Dean John Burgon demolishes Westcott-Hort textual theories

[kiwimac]

The original manuscripts of the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic were inspired by God, yes. They were inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. They are also unavailable. The King James Bible is one in a long line of many attempts to translate copies of those original manuscripts. It was a fine translation effort, but not one in which God supernaturally intervented to ensure the absence of error, so I would not consider the translation to be "inspired." The three main problems with KJV are (1) we now know that it did not use the best manuscripts of the original languages; (2) It did not always choose the best English word of its day to translate the original words; and (3) Many English words have changed their meaning in the intervening 400 years, so that it doesn't read to us in the way that its translators would have wanted.

In summary, the King James Bible is a fallible human translation of the inspired Scriptures. To the extent that it was done well, it is the Word of God. But KJV's translators did not call it "inspired" or "perfect" but only "more exact" than its predecessors, even admitting that it "some imperfections and blemishes may be noted" in their work, explicitly denying that they were inspired in the way that the Apostles were. Do you disagree with the translators of KJV who said that their work was imperfect? If so, on what grounds?

Excellent summation of the majority Christian POV.

[RBerman]

Excellent summation of the majority Christian POV.

Why, thank you!

[micah719]

The AV is and remains the pre-eminent English translation of The Holy Scriptures.

Translated by 57 men that are rightly considered scholarly giants, experts in Scripture and languages, compared to the kindergarten pea-brains of today.

Translated with meticulous care and pedantic cross-checking, with reverent fear of God and His word. Nida isn't fit to wipe the washpots of the AV transators.

An anchor in time and benchmark for the English language, unlike the emasculated versions churned out by the bible-of-the-month clubs of today. Once upon a time children learned to read using the AV...nowadays our highly-educated "adults" can barely read anthing at all, and understand even less. Thank you Hegel, Marx, Dewey and Gorbachev et al. If you can't understand AV English, get a dictionary. Or, sit at the devil's feet and let him spoon feed you his idea of Spiritual nourishment.

It is Public Domain, unlike the modern PERver$ion$. Four centuries of proven results, scholarship and supporting tools such as Concordances and Dictionaries.

But the main problem is never the Scriptures...it is the unbelief and rebellion in angels' and mens' hearts. Corrupting Scripture is but one prong of the attack on The Lord. The unregenerate will never be able to understand Scripture....the Pelagian/Arminian leaven has spread so far, the churches so full of goats hypnotised to think they're sheep, that is why the need for a secular man's "bible", to match the secular man's "salvation".

The Lord knows His sheep, and they hear His voice and follow Him. He has preserved His word throughout church history, and as He said, He will not be pleased with those that tamper with His word.

[kiwimac]

The AV is and remains the pre-eminent English translation of The Holy Scriptures.

Translated by 57 men that are rightly considered scholarly giants, experts in Scripture and languages, compared to the kindergarten pea-brains of today.

Translated with meticulous care and pedantic cross-checking, with reverent fear of God and His word. Nida isn't fit to wipe the washpots of the AV transators.

An anchor in time and benchmark for the English language, unlike the emasculated versions churned out by the bible-of-the-month clubs of today. Once upon a time children learned to read using the AV...nowadays our highly-educated "adults" can barely read anthing at all, and understand even less. Thank you Hegel, Marx, Dewey and Gorbachev et al. If you can't understand AV English, get a dictionary. Or, sit at the devil's feet and let him spoon feed you his idea of Spiritual nourishment.

It is Public Domain, unlike the modern PERver$ion$. Four centuries of proven results, scholarship and supporting tools such as Concordances and Dictionaries.

But the main problem is never the Scriptures...it is the unbelief and rebellion in angels' and mens' hearts. Corrupting Scripture is but one prong of the attack on The Lord. The unregenerate will never be able to understand Scripture....the Pelagian/Arminian leaven has spread so far, the churches so full of goats hypnotised to think they're sheep, that is why the need for a secular man's "bible", to match the secular man's "salvation".

The Lord knows His sheep, and they hear His voice and follow Him. He has preserved His word throughout church history, and as He said, He will not be pleased with those that tamper with His word.

