Are the KJV translators damned for adding to the word?

[biscuit1953]

2 Corinthians 8:3 - For to power, I bear record, yea, and beyond power willing of themselves.

2 Corinthians 8:11 - Now therefore perform the doing that as a readiness to will, so a performance also out of that which ye have.

I present to you the case that according to Revelation 22:19 the King James translators have committed the unpardonable sin and will be damned forever because they added to the word of God.  Right along aside the mark of the beast, they can never find forgiveness.  The italics they inserted is "adding" to the word of God.  At least that is what Ruckmanites and KVJ onlyists assert when it comes to the NIV and other translations.

 

[chapabel]

I would not say they "added" to the Word in the sense it is forbidden to do so. Due to the  difficulties in word-for-word translations they inserted words for clarity sake and identified those words with italics. I will say I find some of the inserted words unnecessary, but at least in their honesty, the translators made it possible to read the Bible in a word-for-word translation.

I believe the Bible condemns those who add to the Word in order to change the meaning of what God gave by inspiration. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=chapabel]I believe the Bible condemns those who add to the Word in order to change the meaning of what God gave by inspiration. [/quote]

Are you adding to the word of God? 

 

[chapabel]

No, I'm not adding to the word. I'm just trying to interpret it properly.

 

[Bob H]

I'm no KJ only dude but the KJ translators clearly indicate that the italicized words are not in the greek text. So I would say no. But that's just me

 

[biscuit1953]

I'm no KJ only dude but the KJ translators clearly indicate that the italicized words are not in the greek text. So I would say no. But that's just me

Of course I was being facetious but there are some who actually do worship the KJV and it is just as much an idol as some image a pagan would bow down to.  Jack Hyles ins't the only one to claim that all modern versions are "bad seed."  I do have to repent sometimes because my attitude toward those who hold to a cult like belief that I once held is not Christlike many times.  I do realize that many KJV onlyists love the Lord and are very sincere in their beliefs just as I was.  I just get frustrated wishing they could see what I now do.

 

[chapabel]

I use the KJV pretty much exclusively, but I will at times look at another translation to see if I can get a clearer picture. I do believe the KJV is the most accurate English translation. I love the poetic sentence structure and the majestic flow of words, but I do not condemn others who use a different version. People have been saved using the NKJV, NASB and NIV. I believe those versions contain the word of God, but come up a little short in presenting the entire word of God. Just my opinion. 

 

[ItchyUranium]

Reminds me of two things. First thing would be how Muslim extremists consider it a crime punishable by death to write the Qur'an in another language without the original language in the same book. Second would be Romans 14. I think that we can try to reason with them as a believer wanting to edify one another but, I do not believe we should be fighting, getting angry or condemning one another over something that does not change the message of the Word. After all language is always changing and evolving as a man made system, so it would make sense that translations will be a little off with the exact wording and yet keep the same spirit.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Here we go again.

Why the attack on the KJV?  Why attack people who use the KJV?  I really don't get this mindset.  It seems to me that people who prefer other translations attack those who use the KJV, simply because they use the KJV while claiming how wrong it would be that the KJVers attack all others.

Ahhhh, the irony.

 

[rsc2a]

Frankly, I could care less what translation someone uses. If you say any translation is the "only correct translation for ________-speaking people", I'll start questioning your education.

 

[Bob H]

I'm no KJ only dude but the KJ translators clearly indicate that the italicized words are not in the greek text. So I would say no. But that's just me

Of course I was being facetious but there are some who actually do worship the KJV and it is just as much an idol as some image a pagan would bow down to....

I'm not as dumb as I look and I knew where you were going and the point you were trying to make about Pete's boys. Though I believe what I posted was the truth I was just given ya a hard time. I knew you would have to give me the response you did. BTW  my guess is we're the same age.

 

[Izdaari]

Frankly, I could care less what translation someone uses. If you say any translation is the "only correct translation for ________-speaking people", I'll start questioning your education.

Yeah, this ^^^^

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Frankly, I could care less what translation someone uses. If you say any translation is the "only correct translation for ________-speaking people", I'll start questioning your education.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I use any other?

I do reference commentaries, dictionaries, concordances and other such sources.

I do not make the claims of double-inspiration, salvation only through, two-fold child of hell, damned if you don't or other such wild heresies.

Since you are questioning...
My education is HB and HAC and recognizing their zeal bringing in heresy.  Next, I became familiar with GR, but noticed the reaches made to point out influences that probably aren't there.  I studied quite a bit on my own.  I became familiar with the defense for the "any translation you want" crowd by working with non-denoms and the "there are a few other good translations" mindset taught through SBC seminaries.

