“Why would you change the word of God?”

….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.

Thanks for the link. I hope readers find it helpful. I thought I would take the liberty of adding to the above link all the links (so far) in my series. Today’s installment is the most important, in my opinion.

• Raising the Oxgoad
• Why Can’t We Update the Words?
• Switching Tools in the Translation Debate – Brent Niedergall
• Can We Update the (KJV) Words?
• Apostolic Translators? (Today, Oct 10, 2018)

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.

[CAWatson]

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.

Just want to update the thread of my last two posts on this. I am working on more, but these two will end the series for now:

An Attempt at a Way Forward

A Bible Worthy of All Translations, or “The Nature of the KJO Error”

[Don Johnson]

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.