The third reason I would like to give... or better put the third NON-reason I am KJV is:
Reason # 3: Because the King James Version is an example of progressive or advanced revelation.
The basic premise of this point is that the King James Bible contains some sort of revelation that God wanted to get across to mankind that was not contained in the original languages and autographs. The reason I don't accept this is that God told us not to add to His word, and I don't believe He has added to it either. God inspired His word in the canon of Scripture ending about 95 AD with the Apostle John. If we allow that a translation of the Bible contains more revelation from God, then we would have to allow the possibility that God is revealing His word still today in other ways. Perhaps He is using men as prophets to add to His word again. Maybe the book of Mormon is actually just progressive revelation that He had not given back then... I don't see how we could make a difference between those ideas.
There are advantages in my KJV Bible over the original autographs:
First, I have all 66 books together in one book in my lap. The original autographs were not together.
Second, I can read English :)
Third, I like being able to go to a specific chapter and verse, rather than having to turn to a book and skim through it to find a particular point. That would be an interesting way to preach - I guess you really would stick to expository preaching.
Fourth, It is an advantage to me to have spaces in between words, ANDNOTHAVEALLOFTHEWORDSTOGETHERLIKETHIS.
Now, all of those things are advantages - so is the dictionary & concordance in the back of my Bible. But that does not mean that those things are added revelation from God. They are helps, and since every good & perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, I will even say that those helps are from God, but not that they are inspired revelation that was not found in the original autotraphs.
Just a thought...
Andy Hinds
7 comments:
well said;) i think one other reason is you like to read left to right instead of right to left...
?taht yas uoy sekam tahw
So what are your takes on the Greek word for Passover being translated as Easter in Acts? Is it a mistake, or was God revealing something in the English that was not revealed in the Greek? Here's one area that you and I will likely disagree...but what sayest thou?
In the Greek, the word for Passover and Easter are the same word: pascha.
Before the 1611, in the Tyndale, Matthews, Geneva Bible, etc. there were more instances of the word "Easter" showing up for Passover. That is because until Tyndale, in the English language, the word "Easter" meant both Easter and Passover.
In the Spanish language, there is only one word for Easter and Passover as well, just like the Greek.
What I'm getting at is that you can make the same distinction as we can in the English just by knowing that 2 different festivals go by the same name. Back when Herod was celebrating his Easter festival, it was called the same thing as the Jewish Passover. People at the time would have recognized that it was a different feast though.
So, NO, it was not God revealing something that didn't previously exist, however, it was very helpful that the Translators translated it as they did to help us out even up to this generation.
If God revealed "more" in 1611, what's to say that He won't reveal even more in 2007? Maybe there's an even more advanced revelation coming in a translation in the Chinese language soon, what do you think? Would that be possible and in line with the way God works?
I don't think so - I think His revelation finished with the original autographs, and His preservation has carried that through perfectly until today.
i agree 100% with that statement andy...
Well, that scares me!
i figured that every once in a while i should sprinkle in an agreeing statement so you didn't think i just read your blog to disagree;)
Post a Comment