'King James Version.'?

Question

How can you say even a TRANSLATION of the bible is divinely inspired when there is no such thing as a perfect/direct translation. Bear in mind that King James also is likely to have had some sort of political agenda. Do you really think he had no say in what was translated, in the context of Protestant v. Catholic? How can you call a translation of a work divinely inspired, regardless of the nature of the work translated? Besides, everyone knows that there are errors of translation in this work; people didn't have the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew that we have today. 'Divinely inspired' translation? How?!

primo, you haven't even attempted to answer any of the points i raised in my question. try again.

Answer 1

Kent Hovind will assassinate you when he escapes from Edgefield F.C.I. Watch your back...

Answer 2

You limit God! You put Him in a little box that allows Him to do what you think He can do and no more! God will never fit into your box, and so all your concepts of what He can do and who He is will be in gross error.

Your question implies that the God who created the entire universe and sustains it by His own might and power is totally incapable of making sure His words are not preserved the way He wants them. This is a very bold presumption for you to make with you puny finite mind while trying to understand an infinite being who owes you no explanation of any kind.

You will never understand anything about the Bible until you repent of your sin and ask Christ to forgive you and let God completely rejuvenate your life. At that point in time God will respond to your repentance with a divine revelation of who He really is - not who you wished He was or think He is. All your questions will be answered in their necessary order if you learn to hear from God. He who sent His Son to die in your place is not unwilling to communicate truth to you.

The supposed errors are bunk because they constitute an infinitesimal part of scripture and don't change the meaning or context from one "version" to another. I don't refer to the paraphrases because they are not reliable - they are only a man reading the Bible and then writing down what he thinks it says and publishing it. The versions of the Bible ( excepting the Duoay Rheims and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ) are basically the same in text and meaning. The Duoay Rheims containing the Apochrypha contains serious misinterpretation of Christian teaching and is Catholic dogma. The New World Translation is a perversion of the Holy Bible produced for the Jehovah's Witnesses and was disproved in a court of law long ago.

The real clincher for me is that I know God personally - and as I talk with Him He reveals His word to be exactly that - His Word - the Holy Bible.

Answer 3

The Bible itself is divinely inspired by its author. Translations are just like translations of any book into another language.

We know from comparison to the oldest manuscripts that modern translations are pretty accurate, especially if you compare several on the same verses. Then you get a more accurate indication of what the writer was inspired to say.

For example: The Greeks had four words for love in English. English has words that have several meanings depending on how it is used in a sentence or emphasis on different syllables.

Answer 4

just steer these fanatics towards looking at one of the KJ originals which says in it's intro many of the points you suggest.

Still it is a good litteral translation on the important matters like not causing desenttion among believers. You might want to review those scriptures when asking questions and trying to help people onto the right path. There is this little pitfall which the scripture says can stop one from entering the Kingdom when it becomes a life style.

Answer 5

The KJV of the Bible was not the first English version, yet it's pretty close to the ones that came before it. It's also pretty close to the ones that came after, as well as the versions translated into other languages.

I used to think that King James had his own agenda as well, and that maybe he had the Bible translated the way he wanted it to be.

The problem with that idea is that the Bible has since been translated from the oldest copies we possess (oldest copies of the New Testament are from the late 1st century/early second century; the oldest of the Old Testament date back to before Christ), and it still says the same thing.

Answer 6

The doctrine of perfection that attaches to the Bible, especially the one that King James decided to have made, caused some problems. Most notably the one that omitted the word "not" in "Thou shalt not commit adultery".
I suspect there were many relieved believers when that version came out, since they felt that it was no longer a sin. The ones hoping that murder would be okay were probably disappointed.

Answer 7

Try addressing this point. Its been proved that there are no mistakes in the "Thou shalt not's" and the "Thou shalts". And its obvious that your wanting to practice the truth. So are you keeping these my friend? We also have now the NASB Bible, it is so close to the Greek that those who are studying Greek theology are using it instead of the Greek. Maybe that would be something you would be interested in.

Answer 8

Translation is insipired by, if anything, the need to understand text; divinity would not be a factor in translating ancient text.

Answer 9

You should ask people who speak other languages as well as English how closely their translations match the King James English match.

Answer 10

Well we don't have any original text. All that exist are copies of copies so maybe we should just do away with it all.

Of course KJ had an agenda. Of course he had a say in what was translated.

Answer 11

People who think that the KJ version of the bible is anything like the original are very funny, in a sad sort of way, for their huge lack of understanding.