“Why would you change the word of God?”

1464 reads

There are 7 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

....to remind people that the first fundamental is that Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts, not necessarily in the manuscripts we have today, let alone the KJV of a given (e.g. 1769) vintage.  Step 2, really, is then to go through how manuscripts in phonetic, declined languages can be remarkably resilient to copying errors.

Step 3, and I am probably dreaming here, is that believers can live at peace regarding this issue.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

CAWatson's picture

On the about page: "While fundamentalists are blunt, Canadians are pathologically nice. Canadian fundamentalists are pathologically conflicted. It’s about the best we can do, eh?"

Hmmm...the quintessential Canadian fundamentalist was T. T. Shields. In my reading of the history, Shields wasn't conflicted. 

Don Johnson's picture

CAWatson wrote:

On the about page: "While fundamentalists are blunt, Canadians are pathologically nice. Canadian fundamentalists are pathologically conflicted. It’s about the best we can do, eh?"

Hmmm...the quintessential Canadian fundamentalist was T. T. Shields. In my reading of the history, Shields wasn't conflicted. 

Well, no, Shields wasn't conflicted. The rest of us are, though. Sorry about that.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

josh p's picture

Thanks for this one Don. I especially like your final question. It’s a good way to frame the discussion to ask someone why we can’t change the KJV words because it takes away their presupposition that the KJV is identical to the autograph and makes them prove that claim.

Bert Perry's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

 

CAWatson wrote:

 

On the about page: "While fundamentalists are blunt, Canadians are pathologically nice. Canadian fundamentalists are pathologically conflicted. It’s about the best we can do, eh?"

Hmmm...the quintessential Canadian fundamentalist was T. T. Shields. In my reading of the history, Shields wasn't conflicted. 

 

 

Well, no, Shields wasn't conflicted. The rest of us are, though. Sorry about that.

I couldn't help smiling at Don's last comment here, as it's totally Canadian.  

But seriously, and more to the point, it strikes me that if one is going to say that the KJV parallels the Hebrew and Greek perfectly, I've got a counter-example I saw last night in 2 Samuel 18, where the KJV translates "ha-cushi" as the name "Cushi", where it actually means "the Cushite."  The only workaround you could have for the KJV is to argue that "Cushi" was his nickname due to his country of origin, but the text gives no indication that could be the case.

Love my KJV, love my Geneva Bible, but I think the translators were working mostly from the Latin there.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.