You don't know do you? You listened to a sermon defending the KJV that claimed how much superior the scholars were. Did you ever read any of their other works? Did you ever research the people from today. I seriously doubt it.

I used to distribute James Knox's series on the KJV - the 20 message set. I hosted it for years and made hundreds of CD copies. He makes the same general claims about the translators that you have. Can you point me to real evidence about translators today versus the ones from 400 years ago? Even a reputable book with notes and a bibliography that you have read to prove your point?

[Luke]

What are your objections Eric. Set them up and I pray that God will give me the knowledge to knock them down through His word. I don't have all the answers, but I know I have some, because I have listened, and heard, this truth.

Hey Luke thanks for jumping in the mix... Take a look at the other thread titled Bible Version Challenge... I really do welcome your response...

Thanks,
Eric

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by ericwgreene

Prove it.

You claim to have once "been KJV-Only." It's hard to imagine what "proof" would satisfy your demand.

The reality is that God's word has to be accepted on faith. While I can easily prove the corrupt nature of modern Bible translations and their underlying manuscripts, "proving" that the KJV is God's word without error is, frankly, impossible.

There is a mountain of information pointing the way, but only the Holy Spirit is going to convince someone of the truth.

I actually investigated the Bible in several other languages, and KJV always turned out to be the most consistent one, when comparing the translation with the original language. I always attributed it to the fact that the translators of KJV had no agenda: King James said to translate the Bible accurately, and they did it. I figured it was not that hard to translate it accurately (if you knew what you were doing), but the translators of today always have an agenda: either simplify (I am sure that's not uncommon), make it sound good (the Message), translate it to allow more things that are really allowed (saying "spouse of one person at the present time" instead of "husband of one wife (altogether)" for the requirements of a deacon), &c.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by ericwgreene

Did you ever research the people from today. I seriously doubt it.

For a few of the translators and consultants from today, I have watched them on the forums, written to them, talked to them and read their material. In my experience they range from abysmal to mediocre to fair, occasionally up to 'ok'.

They simply don't give the sense of really being immersed in the classical or semitic languages, often they give the feel of simply being lexicon scholars, not able to speak and read fluently the languages they are translating.

It is easy to read about the scholars in Oxford and Cambridge in the 1600's and you quickly learn that they were a whole different set of folks. They were Bible believers, to begin with, while today's crews of textual critics and translators are a motley crew at best.

And the King James Bible translators did not do a short computer search to learn a word, looking up some Word Study source, they spoke and read fluently the languages. (Incidentally, William Tyndale on the Greek and the Geneva Bible forerunners were quite skilled as well.)

There simply is no comparison.

Here is a simple example. Try to find out how many of the current crop of OT translators would read and know and understand the Mikra'ot Gadalot. Do they know thoroughly the grammar and and word-interpretive understandings of Rashi, Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi ? If you can find a modern Chrisian translation of the OT (often the King James Bible agrees with the Jewish translations against the modern version errors) where there are a number of people savvy on the Hebraics at that level (without even getting into the Targumim and Midrashim and more) please let me know the translation name and the scholars.

Also, John Hinton has written excellently about the rabbit-trails these mediocre scholars do try to hop down.

Shalom,
Steven

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

For a few of the translators and consultants from today, I have watched them on the forums, written to them, talked to them and read their material. In my experience they range from abysmal to mediocre to fair, occasionally up to 'ok'.

They simply don't give the sense of really being immersed in the classical or semitic languages, often they give the feel of simply being lexicon scholars, not able to speak and read fluently the languages they are translating.

It is easy to read about the scholars in Oxford and Cambridge in the 1600's and you quickly learn that they were a whole different set of folks. They were Bible believers, to begin with, while today's crews of textual critics and translators are a motley crew at best.

And the King James Bible translators did not do a short computer search to learn a word, looking up some Word Study source, they spoke and read fluently the languages. (Incidentally, William Tyndale on the Greek and the Geneva Bible forerunners were quite skilled as well.)

There simply is no comparison.

Here is a simple example. Try to find out how many of the current crop of OT translators would read and know and understand the Mikra'ot Gadalot. Do they know thoroughly the grammar and and word-interpretive understandings of Rashi, Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi ? If you can find a modern Chrisian translation of the OT (often the King James Bible agrees with the Jewish translations against the modern version errors) where there are a number of people savvy on the Hebraics at that level (without even getting into the Targumim and Midrashim and more) please let me know the translation name and the scholars.

Also, John Hinton has written excellently about the rabbit-trails these mediocre scholars do try to hop down.

Shalom,
Steven

Great Post, and "nail-on-the-head!"

The thread starter needs to A). Fix his attitude,,, and then-

B). Get a booklet from the Trinitarian Bible Society titled: "The Learned Men" , and read about the gents that were tasked with translating the Bible in 1604.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by Diligent

The reality is that God's word has to be accepted on faith. While I can easily prove the corrupt nature of modern Bible translations and their underlying manuscripts, "proving" that the KJV is God's word without error is, frankly, impossible.

There is a mountain of information pointing the way, but only the Holy Spirit is going to convince someone of the truth.

I would also say that there is no truly "neutral" ground on earth. Even the most objective research contains a bias. Given the same set of facts, one would end up being an evolutionist or a creationist. So with the Word of God; one has to either believe it or not. I would say to everyone on both sides of the KJV issue, "Choose your bias!"

Ok, I'll let my ignorance shine here, what is;"GCBI"? I came out of the oneness pentecostal movement a couple years ago, I'm learning but never came across that one before.

[Luke]

I think it's a local church Bible Institute. Since there are thousands of them in the states I am not sure why Eric thought anyone would have heard of that one.

I checked the website, seems okay.