supposed to be the correct (or inspired) one? I have in my possession four KJV Bibles, two of which read:
"...whom ye had set..." and two of which read: "...whom he had set..." in the middle of Jeremiah 34 verse 16. If, as some of the more radical KJV Only advocates claim, we are not to research the original languages but just accept the KJV as written, how do we arrive at the correct rendering of this verse?
On the title page of the New Testament KJV, we find:
THE
NEW TESTAMENT
OF
OF
OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR
JESUS CHRIST:
TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK; AND
WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY
COMPARED AND REVISED
BY HIS MAJESTYS SPECIAL COMMAND
-------------------------
APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES
-------------------------
The very title page of both the 1611 Version and later versions of the KJV tells us that King James translators, in addition to using the Greek manuscripts available to them, diligently compared their work with the earlier ones (such as Tyndales and the Geneva and Bishops Bibles, among others), and that their translation was in many parts a revision of the earlier work rather than a newly inspired version.
Since starting this study, I have acquired a reprint of the original 1611 KJV. It is interesting to note the differences between the 1611 version and the later versions.
Also, in both the dedication to the king (found in the 1611 edition) and also several pages immediatelyfollowing the dedication titled:
THE TRANSLATORS
TO THE READER
the translators repeatedly state that they used previous translations in their work.
If the 1611 translators were inspired by God in their translation work, why did they themselves declare that they worked "...out of the Original Tongues, together with comparing the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue..."
(from the dedication of the 1611 version: "To The Most High And Mighty Prince James; By the Grace of God King of Great Britain, France, And Ireland; Defender Of The Faith, &c.")
Obviously, the 1611 translators themselves did not consider their work "inspired" by God, or they would not have had to consult prior translations.
I love and use the KJV daily. But it is (in my view) not only obvious folly to claim inspiration for the KJV, but contradicts the testimony of the very translators of that same KJV!
In the sense that Almighty God preserved His Word over the centuries, there can be no doubt. But it is not restricted to the KJV alone. One might ask whether the German people, or perhaps those who speak only Spanish believe that they have Gods Word in their languages..... The response from true believers would unquestionably be in the affirmative.
Rather than allowing the issue discussed above to be one that divides believers (and make no mistake, it does just that), we should concentrate on sharing Gods Word with those who have no knowledge of either His Word or Himself.
W.A.B.
Upvote
0
, and The NIV is not really international now is it. I mean is it read in France, Spain, and Germany and Russia? I think not. How can one trust a translation that sports a lie on the cover?
