[bibleprotector]

Nah, he's saying "insist on some non-existant Cambridge perfect text that is definable..." He's saying there's no perfect Cambridge.

I am not saying that perfection is undefinable either.

“And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:12).

I believe that there are believers who DO have the Word. I am not one of those who denies perfection. I am not seeking and searching for the Word of God.

"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." (Isaiah 34:16).

Clearly the book of the Lord exists. Those who find it are not still seeking for it.

There is a superstitious clinging to the old English by some KJV-only people that is unnecessary. For the scriptures to be inspired and for their authority to be retained does not require us to have to labor over words that are no longer part of our language. I appreciate the following explanation:

. . . we have to distinguish material and verbal authority. A phrase to remember here is authoritas divina duplex, which means "twofold divine authority." We must come to see the authority of Scripture in two senses. The first is authoritas rerum—the authority of the "things" of Scripture, the substance of the text. This authority pertains to the text of Scripture in the original languages, and also to accurate translations of that original.

As Christians, we also believe in verbal inspiration, which means we must hold to authoritas verborum, the authority of the words of Scripture. But this authority belongs only to the text in its original form, in the original languages. The authoritas verborum is an external and "accidental" authority which always falls away necessarily in the process of translation. No translation is capable of preserving this authority. The historic Protestant position is that a good translation of the Scripture preserved the authority of Scripture with regard to the substance of the text (quoad res). The same cannot be said with regard to the words of the text itself (quoad verba).

This means that the words of an English translation, even a good one, do not carry inspired verbal authority. But if the English translation is poorly done, it does begin to adversely affect the material authority. For example, the English word world in John 3:16, has material authority, but not verbal authority. In order to grasp the verbal authority, we have to see and understanad the Greek word kosmos. If the word kosmos were translated into English poorly, say, as shopping mall, the translation would lose its material authority as well.

All these distinctions are necessary in order to remember that a strict formal equivalence translation is not an attempt to acquire strict verbal authority for a translation (which cannot be done), but rather to preserve material authority for that translation. This is because material authority can be forfeited or greatly diminished whenever the translation is done poorly. Given the nature of language, material authority could be lost in one fell swoop (e.g. translating kosmos as toaster oven), or could be lost by gradations (e.g. translating kosmos as land). . .

Now a good translation also has to go successfully into the receiving language. This is one place where the AV does require some continued revision. The AV was revised regularly up until 1769, and that process should continue. He speaketh does not represent the original any more successfully than he speaks, and for many contemporary readers, it does take away from its accessibility—and accessibility which is faithful to the original is the point of translation. In a good translation no good reason exists for keeping that language. The much reviled thee's and thou's, however, do reflect the original better. Greek has a distinction between the singular and plural forms of you, which contemporary English does not have. Thee is not a special form for talking to God; thou and thee are the singular form, and ye is the plural. Readers of the AV have access to the original at this point which readers of other translations do not have.

Different revisions of the AV are available. Sovereign Grace Publishers has a Modern King James Version, and Deuel Enterprises in Gary, South Dakota has published the 21st Century King James Version. Unfortunately, the difficulty with these translations leads to the last point, which is the role the Church ought to have in the whole process (see Presbyterion, this issue). The Church is entrusted, as the Jews were with the Old Testament, with the very oracles of God. The Church, not diligent entrepeneurs, is the pillar and ground of the truth. As much as we may applaud the individual efforts which have made such versions available, we still need to pray and work for the time when such translations are received and approved by the Church for use in the churches, and we have a New Authorized Version.
http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-1thema.php

Ask yourself – Why so many ENGLISH “bibles”? Why is this phenomenon (multitudinous “bibles”) only present in ENGLISH? There is no other language on earth that has had even 10% of the number of “versions” as there are in ENGLISH (check it out). Ask yourself WHY is that? Could it be that Satan (the author of confusion), unable to destroy God’s Holy word, has set out to confuse Christians with so many “versions” of the Scriptures that God’s people will in the end have no idea, which – if any – are true, holy, inspired, and infallible? Or which one to trust and rely on as their "Final Authority" in all matters of faith and practice?

