View Single Post
  #6  
Old 06-06-2009, 09:17 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by premio53 View Post
The thing I don't understand is I have talked to a lot of “King James Only” people (I am one also) who get upset if "shew" is modernized to "show" or "Saviour" is Americanized to "Savior" (which has 6 letters).
The issue is not about the sound of "shew" or how many letters "saviour" has (see 2 Kings 13:5). The issue is this:

"Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." (Isaiah 66:5).

The changing of "shew" to "show" might not seem to change a meaning or anything, but it is these Scriptures which are against it:

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28).

And,

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Galatians 5:9).

You see, there is no place to draw the line once you start changing things, and for the people you might think you are pleasing, you will find that others are displeased, not just because their traditions were encroached, but because they found that you had changed something of the very concepts of the Word of God (this can be easily done by changing so much as a comma!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by premio53 View Post
I simply don't understand the superstition as it seems concerning some of this. By the way, today numerology is most often associated with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.
Whether or not someone seems to be just using the tradition argument, or the "if-it-ain't-broke" one, or some sort of mystical one, these in themselves are not the only arguments, (and some are quite wrong!), but that the very Scripture itself puts forth all kinds of injunctions upon the keeping of the Word, meaning the very components of words and letters too.

It is very clear that there is an authoritative lineage by which we receive our KJB today. We have a proper tradition which we receive out of, showing (by God's providence) what is His Word in English, and therefore what we must keep and jealously guard. It was needful and sufficient that editing took place in the King James Bible in the past, but nothing of the sort is required now, except to conform to correctness of presentation. No new revision is required, nor even anything to be touched in the spelling. It is what it is, and either you humble yourself and love it, or else you object in vain.

Edward Hills wrote,

“It is possible, if the Lord tarry, that in the future the English language will change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King James Version. Today our chief concern must be to create a climate of Christian thought and learning which God can use providentially should the need for such a new English version ever arise. This would insure that only the English wording would be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text.”

The English language is not moving away from compatibility with the King James Bible. To believe that would be to argue in favour of atheistic evolution, or to argue that Satan’s corruptions in English were more powerful than God. No, God is control, and the English language is where it needs to be for many people of many nations to be able to have access to the “best translation in the world”.

As for past changes in spelling and wording, Thomas Turton of Cambridge wrote in 1833,

“Let me take this opportunity to state, as my deliberate opinion, that the Text of 1611 is, in consequence of its incorrectness, quite unworthy to be considered as the Standard of the Bibles now printed; and to express my conscientious belief, that to revert to that Text, as the Standard, would be productive of serious evils.”

“For accuracy of printing, the Oxford edition of 1769, superintended by Dr Blayney, Regius Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford, is much esteemed.”