Ping
Are you arguing for the KJV being the most accurate translation of the ancient texts, or are you arguing for the KJV being a divinely inspired translation of the ancient texts? There are some who would argue for the latter.
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If they should be all recorded one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
John 21: 25
*** The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language.
Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word. ***
But what did the TRANSLATORS of the KJV have to say?
From the Translators to the Reader (Found in older Cambridge Bibles)
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm
§ 13 [An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.]
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
• 11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.
But the New Testament of the Catholics had appeared in 1582, and it made its way into the Authorized Version in a few places. Besides using some of the language of the Catholic New Testament—especially Latinisms, or traditional ecclesiastical terms—the KJV also follows the textual basis of the Rheims-Douai—that is, the Latin Vulgate—in nearly 100 places. In ten places, the Authorized Version “abandons all known Greek manuscripts for the Latin Vulgate.”
*Of course, one of the "wicked bibles" was the kjv which, accidentally, left out the word NOT so the reader was told, Thou shalt committ adultery
bump for later
Watch the box.
Regarding the KJV (King James Version)-Only controversy; there is at least one serious doctrinal error in the KJV; in the KJV, in Romans, the text reads "The Spirit Itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." The Holy Spirit is not an "It"! The Holy Spirit is a "He"! This could encourage the Jehovah's Witnesses and Armstrongites, and the followers of Jacob O. Meyer and his "Assemblies of Yahweh", all of whom believe the Holy Spirit is not a Divine Person, but rather an impersonal energy force, a mere "it". This is a SERIOUS ERROR in the KJV. Only the Greek Old Testament LXX and the Greek N.T. Textus Receptus (Byzantine/Majority texts) are inspired of God the Holy Spirit.
Sincerely, Scott Harrington
Erie, PA