Some of those giants were drunkards, some were very, very against any denomination other than Anglicans, some actively persecuted the Baptists and Puritans of their time. The English of the KJV was dated even in its own time and is more so now. English changes and expands, don't like that? tough! The KJV is NOT public domain. It has a permanent Crown copyright within the British Commonwealth of nations. Your Calvinist heretical position is quite clear. Finally, God did indeed preserve the words of scripture, in Greek and Hebrew, there is nothing in the scripture to suggest that a 17thC English version of those Greek & Hebrew originals is "God's preserved word." Oh, and other versions of the bible also have dictionaries and concordances.

[RBerman]

The AV is and remains the pre-eminent English translation of The Holy Scriptures. Translated by 57 men that are rightly considered scholarly giants, experts in Scripture and languages, compared to the kindergarten pea-brains of today.Translated with meticulous care and pedantic cross-checking, with reverent fear of God and His word. Nida isn't fit to wipe the washpots of the AV transators.An anchor in time and benchmark for the English language, unlike the emasculated versions churned out by the bible-of-the-month clubs of today. Once upon a time children learned to read using the AV...nowadays our highly-educated "adults" can barely read anthing at all, and understand even less. Thank you Hegel, Marx, Dewey and Gorbachev et al. If you can't understand AV English, get a dictionary. Or, sit at the devil's feet and let him spoon feed you his idea of Spiritual nourishment. It is Public Domain, unlike the modern PERver$ion$. Four centuries of proven results, scholarship and supporting tools such as Concordances and Dictionaries. But the main problem is never the Scriptures...it is the unbelief and rebellion in angels' and mens' hearts. Corrupting Scripture is but one prong of the attack on The Lord. The unregenerate will never be able to understand Scripture....the Pelagian/Arminian leaven has spread so far, the churches so full of goats hypnotised to think they're sheep, that is why the need for a secular man's "bible", to match the secular man's "salvation". The Lord knows His sheep, and they hear His voice and follow Him. He has preserved His word throughout church history, and as He said, He will not be pleased with those that tamper with His word.

1) It sounds like your position is different than Amos' position. As best I can gather, Amos thinks that KJV is not a translation at all, but rather is an inspired work directly from God, not dependent upon any Bibles which preceded it in any language. Your position, however, appears to be that KJV was an excellent human effort, yielding better results than modern attempts at Bible translation. So it would seem that I have more common ground with you than with Amos. Not to mention the fact that you are willing to actually articulate your position, which Amos so far has not really done!

2) The scholars who translated KJV were indeed erudite. But on what basis do you call modern translators "kindergarten pea brains"?

3) The goal of KJV was not to produce a Bible which required the use of a dictionary in order to read it. It seems to me that you agree that KJV today does not achieve the goal its translators envisioned for it.

4) Satan is indeed wily. Would you agree that Satan would be happy if people limited themselves to reading from a Bible which was unnecessarily difficult to understand?

5) If you're looking for an English Bible not contaminated by "Pelagian/Arminian leaven" would not the Geneva Bible be a better choice? King James was not exactly known for his Calvinist sympathies, and one of the major purposes of the KJV was to keep people from reading the Geneva Bible. KJV has some infamous examples of "tampering with God's word" such as the appearance of "bishoprick" in Acts 1:20, an indefensible translation whose primary goal was to prop up the Anglican church against congregational and presbyterian forms of government.

[Amos]

Ignorance abounds, if it wasn’t so serious I would just laugh. Micah I appreciate your take, it was good, you aren’t far from the Kingdom of God. Now as for Kiwi and Berman you are groping around in your blind willful ignorance, and it is sinful; but were sin abounds grace does much more abound. Therefore listen up and maybe in will help you some sunny day, you to Micah there was a couple of things for you to reason with you too, for I have not found your understanding prefect either; but you are on the right path.

God doesn’t need man to translate his word, never has never will, men write what they are told to write or if you would have it inspired to write and there is no private interpretation when it comes to the word of God. Ye hath God said is the devil’s line and all his ministers of righteousness preach the same false gospel, which is not the gospel but another gospel, it is another spirit. It is the spirit that now speaks through people that promote these perversions of God’s word that are called versions; I am talking to you Berman and Kiwi, and all the like minded amen-ers.