George is absolutely right that Satan is the one confusing us about our Bible. However, it only plays into his hand to insist that we struggle over the old English and not seek prayerfully to have the Bible updated into the language we all now speak. It is ludicrous to insist that modern English-speakers learn Elizabethan English to the extent that seems to be required here. I'm sure THAT makes the devil very happy, that by dumping a ton of doubt on God's word through a spewing of dozens of bogus Bibles he's also got the KJB-only people insisting superstitiously on holding onto an archaic form of our language.

If you have a problem with the “archaic” words get a good dictionary. In addition never trust any dictionary or "Strong's" Concordance to give you the correct definition of any words that are of any spiritual significance. Study the Scriptures – comparing Scripture with Scripture when it comes to words that affect doctrine.

Yes, that is exactly what the devil has driven us to doing, George. Since the new versions were introduced we're all required to use dictionaries and other aids in order to understand ANY Bible, including the KJB which, if it had been updated regularly by God-appointed authorities, would have been accessible to all without such aids.

Originally Posted by Connie

There is a superstitious clinging to the old English by some KJV-only people that is unnecessary. For the scriptures to be inspired and for their authority to be retained does not require us to have to labor over words that are no longer part of our language. I appreciate the following explanation:

Sure, but I'd change the first sentence here...

No translation is capable of preserving this authority. The historic Protestant position is that a good translation of the Scripture preserved the authority of Scripture with regard to the substance of the text (quoad res). The same cannot be said with regard to the words of the text itself (quoad verba).

To this:
"No language is capable of preserving this authority."
For some Hebrew/Greek words there are no suitably perfect English equivalent translation. So it's not the translation that's the difficult medium; it's the language. The rest of the excerpt above flows well with this.

Edit: and it's why some English words in the KJV are Italicized.

[bibleprotector]

It is altogether incorrect to think that authority cannot be presented by the King James Bible.

1. Autographical and Canonical authority. Since the Word of God was not just true in the Autographs, and it is supposed to go forth to the whole world, and since the Autographs are lost, and we only have copies, the very same truth must be yet present today. God has worked through the setting up of proper traditions in the Church concerning truth.

2. Textual authority. If every word of God is pure, surely there must be one final text where this promise is actually manifest in the Earth. Since no present copy in the original languages is altogether the whole Bible perfectly, authority cannot rest on the original language presentations. However, there must be one Bible which is the correct text. This is because one Bible gathers together from all the copies and judges what is the exact text, and presents it altogether in one version.

3. Conceptual and translational authority. There is a lie which says that the exact meaning cannot go from the original languages into other languages. If that were true, the Word of God never went to the Gentiles, and never came to us. However, the full sense of the Scripture must be present today in English via translation. (There is only one correct English translation.)

4. Divine and Sovereign Authority. God is all-powerful, and able to get His Word to the whole world. There is no reason why He cannot use one Bible to reach the world in one language. (Therefore, the trend must be to get all Christians to use the King James Bible.)

5. Providential and manifest authority. God's works are perfect. God does things exactly right, and fulfils His promises. Therefore it is right and proper that the King James Bible, as the final form of the Word of God for the world which has English as its global language. God must actually manifest the exact and right Word for the world in one form because He promised it.

6. Scientific and reasonable authority. English is fixed globally. The English language has come into a broad place, where it is essentially fixed as the global language. Therefore, the King James Bible as it is is now and into the future conversant with a basically fixed language. English cannot now change beyond itself. Therefore, there will not be a time when the Bible as it is now finalised will not be conducive to an English-speaker. English is not evolving into another language, and now it cannot even alter beyond certain parameters. It must for ever remain constant enough for all the different cultures/dialects/individuals to be able to use it universally!

