translator

[Psalms18_28]

Does anyone have a good link why KJV translator is better qualify to translate the bible than today's translator.

[loyaldefender]

I've got a link somewhere on superior text, superior translating technique, and superior translators. I'll dig around for it and get back to you.

LD

[loyaldefender]

Here's one of them.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/superiority.htm

Got some more, but are on my home pc. I will post them later.

LD

[Psalms18_28]

thanks :)

[Jerry]

The difference between the KJV translators and many of the translators of MVs, including those involved in the Critical Texts, is that the KJV translators were saved and many or most of the MV translators were not.

This is not an endorsement of all their doctrines - but they believed the Bible was God's Word, that all of it was true (not myths), they trusted in Jesus Christ alone, believed salvation was by grace through faith alone - all these things can be found documented in their own writings.

However, many of the MV translators and the editors of the Critical Texts were apostates, were modernists - did not believe the Bible was God's Word, did not believe Jesus was God nor that He was the only way of salvation, did not believe in a complete atonement or that blood shed was necessary, believed in evolution and the Genesis and many other portions of Scripture were myths, some involved in the occult, some were immoral or homosexuals, didn't believe in the Trinity, etc. - and all such things like this can be documented through their own writings as well.

The texts used is the biggest issue, but who was doing the work is also a major one. If the person is a rank unbeliever, explaining away the text they are supposedly translating, how much wisdom is God giving them to accurately translate it?!? The Bible teaches that when we take and apply what we already have from God's Word, He gives us more - if we do not, we will lose even what we have!

[Psalms18_28]

The difference between the KJV translators and many of the translators of MVs, including those involved in the Critical Texts, is that the KJV translators were saved and many or most of the MV translators were not.

This is not an endorsement of all their doctrines - but they believed the Bible was God's Word, that all of it was true (not myths), they trusted in Jesus Christ alone, believed salvation was by grace through faith alone - all these things can be found documented in their own writings.

However, many of the MV translators and the editors of the Critical Texts were apostates, were modernists - did not believe the Bible was God's Word, did not believe Jesus was God nor that He was the only way of salvation, did not believe in a complete atonement or that blood shed was necessary, believed in evolution and the Genesis and many other portions of Scripture were myths, some involved in the occult, some were immoral or homosexuals, didn't believe in the Trinity, etc. - and all such things like this can be documented through their own writings as well.

The texts used is the biggest issue, but who was doing the work is also a major one. If the person is a rank unbeliever, explaining away the text they are supposedly translating, how much wisdom is God giving them to accurately translate it?!? The Bible teaches that when we take and apply what we already have from God's Word, He gives us more - if we do not, we will lose even what we have!

Do you recommend any books to prove this?

[Jerry]

Brother Cloud is a really good resource for this - he documents their beliefs and associations from their own writings.

http://www.wayoflife.org

He has many solid online articles - look in his Endtimes Apostasy Database, as well as his Electronic KJV Defense Library. At the end of some of the articles or books, you will also find some links to other related articles and sometimes references to other books that deal with this issue that would be helpful too.

Myths About Modern Bible Versions is good. That is the title that comes to mind from my library - but I have read various other books of his. Take a look through his various articles, and if there is a particular translator or translation you were wondering about, I can try to find articles that deal specifically with those people, if he has any on that version.

[Kubel]

The difference between the KJV translators and many of the translators of MVs, including those involved in the Critical Texts, is that the KJV translators were saved and many or most of the MV translators were not.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. The KJV was translated under the Anglican Church. The translators were Anglican scholars. They were overseen by Anglican clergy. And the entire project was led by an Anglican king who believed he had papal powers. They believed in infant baptism, papal/king jurisdiction, salvation by works (including baptism and communion), worshiping mary, and other false doctrines (see the Anglican book of common prayer of the 1600's)... so I don't think it's 100% accurate to say that the people that translated the KJV were all saved. Those that really believed that infant baptism was wrong, that salvation was not by works, that Papal-King Jurisdiction was unbiblical, etc... fled, primarily to Geneva and then later, the Colonies. The translators, on the other hand, were content worshiping and practicing their Anglican beliefs right where they were at.

I'm not saying none were saved. I'm just saying I find it hard to believe 100% of them were saved (or even a majority), and still believe that salvation is by baptism and communion (or at least are comfortable remaining there). You cannot place your entire faith in Jesus when it's being placed in sprinkling, in Eucharist, in wine, in the King, in Mary, in good works, etc...

We had a discussion here a few months back about whether or not we believe it's possible to be Catholic and be saved. Most here said, yes, it's possible, but highly unlikely. Some here guessed that a small fraction of a percent of Catholics were believers. I think the same should conclusion should be applied to those in the Anglican Church. They were essentially Catholics who liked divorce but hated the Pope. A lot of people think the Church of England believed a lot like we believe in Baptist churches today. But nothing could be further from the truth.

But with all that said, I don't believe being a Catholic (Erasmus) or being an Anglican (King James and the committee) necessarily results in a poor translation.

[Jerry]

A lot of speculation... Why not quote from their own books and sermons and see what they personally believed. I am not condoning all their doctrines - but what I have read in the way of quotes, sermons, etc. proves that these men were saved. And the written material from many MV translators shows that many of them were heretics and modernists.