The bible says they hold fast to deceit and will not return, because they have rejected the word of God. They will find themselves ashamed not having divided the word of truth; they hold vessels with no oil. God charges us to hold fast to the form of sounds words and to be aware of the subtilty of the serpent for his devises lay wait to steal your mind. Versions are the subtleties of the devil, they add, take and diminishing the words of God, even the dictionary and concordances deceive by the same course of the prince of the power of the air. As these false prophets persuades people to be entangled in the conversation of the world speaking evil against the pure words despising the dominion of God’s word, corrupting themselves and all those they lead into the ditch of destruction.

How appropriate for you Berman to accuse me of doing what the Catholic Church was doing, while you continue on their traditions of attacking those who preach the word of truth. The prevalence I spoke of is exactly correct, for wide is the road of destruction, and if you could hear my words you would understand my speech. Your preface that you think was upholding your position totally undermines it as they address those that hold their profession. The Catholic Church wasn’t against new translations but the very word of God, your thinking that the Catholic Vulgate was the word God is erroneous, as were all their doctrines, and they still are. The King James reading was what they were against, in all its forms, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, etc. etc. so you couldn’t be anymore wrong.

While you seem to understand that the writers took various English bibles, they also took various bibles in other languages which had a King James reading, along with the majority collated extant, which comprised of 99.3 percent of all those in existence. To say that they did not have the oldest and best is just a giant lie you have been lead to believe, and thus you are deceived; the story is bigger but who cares you don’t even believe what I just told you.

The biggest part of the mystery is that God is going to keep his promise seeing the purpose of his will accomplish for what he send it forth for; therefore he has turn his pure language to his people, purifying it in the furnace of earth wherein we may serve him in one consent, speak the same things, perfectly joined together in the same mind, in the unity of the spirit and faith, no division among us. For never has a man spoke like this before, the King James language has never been spoke as a common language, Kiwi just doesn’t understand this is a new language, a pure a holy language, perfect in all its ways, it defines itself and no precept of man can touch it.
Where Kiwi thinks that the faults of man belittle the power of God, as drunkards and whatever foul word you judge with, on the contraire rather it establishes it, less man vaunt themselves against it. For how speak you against David, Moses, Abraham, etc. etc. are they hindrance to the word of God, no they established it, and our Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled it.


For you see God’s word isn’t a translation at all, it has always been and will always be, he just turned it to us line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and little there, a correction by measure, it was like drops of dew, but now has given us the fullness that fills all in all. So you see it isn’t a translation at all it’s the word of God.

It would well do you to find your understand at least as far as Micah has for if you stay in such a state, you will not endure and overcome, but will fall from grace, hearing those awful words, I never knew you!

[RBerman]

Amos, your little sermon gives not a single reason why we should believe your comments about KJV. Have you no evidence to present, but only a series of undefended claims, bracketed by denunciations of those who disagree?

[micah719]

Hmmmm.....I posted a lengthy reply and it isn't here. Yoohoo, replieyyyy......where are yoooooo........

[micah719]

Reply attempt v2.0

1) It sounds like your position is different than Amos' position. As best I can gather, Amos thinks that KJV is not a translation at all, but rather is an inspired work directly from God, not dependent upon any Bibles which preceded it in any language. Your position, however, appears to be that KJV was an excellent human effort, yielding better results than modern attempts at Bible translation. So it would seem that I have more common ground with you than with Amos. Not to mention the fact that you are willing to actually articulate your position, which Amos so far has not really done!

2) The scholars who translated KJV were indeed erudite. But on what basis do you call modern translators "kindergarten pea brains"?

3) The goal of KJV was not to produce a Bible which required the use of a dictionary in order to read it. It seems to me that you agree that KJV today does not achieve the goal its translators envisioned for it.

4) Satan is indeed wily. Would you agree that Satan would be happy if people limited themselves to reading from a Bible which was unnecessarily difficult to understand?

5) If you're looking for an English Bible not contaminated by "Pelagian/Arminian leaven" would not the Geneva Bible be a better choice? King James was not exactly known for his Calvinist sympathies, and one of the major purposes of the KJV was to keep people from reading the Geneva Bible. KJV has some infamous examples of "tampering with God's word" such as the appearance of "bishoprick" in Acts 1:20, an indefensible translation whose primary goal was to prop up the Anglican church against congregational and presbyterian forms of government.

