Status Updates From The Forgotten Preface: Surp...

"Therefore as St. Augustine says that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the meaning of the Scriptures, so diversity of signification and meaning in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must do good; yes, it is necessary, as we are persuaded."

^that statement by the KJV translators is exactly why I read multiple translations - so that I understand what's being said.

"Theologically, salvation is a process. We must have the theological depth to understand that salvation is past, present, and future. I was saved when I believed (justification), I am being saved daily (sanctification), and I will be saved when I leave this present world (glorification)."

"Upon examining the philosophy and beliefs of the King James translators, it is logical to conclude that they would advocate for modern translations if they were alive today. We must remember that the original King James Version was published in an environment that had several other faithful English Bibles, all of which had been translated within the previous century."

"The grammatical rules for Greek and Hebrew are simply different from the grammatical rules for English. Take a literal word-for-word translation of Psalm 23, for example. This kind of translation would render the Psalm to read as follows: The Lord my shepherd, not I shall want. In grazing places of grass he makes to lie down me upon waters of rest he leads me."

"No translation of the Bible in common usage is a completely word-for-word translation. Many people believe that an undeviating word-for-word translation is the most faithful way to translate the scriptures. This is incorrect because a literal, word-for-word translation would be extremely difficult to read in a language such as English."

"And lastly, they warned their readers not to dogmatize about one particular translation (even their own King James translation) but rather to hold all faithful translations in high regard."

"Lastly, the translators argued that their endeavor to bring the Scriptures into the common man’s language was consistent with the ecclesiological history of translation work. They show that it was no new thing for men to have the Word of God in their native language, even the commonest type of their native language."

The translators asserted that a particular Bible translation can become a golden calf (“man’s Religion”) among the church at large. They imagined that their critics would see their modern translation as equivalent to claiming that the church has been deceived by previous translations.

Re-read.

"We cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself, and he indifferently uses diverse words in his holy writings to describe one thing in nature. If we will not be superstitious, we may use the same liberty in our English versions based on Hebrew and Greek, according to the copy or store that he has given us."

"For is the kingdom of God a matter of words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free; why use one exclusively when we may use another that is no less appropriate, plentifully?"

"Therefore, just as St. Augustine says that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the meaning of the Scriptures, so a diversity of meanings in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must do good. It is necessary, we are persuaded."

"The Latin translations did not flow from the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream; therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it was consequently muddy."