Really, it became quite simple for me - accurate translation - keep it.

I don't understand the anger that the non-KJVO have toward the KJV in general.  IMO, it resembles someone trying to justify themselves by attempting to prove a standard wrong.

 

[rsc2a]

Frankly, I could care less what translation someone uses. If you say any translation is the "only correct translation for ________-speaking people", I'll start questioning your education.

I believe the KJV to be the correct translation for the English speaking people.  As such, why would I use any other?

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Really, it became quite simple for me - accurate translation - keep it.[/quote]

It is fairly accurate. The reason I use other versions isn't primarily one of accuracy.

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I don't understand the anger that the non-KJVO have toward the KJV in general.  IMO, it resembles someone trying to justify themselves by attempting to prove a standard wrong.[/quote]

I have no problem with the KJV. I think it is a beautiful translation that has a certain literary quality (mostly due to tradition) lacking in the others. But I am also extremely aware of how foreign Elizabethan English is to virtually everyone alive today, especially when compared to more modern, but equally accurate, translations.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I have no problem with the KJV. I think it is a beautiful translation that has a certain literary quality (mostly due to tradition) lacking in the others.

Then why do you seek to discredit the KJV with every ounce of vigor you may muster?

But I am also extremely aware of how foreign Elizabethan English is to virtually everyone alive today, especially when compared to more modern, but equally accurate, translations.

Hogwash and poppycock!  The same claims are made among the liberal Christian schools.  Yet, their students are required to read Shakespeare with understanding.  The most popular movies and books today are in old English (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, etc).  I work with kids from different backgrounds who all use different Bibles.  They are every bit as confused about the meanings of words in the modern translations.  In fact, I get more questions about understanding terms from kids using modern translations than I do from kids using the KJV.

 

[rsc2a]

I have no problem with the KJV. I think it is a beautiful translation that has a certain literary quality (mostly due to tradition) lacking in the others.

Then why do you seek to discredit the KJV with every ounce of vigor you may muster?

I don't. Of course, I won't hesitate to discredit KJVo-ism (or for that matter ESVo-ism, NIVo-ism, LVo-ism* or any other.)

*Although I'd grant that the LVo-'ers have a more solid argument than any KJVo'er does from a consistency standpoint.

[quote author=Binaca Chugger][quote author=rsc2a] But I am also extremely aware of how foreign Elizabethan English is to virtually everyone alive today, especially when compared to more modern, but equally accurate, translations.
[/quote]

Hogwash and poppycock!  The same claims are made among the liberal Christian schools.  Yet, their students are required to read Shakespeare with understanding.[/quote]

I remember reading Shakespeare in HS. I also remember there was an extra-wide margin on the page that was filled with definitions, phrasing explanations, and items of cultural import necessary to understand the text. Or did you have some other point in mind?

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]The most popular movies and books today are in old English (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, etc). [/quote]

You've never read these books, have you? Based on this comment, I don't even think you've ever seen the inside of one.

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I work with kids from different backgrounds who all use different Bibles.  They are every bit as confused about the meanings of words in the modern translations.  In fact, I get more questions about understanding terms from kids using modern translations than I do from kids using the KJV.[/quote]

Let's see if you'll answer this with integrity...

Which one is clearer:

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

- or -

We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

So.....  You only argue for sake of argument.  Got it.

Tolkien even went so far as to make up his own language for various characters, which middle-schoolers now have learned and can interpret.

I am not claiming that the KJV is always without some difficulty.  I am simply testifying that when reading through the Bible, I receive more questions about understanding terms in the modern translations than I do from those reading the KJV.

My claim is that kids CAN understand the Elizabethan English.

 

[rsc2a]

So.....  You only argue for sake of argument.  Got it.

Did I say that?

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]Tolkien even went so far as to make up his own language for various characters, which middle-schoolers now have learned and can interpret.[/quote]

I know. I've read every one of the books you mentioned multiple times. Now did you forget your argument: let me remind you...

The most popular movies and books today are in old English (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Harry Potter, etc).  - BC

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I am not claiming that the KJV is always without some difficulty.  I am simply testifying that when reading through the Bible, I receive more questions about understanding terms in the modern translations than I do from those reading the KJV.[/quote]

Which terms? And I noticed you completely dodged the question.

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]My claim is that kids CAN understand the Elizabethan English.[/quote]

And that's all it is: "your claim". Simply opening up an English literature textbook, even a college level one, would show how off your claim actually is. Like virtually every KJVo argument, that's the only legitimate position you have...which is also why you dodged the question...because answering it would show the falsity of your claim.