1. I hold to Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation. The AV is a translation of the preserved original words and is the word of God in English. The men who translated it are mere sinful men, same as the original amanuenses that wrote the individual parts and we sinners that require the word of God for daily nourishment. The translators clearly described what they were doing and the limits of their abilites and the limits of their product, and admitted that it would be necessary to consult the original languages for the full original content. It is however the Holy Scripture and not to be handled like a wordly book. Unregenerate men cannot understand it and shoulf not be permitted any part in the transmission or publishing of it.

2. The AV scholars were remarkable men in an age where learning was far different than today. Our modern scholars are intelligent and diligent men, some of them are even genuine Christians, but have many disadvantages and distractions and limitations. We won't see the likes of the AV men again, individually, and certainly not in such numbers. Some of them lived and breathed the Biblical languages from childhood. It is by way of comparison to such giants that out modern scholars look so puny. They are however much smarter and knowledgable than me and would have an advantage over if it were not for faith and my stubborness and persistence in ferreting things out rather than take everyone at their word. A genuine believer would welcome the scrutiny and expect to be either vindicated or shown opportunity to repent. An unregenerate man would see it as a personal attack and a threat to his livelihood and pride.

3. The AV was not intended to be used with a dictionary. It has a limited vocabulary of around 8000 words whereas Shakespeare "exhausted the lexicon": AV English is not even the common English of that time. Tyndale resurrected old English grammar so as to translate those Hebrew and Greek pronouns and tenses better. The AV served to standardise English, as Luther's translation did for German. The Bible itself spurred the adoption of codices rather than scrolls, at the beginning of the church age. We need dictionaries today because what we speak as English has changed. Hebrew was frozen during the Babylonian captivity, and the Diaspora. A Hebrew of today would have no trouble speaking with Jews of The Lord's time on earth, and they have no trouble reading Torah. Koine Greek is the same, it is a dead language and is not exposed to living culture to which it would have to adapt. Whatever happened to educating ones' self UP to the Scriptures, rather than demanding they be debased and dumbed down to our level? Holy words should require diligent and humble study, they do not have to read like a newspaper or infant's book. The AV is at once simple to read yet transmits the complexity of the originals to us, in ways the modern versions cannot and will not. Burgon admitted there were issues but warned against tampering. In light of what has happened since, he is proven correct. Would that we had listened.

4. Satan is delighted with Nida's emasculated "dynamic equivalence" corruptions, the corrupt Alexandrian text, and the general lack of faith in the accuracy and faithfulness and Holiness of Scripture, the lack of memorisation and knowledge of God's word. He sticks to time tested and effective tactics, same as when he started on us in the garden in Genesis 3.

5. The Geneva was one of the stepping stone translations for the AV. King James was not pleased with the republican tone of some of the footnotes, they questioned the divine right of kings. The bishoprick bit is not a corruption....the word is faithfully translated. The Puritans and Pilgrims had the Geneva and the AV, and not a few of them had the original languages as well. Heretics don't really need to use specially tailored Bibles, they can make a right mess by twisting and de-contextualising pure Scripture....though it is easier when they can have a shonky foundation. For example, the JW translation NWT. The onus is on us to be diligent and watchful, as so often warned in Scripture. The enemy is within the gates! He has found that subtle corruptions and deletions are successful where outright confiscation or substitution will not work. Deception has to look like truth for it to be effective.

[John Reece]

The AV was not intended to be used with a dictionary.

Philemon 7 (The Authorized or King James Version)

For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

[RBerman]

Reply attempt v2.0

Thanks. I hate it when I lose a long post.

1. I hold to Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation. The AV is a translation of the preserved original words and is the word of God in English. The men who translated it are mere sinful men, same as the original amanuenses that wrote the individual parts and we sinners that require the word of God for daily nourishment. The translators clearly described what they were doing and the limits of their abilites and the limits of their product, and admitted that it would be necessary to consult the original languages for the full original content. It is however the Holy Scripture and not to be handled like a wordly book. Unregenerate men cannot understand it and shoulf not be permitted any part in the transmission or publishing of it.

