First, you did not grow up in the time of Paul whereby you truly experienced Biblical Greek within a real world experienced culture.
Yeah, and neither did translators living in the early 17th century.
You are only guessing as to what the language is saying based on what others have said (and not based on personal liguistic experience).
This is more than a little erroneously presumptuous on your part. I spent half a decade in seminary, at CVBI, learning the original languages from Dr. Hyatt, a renowned Fullerton alumni, and much of the rest of my life studying text variations and comparing a panoply of translations, many of which have not been in English and several of which have been in ancient tongues (e.g. Syriac and Armenian translations).
Can you name the members of this alphabet for me without some online cheat sheet?
Or Greek?
Thirty years ago I was practically mouthing these letters and their associated vocabulary in my sleep. And I say none of this to stand on some high horse. It is a demonstration of your unwarranted presumption. You know
nothing about my personal linguistic experience, and are absolutely welcome to test it.
Second, the text of KJV can be proven to be divine just by:
Neither of these that you've provided is a biblical test for the divine origin of something. That is, unless you're somehow capable of supplying scripture references that demonstrate that your litmus for divine origin is biblical.
(a) Doing a side by side comparison of the KJV with Modern Translations.
The modern translations aren't a standard for comparison. If the KJV has any merits they are within it's relationship
to the autographs, through the manuscript tradition.
(b) By studying Biblical Numerics within the KJV. Check out King James Code by Mike Hoggard at YouTube.
This is absurd. And I say that not in the spirit of denigration or disparagement, but as an exclamation that the
only proper standard for determining the merits of a translation is again it's relationship
with the autographs.
This is your "divinely translated bible":
And this is the closest iteration we have of the genuine article:
Guess what they didn't have on hand in the 17th century? Manuscripts even close to as old as the 2nd century. Neither did they have one of the Nicene era codexes like Codex Sinaiticus for that matter. Nope, they were translating from the Textus Receptus which Desiderius Erasmus had collated from Byzantine manuscripts, the oldest of which can't have been older than the 11th century. And vocabulary wise they were in numerous instances just plain factually wrong.
Looks like you could use
a proper introductory text instead of some youtube video.
To understand how the books of the New Testament have come to us, we must know how books were written in the first Christian century. At that time, and during the previous three centuries when the Old Testament was being translated into Greek, books were very different from what they are today. Throughout the Graeco-Roman world, which included Palestine and Syria, books were written on papyrus, a material made out of the pith of the stems of the papyrus plant, which grew plentifully in the Nile. This pith was cut into thin strips, which were joined by glue and water and pressed into sheets, and these sheets were fastened together, side by side, so as to form long rolls, on which the writing was inscribed in columns. It is only within our own time that we have come to know much about papyrus books; and this is entirely due to the discoveries that have been made in Egypt.
