King James Version

[EricH]

That the KJV is viewed to be the inerrant Word of God must be entirely by faith, for we do not have the original manuscripts to compare the translation.

Therefore I would submit that it is really no better or worse, or any different, than any other translation which is received equally "by faith" as the Word of God.

You are correct in that we do not have the original manuscripts. That being the case, it takes an act of faith to believe they were innerant. It also takes an act of faith to believe the 66 books of the cannon all belong in the Bible, and that no others should be included. The point I am making is that you have no problem with those doctrines, even without proof, yet those of us who take things a step further and say that God preserved his Word perfectly in the KJV Bible are supposed to have to provide evidence beyond what you are doing in defending the original manuscipts or the integrity of the cannon. It is all by faith, just as I believe by faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, while others deny his diety. God has given me the faith to believe it.

I do not believe the comparison between faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God (As in Peter's confession) and faith in the KJV as the Word of God are the same thing. For with the one there is the impartation of the very life and nature of God and with the other there is the resonance within our human spirit that the Words of Christ are true. IN other words, the faith that God has imparted into all believers alike, is through the Son whereas the Word of God merely corresponds with that life, as the confirmation of what God has spoken.

The fact is, the Word if God transcends those minor ineffectual human contradictions which normally occur during translations. The Word if God is in the message of the word, not literally in the text. The problems with translation occurs when the message is changed or watered down.

My only point in comparring the 2 os that real faith is not blind. It is based on sound reasons

[Ovedya]

And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God.

Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it.

I base my belief on FAITH. If you are going to say that the KJV is inspired, why only that translation? Septuagint no good? Massoretic text no good? Are you saying that the Textus Receptus was inspired as well? I can't prove your position is wrong, I don't need to. Since you say that the KJV is inspired, and even the translators of the KJV never claimed divine inspiration, the burden of proof lies with you. What exactly do you use as an indicator that the KJV is inspired? Why did they have to make revisions to the KJV? Why weren't Tynedale's or the Geneva Bible inspired? What criteria has to be met for an english translation to be divinely inspired? I can definitely agree with you that some translations, like The Message, NWT or TNIV are not good ones to use, but otherwise, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If the burden of proof lies with me to prove that the KJV is inspired, then I would likewise say the burden of proof lies with you to prove there was any divine inspiration with regard to any of the original manuscripts. You can't prove that to be the case, anymore than I can prove the KJV to be inspired. Did Paul know every letter he wrote would become scripture? Probably not, yet God saw fit to make it part of the Word. Does that mean that since Paul did not necessarily recognize his writings would become scripture, the burden of proof is on me to show it is? That argument is absurd. Everything we believe is by faith, including you, so the burden of proof is no more with me than you or anyone else who believes or rejects God and the Bible.

Therefore the discussion becomes moot, because faith is entirely subjective. It simply becomes yet another issue in a long line of items which cause Christians to be divided.

[BlindSeeker]

There is NOTHING more beautiful than language of the KJ, when I am just reading for the sheer enjoyment of it, it has to be the KJ...........read the 23rd Psalms in a couple of different versions, none of them compare to it being read from the KJ. Makes me wanna go read it right now!

I agree . . .