I agree with most of this. A couple of questions:

1) What is "verbal plenary preservation"? Does it mean that God ensures that somewhere, a particular exact copy of original Scripture is preserved at all times, and that it will always be clear to us which copy is that copy?

2) What does it mean that "unregenerate men should not be involved in the publishing of it"? Are you talking about translation work or about the physical act of turning the text into bound paper copies?

2. The AV scholars were remarkable men in an age where learning was far different than today. Our modern scholars are intelligent and diligent men, some of them are even genuine Christians, but have many disadvantages and distractions and limitations. We won't see the likes of the AV men again, individually, and certainly not in such numbers. Some of them lived and breathed the Biblical languages from childhood. It is by way of comparison to such giants that out modern scholars look so puny. They are however much smarter and knowledgable than me and would have an advantage over if it were not for faith and my stubborness and persistence in ferreting things out rather than take everyone at their word. A genuine believer would welcome the scrutiny and expect to be either vindicated or shown opportunity to repent. An unregenerate man would see it as a personal attack and a threat to his livelihood and pride.

3) OK. This is a far cry from the "kindergarten pea brain" comment you made before. I'm not even so sure that the KJV scholars would see themselves as superior in the way that you think they are. Obviously there's no easy way to answer that question. As you say, ultimately the result is what matters, and modern scholars ought expect their work to be scrutinized, no less than the KJV divines were scrutinized in their day.

3. The AV was not intended to be used with a dictionary. It has a limited vocabulary of around 8000 words whereas Shakespeare "exhausted the lexicon": AV English is not even the common English of that time. Tyndale resurrected old English grammar so as to translate those Hebrew and Greek pronouns and tenses better. The AV served to standardise English, as Luther's translation did for German. The Bible itself spurred the adoption of codices rather than scrolls, at the beginning of the church age. We need dictionaries today because what we speak as English has changed. Hebrew was frozen during the Babylonian captivity, and the Diaspora. A Hebrew of today would have no trouble speaking with Jews of The Lord's time on earth, and they have no trouble reading Torah. Koine Greek is the same, it is a dead language and is not exposed to living culture to which it would have to adapt. Whatever happened to educating ones' self UP to the Scriptures, rather than demanding they be debased and dumbed down to our level? Holy words should require diligent and humble study, they do not have to read like a newspaper or infant's book. The AV is at once simple to read yet transmits the complexity of the originals to us, in ways the modern versions cannot and will not. Burgon admitted there were issues but warned against tampering. In light of what has happened since, he is proven correct. Would that we had listened.

4) Do you believe that it's impossible to do for our day what KJV did for its day? Or rather that it's possible but simply has not been done? One of the problems I see with KJV is that even with study to understand the old timey vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure, even if we get the individual words translated properly, the overall effect sounds unavoidably archaic. The Bible did not read like an archaic document to its original audience, and there's at least a subconscious undesirable effect of reading unnecessary archaism.

4. Satan is delighted with Nida's emasculated "dynamic equivalence" corruptions, the corrupt Alexandrian text, and the general lack of faith in the accuracy and faithfulness and Holiness of Scripture, the lack of memorisation and knowledge of God's word. He sticks to time tested and effective tactics, same as when he started on us in the garden in Genesis 3.

5) That argument cuts both ways. We can agree that Satan doesn't want people to have God's word in their hearts, though we may differ as to whether "modern translations don't do a good job" is in practice a greater danger to Biblical comprehension than "400 year old language doesn't convey the original text well to modern readers."

5. The Geneva was one of the stepping stone translations for the AV. King James was not pleased with the republican tone of some of the footnotes, they questioned the divine right of kings. The bishoprick bit is not a corruption....the word is faithfully translated.

6) "Bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 is a bad translation in context. True, episkope is the Greek word from which "bishop" is derived, but the word "bishop" had a very different meaning in 1611 than episkope had in 33 AD. This translation was intended to legitimize the Church of England's governmental structure over and against the Puritan nonconformists. Thus, although Geneva Bible also uses "bishop" here, it also provides a footnote that it means "His office and ministry: David wrote these words against Doeg, the King's herdsman: and these words 'shepherd', 'sheep', and 'flock' are used with reference to the Church office and ministry, so that the Church and the offices are called by these names." Certainly David's original context in Psalm 109:8 was not an imprecation against a "bishop," though of course the NT often recontextualizes OT quotations in this manner.

