My point was, and is, that the KJV IS a translation itself. Also, those
who translated it stated that they USED MANY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS
(sources) in order to get the best understanding of the Word. ...Or
haven't you ever bothered to read the preface to your 1611 KJV?

Why would not the same apply today? We read many different translations
in order to get the best understanding of the situation. Check with
Wycliffe to learn some of the problems of translation. There are often
NO WORDS in a given language to perfectly describe some passages. I'm
sure you must have heard of the word "love" in the KJV that is derived
from three different Hebrew or Greek words. There is no way that just
the word "love" can fully describe / define the real meaning of all three.

Now, If God can so perfectly provide, protect, and promote His Word in
the KJV why can He not do the same with some other version? Also, if
the KJV is the alpha and omega of God's Word why not tell the Wycliffe
translators to get their butts back home and save all that mission /
translation money. If the heathen want to come to God bad enough
they'll learn the English language of 1611 (almost 400 years old) so
they can read it. Never mind that some of them don't even have THEIR
OWN language in written form!

The 1611 still contains some antiquated words. I still think it's all
right to spell cows C-O-W-S instead of K-I-N-E. I still think it is all
right to use the word urinate instead of **** which the KJV uses. I
hope you'll get in the pulpit, or in your Sunday school class and read
one of the several passages that uses the above word next Sunday. :-)
You can start looking about I or II Kings chapter 18 - unless you prefer
a concordance.

I could go on and on and on, but think I've made my point -- for now. :-)

Oh, for the guy who said the kid that started this thread probably
wouldn't jump back in. This "kid" is retired. :-) Also, I sometimes
start threads to make people think - before they get Alzheimer's and
can't think. ;-)

Al

============

Pilotbutteradio wrote:
Why would God need to "control" other versions when He His word is here in
the KJV ? He promised to preserve His word and He did just that. He did not
promise, nor is it necessary to ensure that all versions are pure.