The King James Only Error
Jan 30, 2020 20:39:30 GMT -5
Post by Berean on Jan 30, 2020 20:39:30 GMT -5
The King James Only Error
In my opinion, the King James Bible is the most accurate, beautiful and most eloquent of all the translations when it includes the proper updates from the Old English, but nevertheless we must remember that it is a translation of the Bible that can ultimately be traced back to the original manuscript languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Therefore the King James Bible is not God's exclusive "Preserved Word" as some people believe. If it was, then that would mean that there was no valid Bible on earth prior to 1611 when the first edition of the KJV was published. And of course such an idea is ridiculous.
Ironically, the 1611 version is an even older English version and it is almost impossible to understand. I own one. It's brutal. You pretty much can't read it. The Old English is so heavy it's almost like an entirely different language at times. Yet somehow it got updated in 1769 without a hick-up? How so? If the original 1611 version is claimed to be God's exclusive “Preserved Word” as-is, then how can the later updated and much easier to read 1769 version also be God's only “Preserved Word” ? The answer is simple, it can't be.
Additionally, if the KJV is the only valid translation, then that would also mean that any Bible translated into Chinese or Japanese for example would be invalid. Such a notion is also nonsensical. Does God only care about English speaking people? Of course not. Yet many groups refuse to defer to such common sense and so are adamantly "King-James-Only". These people will often divide from and sometimes even slander those of us who do not agree with their error.
There is also a lot of misinformation on this subject floating around on the Internet where it is claimed there there are only minor changes between the 1611 and 1769 versions. This is absolutely not true. There are enormous differences between these two editions, including a number of verses with basically different meanings. And second of all, if the 1611 edition is God's exclusive “Preserved Word”, then not a single thing should have been changed and the more modern 1769 edition should not even exist. Of course the 1769 edition is valid. It is a sound translation, especially for its time, but there is nothing wrong with another update to our even more modern English today. Additionally, it has been reported that there are some differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions of the 1769 version. I have not reviewed these differences myself, but I have no reason to doubt this.
Compared to the 1611 edition, the 1769 King James was much easier to understand for the people of that time period. From the perspective of the people who lived back then, to them 1769 was “modern times” compared to 1611. They obviously benefited greatly from the update from the hard-to-understand 1611 version.
But regardless, do you see the hypocrisy here? It was perfectly fine for the much needed 1769 edition to be published as an update of the hard-to-understand 1611 version. But here we are in 2017 and we are somehow not allowed to have another update, this time to our more modern English? These King-James-Onlyists are impossible to deal with and this battle has become quite a serious problem for the Christian Church overall.
link
In my opinion, the King James Bible is the most accurate, beautiful and most eloquent of all the translations when it includes the proper updates from the Old English, but nevertheless we must remember that it is a translation of the Bible that can ultimately be traced back to the original manuscript languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Therefore the King James Bible is not God's exclusive "Preserved Word" as some people believe. If it was, then that would mean that there was no valid Bible on earth prior to 1611 when the first edition of the KJV was published. And of course such an idea is ridiculous.
Ironically, the 1611 version is an even older English version and it is almost impossible to understand. I own one. It's brutal. You pretty much can't read it. The Old English is so heavy it's almost like an entirely different language at times. Yet somehow it got updated in 1769 without a hick-up? How so? If the original 1611 version is claimed to be God's exclusive “Preserved Word” as-is, then how can the later updated and much easier to read 1769 version also be God's only “Preserved Word” ? The answer is simple, it can't be.
Additionally, if the KJV is the only valid translation, then that would also mean that any Bible translated into Chinese or Japanese for example would be invalid. Such a notion is also nonsensical. Does God only care about English speaking people? Of course not. Yet many groups refuse to defer to such common sense and so are adamantly "King-James-Only". These people will often divide from and sometimes even slander those of us who do not agree with their error.
There is also a lot of misinformation on this subject floating around on the Internet where it is claimed there there are only minor changes between the 1611 and 1769 versions. This is absolutely not true. There are enormous differences between these two editions, including a number of verses with basically different meanings. And second of all, if the 1611 edition is God's exclusive “Preserved Word”, then not a single thing should have been changed and the more modern 1769 edition should not even exist. Of course the 1769 edition is valid. It is a sound translation, especially for its time, but there is nothing wrong with another update to our even more modern English today. Additionally, it has been reported that there are some differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions of the 1769 version. I have not reviewed these differences myself, but I have no reason to doubt this.
Compared to the 1611 edition, the 1769 King James was much easier to understand for the people of that time period. From the perspective of the people who lived back then, to them 1769 was “modern times” compared to 1611. They obviously benefited greatly from the update from the hard-to-understand 1611 version.
But regardless, do you see the hypocrisy here? It was perfectly fine for the much needed 1769 edition to be published as an update of the hard-to-understand 1611 version. But here we are in 2017 and we are somehow not allowed to have another update, this time to our more modern English? These King-James-Onlyists are impossible to deal with and this battle has become quite a serious problem for the Christian Church overall.
link