[Jaltus]

Just a quick update for those who do not know:

A friend of mine did his PhD on a Coptic manuscript of Matthew (about 13 chapters from somewhere in the middle to close to the end). The original thought was that it was totally different from any other manuscript with some major gnostic interpolations. It dates from about 50 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus. After doing his research, he realized it actually validates the eclectic text as it shows clearly a blend of those two major manuscripts, often siding with one against the other and agreeing with both when both agree. Very big news indeed! His dissertation should be out sometime next year. His name is James Leonard and I think he did his PhD at Cambridge. He worked closely with Gordon Fee.

[micah719]

Thanks. I hate it when I lose a long post.



I agree with most of this. A couple of questions:

1) What is "verbal plenary preservation"? Does it mean that God ensures that somewhere, a particular exact copy of original Scripture is preserved at all times, and that it will always be clear to us which copy is that copy?

2) What does it mean that "unregenerate men should not be involved in the publishing of it"? Are you talking about translation work or about the physical act of turning the text into bound paper copies?



3) OK. This is a far cry from the "kindergarten pea brain" comment you made before. I'm not even so sure that the KJV scholars would see themselves as superior in the way that you think they are. Obviously there's no easy way to answer that question. As you say, ultimately the result is what matters, and modern scholars ought expect their work to be scrutinized, no less than the KJV divines were scrutinized in their day.



4) Do you believe that it's impossible to do for our day what KJV did for its day? Or rather that it's possible but simply has not been done? One of the problems I see with KJV is that even with study to understand the old timey vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure, even if we get the individual words translated properly, the overall effect sounds unavoidably archaic. The Bible did not read like an archaic document to its original audience, and there's at least a subconscious undesirable effect of reading unnecessary archaism.



5) That argument cuts both ways. We can agree that Satan doesn't want people to have God's word in their hearts, though we may differ as to whether "modern translations don't do a good job" is in practice a greater danger to Biblical comprehension than "400 year old language doesn't convey the original text well to modern readers."



6) "Bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 is a bad translation in context. True, episkope is the Greek word from which "bishop" is derived, but the word "bishop" had a very different meaning in 1611 than episkope had in 33 AD. This translation was intended to legitimize the Church of England's governmental structure over and against the Puritan nonconformists. Thus, although Geneva Bible also uses "bishop" here, it also provides a footnote that it means "His office and ministry: David wrote these words against Doeg, the King's herdsman: and these words 'shepherd', 'sheep', and 'flock' are used with reference to the Church office and ministry, so that the Church and the offices are called by these names." Certainly David's original context in Psalm 109:8 was not an imprecation against a "bishop," though of course the NT often recontextualizes OT quotations in this manner.

1. VPP means The Lord preserved His words intact. It does not mean He provides access to every person at every time and place, but considering faith comes by hearing the Word of God, He sees to it that it gets to where it needs to. Far Eastern Bible College have good articles on VPP and the ramifications.

We are not on our own...as the natural man cannot receive the things of God, so the believer has the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit to bear witness to the truth. We are commanded to study, this implies diligence and commitment. We are warned to take heed how we hear, and to beware deception, and to stand for and in Truth.

2. First and foremost we should not permit unregenerate men to determine what is and is not Scripture. Further, they should be excluded as far as possible from having any part in the publishing of it. The UBS and its affiliate organisations, Nestle, the Alands, Nida, Metzger, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Griesbach etc fall into this category. Even printers, distributors and salespeople can do damage. "Christian" bookstores for example....

3. No, sadly we can't dig up the AV men and ask them their opinion of modern events and persons, though we can infer in some instances what they might say concerning what is said and done with their work and about them. The modern men are peabrains in comparison.

4. First, I don't think it is possible, no. The English language was at its height at that time (Shakespeare?), and has only deteriorated since. The AV language would have seemed archaic even in its own day, because of the Old English pronouns and grammar resurrected by Tyndale to translate the more expressive Hebrew and Greek. Even so, it is wonderfully simple and consistent, and where the translators seem to us to have deviated from a suggested pattern of translation was done for good reason. Where the originals are vague, the translation should be vague, for example. I don't think it is a bad thing for Holy Scripture to read differently than anything else we read...compare for example the following verse from Eccelsiastes:

AV1769
Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

CEV1995
Ecc 9:11 Here is something else I have learned: The fastest runners and the greatest heroes don't always win races and battles. Wisdom, intelligence, and skill don't always make you healthy, rich, or popular. We each have our share of bad luck.

