Brother Tim,

You wrote: "As for multiple versions, I agree that WITHIN THE SINGLE TEXT OF THE KJB ( THE SCRIPTURES), there can be multiple accounts of a single event, each possibly bringing a variation to the description, so that TOGETHER the complete message is given. "

Isn't that really the same thing as taking the advice of the KJV translators and using multiple translations, "so that TOGETHER the complete message is given"?

As for the "more exact" interpretation, I can't speak for steelmaker, but I do believe that they were attempting to produce a translation that was as perfect as they could make it, just like others who had produced previous translations. In that sense they were hoping that it would be more accurate, or "more exact" than any others that had come before. That should be the goal of anyone who is translating the Bible.

That is not to say that they thought that it was a perfect translation. They made that very clear. But even if they had claimed that it was perfect, that would not have made it so.

You mention the use of "references". I assume that you are referring to Scripture references that refer to the purity and perfection of God's Word. If that's what you mean, then do you realize that you are taking references from the Bible that refer to the Scriptures in general, and then applying those Scriptures to one translation that appeard in 1611? If those Scriptures are true, then to what English translation did they apply in 1599? Did they only become true once the KJV was published? Since those same Scriptures existed in the Geneva Bible in 1599 would that mean that the Geneva Bible was a perfect translation?

Last Edited By: dcforrey Jun 27 08 9:53 AM. Edited 2 times.