7. Final and spiritual authority. The King James Bible is final. Since the purification of editions of the King James Bible has finalised, there can never be another revision, alteration or change of even one punctuation mark from now on. Received tradition cannot be violated. There is never to be, as J. W. Burgon prophetically recognised in 1882, another authorised Version. The true Church historically accepted the King James Bible, and the true remnant today hold it. The purification and processes of refinement lead toward one final supersuccessionary thing.

Originally Posted by Connie

Yes, that is exactly what the devil has driven us to doing, George. Since the new versions were introduced we're all required to use dictionaries and other aids in order to understand ANY Bible, including the KJB which, if it had been updated regularly by God-appointed authorities, would have been accessible to all without such aids.

Even if the KJB were to be "updated," study aids would still be indispensible for studying the scriptures. Weak argument.

[bibleprotector]

"No language is capable of preserving this authority."
For some Hebrew/Greek words there are no suitably perfect English equivalent translation. So it's not the translation that's the difficult medium; it's the language. The rest of the excerpt above flows well with this.

Edit: and it's why some English words in the KJV are Italicized.

Actually, language is no problem. God invented English, and has superintended over it through history. God got words into the language which would be used for the exact presentation of the Scripture, e.g. in His providence, got words like "Son", "Holy Ghost", etc. from Old English to have a special meaning, used words coming in via Latin such as "baptism", allowed for Tyndale to invent words where needful like "scapegoat", so in the end, the English language was ready for the perfect translation in 1611.

Italic words are either where there is a minority attestation to a reading in the original evidence, or when it takes more English words to convey the same sense of the original. (We have an English translation which does not add to, take from or in any way alter the sense of the true original.) Thus, italics have both a textual and a translational use. And they are right, and rightfully considered the "inspired word" in both uses.

This is just the opposite to the marginal "variant readings and translations" which are not the inspired word, and are never to be alternates or considered to be equal to Scripture. This is because the translators did choose to make the italic words stand as Scripture, and chose what would be marginal and what would be Scripture.

Every rendering is correct in the King James Bible.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Every rendering is correct in the King James Bible.

I wouldn't say that. "Study" in 2Tim 2:15 isn't accurate; the Greek behind it means to be ernest, diligent. Has nothing to do with studying; however, studying scriptures is a part of diligence, but the diligence spoken of is not to the studying the Word part (by itself) but to the obedience of it. That naturally requires study, and that word "study" is below the superlative of "diligence." Hence, inaccurate translation.

There's more.

All those forms of authority listed by Bibleprotector belong to the King James, and nothing in the quote I provided denied any of it. The only authority that is altered is VERBAL authority, the exact meaning of individual words, and that is inevitable with translations because languages all differ from one another and languages change over time. It is silly to insist that we all learn Elizabethan English. MDOC is right about the word "study" as a case in point. It does not mean to us what it meant to them in 1611 and we often see people misapplying it for that reason. God cares a lot more about our understanding and obeying than He does about individual words, especially when we are saddled with archaic words that mislead us.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

The only authority that is altered is VERBAL authority, the exact meaning of individual words, and that is inevitable with translations because languages all differ from one another and languages change over time.

It's not inevitable at all -- who is the author of language?

It is silly to insist that we all learn Elizabethan English.

You call it "silly" to hold to an exact and perfect presentation of God's word. That's "saddening" but not unsurprising. "Elizabethan English" is readily and easily understood by English speakers of today. There's nothing "silly" about sticking to it. All attempts at updating the language in the last century have been corruptions. It's "silly" to think this will change.

MDOC is right about the word "study" as a case in point.

It has been made abundantly clear that he is wrong on this point.

God cares a lot more about our understanding and obeying than He does about individual words,

Chapter and verse, please? What makes you think that the word God has magnified above his very own name is less important to God than your obedience and understanding of it?

especially when we are saddled with archaic words that mislead us.

You call yourself "KJV Only" and then bemoan being "saddled" with it. You flinched quite forcefully at being called a humanist in another thread, and yet continue to evince your humanism with this sort of reasoning time after time.