Personally I love the AV rendering because it is so beautiful, it flows and is clear and easily memorised. The CEV example just tastes like chewed up cardboard like you'd find in some pulp self-help book and won't stick in the synapses for long. Children once learned to read using the AV, yet nowadays after many years of schooling they have trouble with something like the CEV. Why dumb down Scripture and strip it of meaning and make it unpleasant? The devil would approve....

Lastly...while I suppose that if Godly men got together today they could tinker a bit with the AV, I think that would be a bad idea. It was finalised with regard to spelling and vocab in 1769 and has remained static and borne good fruit, and there are quite enough translations about without reinventing the wheel yet again. A KJV dictionary is easy to find and not a big book on account of the simple language used, and there is always the Strong's and interlinear Greek/Hebrew and plenty of resources available for every believer to go to the originals themselves. Ok, so it's not the same as years of studying the original languages themselves, but we don't need to. The Lord has provided us His word and we would do well to remember that without faith it is impossible to please Him. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to be our Counselor and I for one believe Him. Study, study, study! Don't hand your mind and heart over to the nicolaitans and scibes, but don't discount the efforts of Godly scholars and elders either. Discernment is important too!

5. Modern readers have trouble with newspapers and instruction manuals, which often are written at higher levels of comprehension than the AV (though some of them seem to be written without much comprehension at all). It does not take much effort at all to become proficient and accustomed to the peculiarities of the AV. A child of God should thrill at having a reliable copy of the wonderful Love Letter and Field Manual our Lord and King has given us. There is nothing else like it, and I am not alone in believing the AV is a unique and wonderful book that should be treated with respect and defended. It cost a lot of blood over the years to put it in our hands, and to throw it away or disparage it is a gross disservice. We should also be careful how we go about defending it and be sure to make an honest stand. Riplinger and Ruckman could be plants to discredit our position by dishonesty and unpleasant behaviour. There is a lot of disinformation muddled into a wealth of sound material about the AV. I have to retract my previous comment that King James was opposed to the Geneva on account of dodgy footnotes; please forgive my error and see this page for an explanation of how I was mistaken: http://www.avdefense.webs.com/pilgrims.html

6. The bishoprick issue and the unicorn thing are just red herrings...meaning, they are not sufficient cause to abandon the AV. The modern versions have far more serious deficits. May I suggest that if such things as apparent discrepancies and paradoxes come up, dig deep into the matter, look at the original words, look at parallel passages or other usage in Scripture, taking into account context and also being careful to consider which doctrines are affected. In the AV we have the product of long years of painstaking work by many formidable scholars, and it is Scripture....we can't expect to have full understanding of a divine book on the first reading every time, in every verse. It is a living book. I'll dig around in my harddrive and links collection, I'm sure I've come across those two particular instances before and had them answered to my satisfaction. The bishop thing is the minor one and not really a problem imho, and besides, heretics and nicolaitans can do their thing regardless of Scripture, they can always twist or ignore. The unicorn problem was interesting if my memory is correct. Ox and bull were not accurate replacements, and it may be deceptive to write such. For another example, Behemoth and Leviathan are not crocodiles or hippos....look again at their descriptions, and other mentions elsewhere in Scripture!

Thanks for the interesting questions and friendliness and good manners, btw.

[kiwimac]

VPP is just KJV-Onlyism with a slightly different mask. There is no promise anywhere to keep an English version safe and uncorrupted.

[micah719]

Inspiration is useless without preservation, and without God's word we are powerless and blind...whether we are actually without it because we don't have it, or we have it but refuse to believe God that He can and will and has provided and preserved it. I believe He has preserved it in the MT/TR line and that the AV is the penultimate English translation of it. I have a Bible, God's word, that I can hold in my hand and read and believe and trust. Yea, God hath spoken, and it is written, and it will outlast this universe.

Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Joh 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Eph 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;