From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:27:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.185717.25673@newshost.unh.edu>, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>To start off with, here's a brief outline of the history of all
>these Bibles.  In 1611, the King James Bible was translated.  From
>1611 to 1884, the King James Bible was the ONLY English Bible in
>existence.  

Hate to burst your bubble with facts but...

The KJV is a revision of earlier translations, each of which continued to be
around.  The KJV may have been the best translation and the most popular
(being the one authorized by the King and all) but it was most certainly not
the only one around.  There were many translations before 1611 and many others
between 1611 and 1884.

>That's enough to prove that at least the King James
>Bible is the infallible Word of God.  You think God's going to let
>all those people who lived from 1611 and 1884 and spoke English go
>without His Word?  

By your own logic then, the Bishop's Bible (of which the KJV is a revision)
was the infallible Word of God, at least until 1611 when it stopped being so.
After all, "you think God's going to let all those people who lived," before
1611, "and spoke English go without His Word?"  How can a book be the infallible
word of God one day and not be the next?  I thought He preserved His word.

>The second thing is that the purpose of the NKJV -- officially
>stated by the translators of the NKJV -- was to get people AWAY
>from the King James Version.  Stop and think.  Why in the world
>would anybody care whether you were using a King James Bible or
>not?  Man, it's anything to get you away from that Book.

How about so that people could read a Bible written in English?  If having
a Bible in the native language was good enough in 1611, why is it not good
enough now?  Let some fresh air in.

>Question:  if we've got thirty different English
>versions of the infallible Word of God, why the heck would God,
>in Heaven, inspire another translation?  

Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a perfect translation.  I have extensively
studied French.  It is not possible to make a perfect translation of a French
writing because there is not a one-to-one mapping from French to English, and
those languages are similar.  It's even worse mapping from Hebrew/Aramiac/Koine
to English because those languages are totally different from English.  By
having a variety of translations, the reader can get a better understanding of
the meaning of the original.

>Fifth.  The American Standard Version was translated in 1901, and
>everybody everywhere were getting so caught up in it, claiming it
>was the most reliable Word of God for the English language.  But
>then, when the New American Standard Version came out decades
>later, the American Standard Version disappeared.  Vanished.  Now,
>you can't hardly find a single copy of the American Standard
>Version.  Everybody's using the New American Standard.  Well,
>from Isaiah 40:8 which says God's Word will not pass away, the
>only logical conclusion is that the American Standard Version
>must not have been the Word of God.  It passed away.  

Too bad then that the NIV is the fastest selling translation now.  Use
your own logic.

>In the new Bibles those twelve verses aren't even there!  If they
>are, it's in brackets or something saying the text isn't reliable
>or authoritative.  Well, I have a question, if it isn't reliable
>or authoritative, what is it doing in the Bible at all?  

It ISN'T in the Bible!!!!

The translators of the KJV used corrupted manuscripts.  They may have 
been the best available in 1611 but a lot more manuscripts have been found
since then and it would be stupid to ignore tehem for the sake of tradition
and dogma.

>1 John 5:7, the strongest verse about the Trinity in the entire
>Bible, taken out.  Some versions don't even try to hide it.  Some
>versions omit verse 7 completely and jump from verse 6 to verse 8.

This is the Johannine comma I refer to in my short response.  It was
added to the Greek in the 16th century!!!!!!  Therefore, it has no
business being in the Bible!!!!  Oh, I forgot your assumption that the KJV
is the infallible word of God.  So, then, you would say that the apostle
John was not inspired in his writing.  It's the only way to reconcile your
assumption:  John was NOT inspired in 95 AD and translators making a revision
of an earlier translation were.  That should come as a great surprise to
most Christians around the world.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.