New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

[Guest Guest]

Well my personal opinion is that it is wrong but lets just say I'm sick of the futility of this debate, I probably won't be back in this one.

Katy-Anne

[kevinmiller]

I'm not talking about the English language being at its height, yada yada. I'm saying, is the KJB the ONLY acceptable Bible in English, or is It (in your opinion) "the best available," as in there could be a "better" one, but there isn't. That's what I mean. Just trying to clarify this.

I'm saying it's the best available. I'm not a radical, irrational KJV onlyest. lol I believe a Bible is as good as the translation. If it is a accurate translation, it is a good Bible whether it was translated in 1100 or 2007. The idea that the KJV is all there is for the simple fact that it's the KJV is irrational and unfounded.

[Samer]

Reason has no place in this debate, Kevin. You should know better than that. (Just kidding. )

[kevinmiller]

Reason has no place in this debate, Kevin. You should know better than that. (Just kidding. )

once again Samer. :lol:

[Guest Guest]

You're right, Samer, reason has no say when scriptures go against our reason.

Katy-Anne

[Guest Guest]

I'm saying it's the best available. I'm not a radical, irrational KJV onlyest. lol I believe a Bible is as good as the translation. If it is a accurate translation, it is a good Bible whether it was translated in 1100 or 2007. The idea that the KJV is all there is for the simple fact that it's the KJV is irrational and unfounded.

ok, but you're still saying that it's just the "best available"...and by saying that you believe that if a better English translation was made, you'd take that one instead. I believe God gave us the best translation into English possible! You wanna know why? because with God all things are possible...and He can make a translation perfect if it's His will for it to be translated! (which I wholeheartedly believe it is!!!)

[dwayner79]

Well my personal opinion is that it is wrong but lets just say I'm sick of the futility of this debate, I probably won't be back in this one.

Katy-Anne

I.e. There is no merit to my sensationalist belief, and even though its being completely obliterated, I will hold to it because ignorance can often be mistaken as faith.

And Samer, there is no need for the Just kidding. Reason is definitely not a part of this.

:roll:

[dwayner79]

ok, but you're still saying that it's just the "best available"...and by saying that you believe that if a better English translation was made, you'd take that one instead. I believe God gave us the best translation into English possible! You wanna know why? because with God all things are possible...and He can make a translation perfect if it's His will for it to be translated! (which I wholeheartedly believe it is!!!)

Again, which version of the KJV is the perfect one?

I hope you see the logical error there. The KJV has been updated for spelling regularly.
:?

[kevinmiller]

If the whole argument is based on "with God all things are possible" then isn't it just as possible for Him to make another 2007 translation? :?

Katy-Anne, we agree with Scripture when it goes against our reason(though I see zero Scripture that tells me that the original Scripture is no longer Scripture) but we don't have to be fruit loops either. :frog

[Guest Guest]

Again, which version of the KJV is the perfect one?

I hope you see the logical error there. The KJV has been updated for spelling regularly.
:?

but spelling isn't changing the words...the words of the KJV are what counts. If changing the spelling changes the meaning, then you've got a problem...but I never said that standardizing the spelling was completely wrong. I just don't think it's necessary.

I believe the KJV is the best possible translation of the Bible into English...you can't improve on the best.

[kevinmiller]

Can you have a translation of equal value then? :)

[Will]

but spelling isn't changing the words...the words of the KJV are what counts. If changing the spelling changes the meaning, then you've got a problem...but I never said that standardizing the spelling was completely wrong. I just don't think it's necessary.

I believe the KJV is the best possible translation of the Bible into English...you can't improve on the best.

There were some word changes too y'know. : Doesn't make the KJV we hold today not valid though.

[dwayner79]

but spelling isn't changing the words...the words of the KJV are what counts. If changing the spelling changes the meaning, then you've got a problem...but I never said that standardizing the spelling was completely wrong. I just don't think it's necessary.

I believe the KJV is the best possible translation of the Bible into English...you can't improve on the best.

Spelling changes are what is being discussed... that's why I asked. Your position is satisfactory ;-)

[Guest Guest]

Kevin, how would that be possible? If it said anything slightly different than the KJV, it wouldn't be equal. Either one or both would be wrong, and I don't believe the KJV has any errors in it, so the other translation would be wrong.

[Will]

lol how would that be possible? If it said anything slightly different than the KJV, it wouldn't be equal. Either one or both would be wrong, and I don't believe the KJV has any errors in it, so the other translation would be wrong.

The KJV 1611 does not read the same as the KJV we use today. Some words were changed or removed, and some were respelled.