The thing with people who prefer KJV is that its scripture is inspired and they use it everyday, so all other bibles translations in comparison fall short.
I'm going to restructure your statement as a syllogism to show how silly it is:
Premise 1: The scripture of the KJV is inspired.
Premise 2: People who prefer the KJV use it everyday (sic).
Conclusion: Therefore all other bible translations fall short.
That's called a
non sequitur. The conclusion
does not follow from the premises. In fact, in this case, it doesn't relate
in any way to the premises.
To your first premise, the word of God is indeed inspired, as we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16. However, that is true of
every translation, not just the KJV!
To your second premise, people who prefer the NASB use it every day; people who prefer the NIV use it every day, and so on. Your premise has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
KJV translators also had lots of mansucripts available to them at the time. Its mostly based on Tyndales translation. The team didnt have to resort to any latin because they he was translating from the ORIGINAL langauages, not from the latin.
Erasmus used manuscripts, and the KJV translators used Erasmus. Erasmus could not obtain Greek manuscripts of certain verses of Revelation, so he used the Latin Vulgate for those few verses. His translation
from the Vulgate was not corrected with Greek manuscript sources before being used as the source for the KJV.
Since when does less than twenty qualify as "lots" when compared with the nearly 6,000 available today?
If there is a better translation that most christians use, then name it, but for over four hundred years its been inspiring christians so I wouldnt knock it.
That's just wacky. The length of time for which a translation has been used is no reason to excuse that translation from critical analysis.
, that sort of thinking can keep people stumbling...
