No replies to this topic

[Kilsally]

Standing up for King James Bible
http://www.newslette...bible_1_3432663

Published on Thursday 19 January 2012 08:47

I WAS sorry to read that Dr Stafford Carson believes that the King James Bible 1611 is not the best translation. He believes the English Standard Version is a better translation but only on points.

The honourable Dr Carson is respected by many (including myself) so it would be ridiculous of me to lecture him regarding the finer points of difference in the translation of the Holy Scriptures.

I feel I must stand up for the King James translation of the Bible which was authorised to be read in all Church of England Churches in 1611 for the benefit of those who could not read.

I could quote different eminent authorities to help me but I shall not do that. I shall simply advance my own arguments sincerely and earnestly in praise of KJV.

The King James Bible is now over 400 years old. Forty-seven able and good men, most belonging to the established church, but some with non conformist leanings who were known as puritans, most certainly produced a translation of the bible which has stood the test of time, though they never claimed perfection for their work. They were guided by many translations which had gone before. It was certainly fit for purpose for more than 400 years. Evidence of this is because of the great and good influence it has had on all those who heard it read or read it for themselves. I an convinced from my reading of church history that millions of ordinary folk have been transformed by reading and heeding this translation.

Even to this day the results cannot be ignored. Politically and morally it has influenced greatly the foundations of USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, not forgetting England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. So it is not exaggerating to say, No other translation of the bible has accomplished so much in so many fields. I suppose should time last until 2412 it will be still possible to buy a KJB in all good book shops.

I am fully aware that all translations of any book cannot be as good as the original. There is no original bible now of course, but thank God for all the copies of the original and for the scholars who have produced such different versions and many translations. I am convinced that all versions and translations are relatively good.

All these versions and translations convey the same message with perhaps different emphasis.

James Kennedy Gardiner

Coleraine

-----------------

Misguided viewpoint in argument
http://www.newslette...ument_1_3432661

Published on Thursday 19 January 2012 08:46

STAFFORD Carson’s recent platform article (January 5) in support of the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible is misplaced, misguided and misinformed.

First, he applauds the alleged scholarship behind the ESV.

Is he not aware that the ESV is merely the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1952? In other words, the so-called scholarship argument ends in 1952!

So much for the vaunted argument of advance in knowledge.

Second, he refers to the last 12 verses of Mark and the woman of John 8. Amazingly he uses the now refuted argument of “the earliest manuscripts omit”.

How astonishing that he, given his knowledge, is unaware that it is the text not the paper it is written upon, which is preserved.

Is he really ignorant of the history of all this or simply ignoring it?

Is he seriously saying that, though the arguments in favour of their inclusion have yet to be refuted, he will ignore that and hold to the flawed ESV nonetheless?

Third, Stafford signed a confession of faith produced by men who not only believed they had the right text but used it in their proof texts.

Furthermore, they made it clear they believed that text they used was the preserved text.

Stafford Carson is not only putting himself at odds with them; he is actually rejecting his own confession.

Every time he uses his RSV-based ESV he is publicly denouncing his own confession. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the ESV!

E T Kirkland

Ballyclare