Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
Most KJBO people do not believe that the translators of 1611 were inspired men. That claim is broad-brushed onto all KJBOs by various folk on the other side of the debate, but is both untrue and dishonest. A few KJBOs might have argued for a 1604-1611 inspiration, which is not representative of all KJBOs. Also, a few KJBOs may have said they hold to this idea because they are told they believe this by the opposition.
Often these accusations come by twisting words. If a KJBO says he believes the KJB to be inspired, meaning that it presents what was originally inspired in the Autographs, his words may be taken and twisted to mean that he believes that the Bible was made by inspiration in 1611.
That's why accusations like, "Which edition of the KJV is the inspired one?" are really false accusations.
|
I see what you are saying and agree. I was raised to believe the KJV translators were inspired. I was looking more for an answer from those who believe it was inspired. I understand your idea of preservation and am not arguing it here. I just want to know why some believe it was inspired instead of just preserved. Follow what I am saying? I feel my post is worded poorly but I can't think how to word it any better. I appologize, my use of the English language is not always the best.