We should not condemn any English translation, according to these fellows:

[jimmudcatgrant]

This article makes some good points, I think.  It really rebukes those who would condemn other versions, but also those who would condemn the King James Version.  I don't think the Septuagint was the best translation out there, but the N.T. writers used it a lot.  Some say because it had already received an air of acceptability and recognition.  Those sound like good reasons for keeping the KJV around.  I like the way the NASB and ESV defer to the KJV out of respect.  Yes, they think they have a better translation because of the availability of mss, etc, but they still recognize the prestige and how God used the KJV.  That fact is indisputable, no matter what you think.  The more I think about it, the more I am actually glad we have so many translations.  It has caused me to nail down what I believe even more, and has not shaken my trust in the word of God one bit. I will always love the KJV.  But I also love the fact that I can pull up parallel translations on my computer bible software, several of them being linked to strongs.

http://www.communitybaptistchurch.com/articles/kjvonly.htm

 

[SAWBONES]

It really rebukes those who would condemn other versions, but also those who would condemn the King James Version.

And who, pray tell, does that?

Nobody "condemns" the KJV; rather, KJVOs just view any honest description of errors or mistranslations in the KJV (of which there are unarguably some, except to the blindly and willfully deluded) as "condemnation", when in actual fact those who point these things out are merely trying to disabuse the KJVO dupes of their false magical thinking, and to encourage them to grow up spiritually and mentally.

I don't think the Septuagint was the best translation out there, but the N.T. writers used it a lot.

Indeed they did, almost to the exclusion of the Hebrew OT, in their quoting and reference.

 

[SAWBONES]

BTW, I'd seen that article, and I agree that it was quite sensible and even-handed.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

It really rebukes those who would condemn other versions, but also those who would condemn the King James Version.

And who, pray tell, does that?

Nobody "condemns" the KJV; rather, KJVOs just view any honest description of errors or mistranslations in the KJV (of which there are unarguably some, except to the blindly and willfully deluded) as "condemnation", when in actual fact those who point these things out are merely trying to disabuse the KJVO dupes of their false magical thinking, and to encourage them to grow up spiritually and mentally.

In retrospect, condemn is probably too strong of a word for most who criticize the KJV.  Funny, we never read where Jesus or the apostles criticized any versions of scripture.  I think they would welcome it all, and it would give them a forum to expound upon the word of God.

 

[SAWBONES]

In retrospect, condemn is probably too strong of a word for most who criticize the KJV.  Funny, we never read where Jesus or the apostles criticized any versions of scripture.

True enough.
At the time the NT was written, there existed at least a partial Greek OT (subsequently the Septuagint) as well as the traditional Hebrew OT, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum.

No one prior to that time seems to have demonized one "version" while asserting the magical preeminence of another, even though the Rabbinical scholars didn't by any means all agree about individual texts or interpretations.

And while the Protestant Reformers rightly decried the numerous Romish mistranslations and interpretations of the Scriptures in the 16th century, it awaited the 19th century for traditionalistic narrow minds to falsely claim dishonesty on the part of NT textual critics, and the 20th century to see the advent of that silliest of atavistic throwbacks, KJVOism.