Comment on KJV Only by TheBoldMouse
Are you genuinely interested in hearing my answers to your questions because you're searching for the truth? Or are you asking questions just for the sake of debating? If all you're looking for is debate, then I'm not really interested.
I do not think there is such a thing as "the truth", but I am always open for new angles on an issue, yes.
Just as I am open to having my mind changed if the arguments are sound enough and hold up to close scrutiny.
Granted, you probably won't sway me on my general stance towards religions (all of them, not only yours in particular), since the arguments and rationales I base that stance on are very solid - to shake that, it would require something even more solid, which no religious believer has yet been able to show me...
But I do ask out of genuine interest in this particular thing, yes. It interests me why you hold one translation out of an immense number of translations in such high regards.
I mean ... at the end of the day, it's still a translation of a translation. I don't get that people take it literally when it's definitely susceptible to a non-neglectable degree of inaccuracy.
(Of course, I don't understand why people take bronze-age scripture literally at all in the first place, but that's an entirely different matter)
Just as I am open to having my mind changed if the arguments are sound enough and hold up to close scrutiny.
Granted, you probably won't sway me on my general stance towards religions (all of them, not only yours in particular), since the arguments and rationales I base that stance on are very solid - to shake that, it would require something even more solid, which no religious believer has yet been able to show me...
But I do ask out of genuine interest in this particular thing, yes. It interests me why you hold one translation out of an immense number of translations in such high regards.
I mean ... at the end of the day, it's still a translation of a translation. I don't get that people take it literally when it's definitely susceptible to a non-neglectable degree of inaccuracy.
(Of course, I don't understand why people take bronze-age scripture literally at all in the first place, but that's an entirely different matter)
What do you mean by saying there is no such thing as "the truth"? Are you saying there is no absolute truth?
I regard the KJV translation above the other English translations because its manuscripts trace back to Antioch (where the disciples were first called Christians), and that Psalm 12:6-7 tells me that God has preserved His words forever. This leads me to conclude that there is, and always has been, a perfect translation of God's word on this planet. If you do want to learn more, you can check out ---> av1611.com/kjbp/
I regard the KJV translation above the other English translations because its manuscripts trace back to Antioch (where the disciples were first called Christians), and that Psalm 12:6-7 tells me that God has preserved His words forever. This leads me to conclude that there is, and always has been, a perfect translation of God's word on this planet. If you do want to learn more, you can check out ---> av1611.com/kjbp/
I cannot be absolutely certain, of course (nobody can be absolutely certain of anything, really), but no, I do not think such a thing as absolute truth exists. Truth is always relative, it always depends upon a frame of reference to make sense, to be coherent. Small example: One might claim that 1 +1 = 2 is an absolute truth. But it's not, it is only true within a certain mathematical framework. In binary math, it is not true, for example, there it would be 1 + 1 = 10. And without the framework of mathematics to make sense of it, 1 + 1 = 2 would have no meaning whatsoever.
So ... if the KJV is, as you claim, a perfect translation ... how come it had to go through several editions? How come the initial versions contained the apocryphal books as well? One would think that a perfectly preserved translation would have no need to be edited further, and that it would not include books that are considered non-inspired by protestant christians.
Besides, there is still the issue of King James' political motives, which directly influenced the translation (one would think that a mere, mortal king with very worldly motives and convictions shouldn't be able to meddle with the "perfeclty preserved translation" however he saw fit, right?), as evidenced by his translation rules.
Lastly ... having manuscripts written in Koine Greek translated by monks and scribes who were not familiar with Koine Greek (to the point of not even realizing the dialect existed at all) and therefore had a rather limited understanding of it would also seem to be a source of error, if you ask me ...
So ... if the KJV is, as you claim, a perfect translation ... how come it had to go through several editions? How come the initial versions contained the apocryphal books as well? One would think that a perfectly preserved translation would have no need to be edited further, and that it would not include books that are considered non-inspired by protestant christians.
Besides, there is still the issue of King James' political motives, which directly influenced the translation (one would think that a mere, mortal king with very worldly motives and convictions shouldn't be able to meddle with the "perfeclty preserved translation" however he saw fit, right?), as evidenced by his translation rules.
Lastly ... having manuscripts written in Koine Greek translated by monks and scribes who were not familiar with Koine Greek (to the point of not even realizing the dialect existed at all) and therefore had a rather limited understanding of it would also seem to be a source of error, if you ask me ...
"nobody can be absolutely certain of anything, really" <--- Isn't this an absolute statement though?
The "editions" of the KJV are nothing more than revisions that were made because of printing errors and font changes between 1611 and 1769. These had no bearing on the translation itself --->
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/revisions.…
The Apocrypha was originally included for its historical value, but was never regarded as scripture by the translators, which was why it was placed between the OT and NT sections of the Bible and not interspersed throughout--->
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/apocrypha.…
I read the preface to the KJB, and I read that part of the motive for putting that Bible together was to bring God's truth to the English people. The catholic church was keeping everyone in the dark by doing its best to keep God's word out of peoples' possession. This enabled the catholic church to control them more easily, and this was something that King James and the translators were very much against. That is far from being a worldly motive.
As far as I know, I don't think any monks worked on the translation. Can you show me any links or other resources for that?
Actually, the translators of the KJB were very knowledgeable in Koine Greek. They were the most qualified people of their time to translate the Bible.
www.chick.com/ask/articles/tra…
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/inspiratio…
The "editions" of the KJV are nothing more than revisions that were made because of printing errors and font changes between 1611 and 1769. These had no bearing on the translation itself --->
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/revisions.…
The Apocrypha was originally included for its historical value, but was never regarded as scripture by the translators, which was why it was placed between the OT and NT sections of the Bible and not interspersed throughout--->
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/apocrypha.…
I read the preface to the KJB, and I read that part of the motive for putting that Bible together was to bring God's truth to the English people. The catholic church was keeping everyone in the dark by doing its best to keep God's word out of peoples' possession. This enabled the catholic church to control them more easily, and this was something that King James and the translators were very much against. That is far from being a worldly motive.
As far as I know, I don't think any monks worked on the translation. Can you show me any links or other resources for that?
Actually, the translators of the KJB were very knowledgeable in Koine Greek. They were the most qualified people of their time to translate the Bible.
www.chick.com/ask/articles/tra…
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/inspiratio…