Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent
Perhaps this is what Luke is referring to:
From http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm"I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.)"
Like you, (and Luke as he explained earlier), I find a lot of good stuff on Bro. Cloud's web site. His position is clearly better than the majority of fundamentalists on the issue of the Bible. I also have never seen him offer a correction for the KJV.
However, the simple matter is that I take it a step further. The KJV is final, needs no updating, and any translation that disagrees with the KJV is wrong. |
Thank you for the quote. I can see that he did say it and I'm glad I could see the entire article so I can see the whole paragraph. I was surprised when Luke said that about Cloud only because Cloud is continually defending the verses that the textual critics continually bring up and also he defends the King James English used and why we should not change the "archaic" words and the thee's thous and thines...... I can only come to the conclusion that in updates, he may mean spellings, (especially when we see that the 1611 needed that type of updating)? and when he says that there are passages that could be translated differently, I wonder if he means that yes could be translated differently, but not meaning that the KJV is translated incorrectly. He does say he does not believe that the KJB contains any errors, so this is how I draw my conclusion. and like you said he gives no example of any changes that he thinks should be made.
I think it's good that we clarify Luke's remark about Cloud a bit.
In the article he is describing all of the different categories of different KJVO's, which we see on this site. In black bold is the statement in question, with his statement about the KJB being free of error in red.
Here is the whole paragraph.
Quote:
|
Let me also emphasize, because I know from past experience that some will misunderstand and misrepresent my position, that I am not encouraging the variety which exists among King James Bible defenders. I'm simply saying this variety is a reality which must be acknowledged. If I had my way everyone would hold the RIGHT position, which is, of course, MY position! (I say that tongue in cheek, of course. I am not so deceived to think that I am right in everything.) I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.) I believe that God had His hand upon the KJV in a special way because of the singular role it would play in the transmission of the Word of God during a long and crucial epoch of church history. (This is not to say that I believe it is some sort of “advanced revelation.”) In contrast with the modern English versions, I believe that the KJV is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates a superior theology; it embodies a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it has a superior history.
|
I can't say that I disagree with anything in the entire article. Cloud is a true defender of the KJB. His knowledge of the issue is incredible.