It is not the romanticism of antiquity by the reliability of a translation which has stood the test of time. Big difference. If a Bible can continue for over 400 years as the Bible of huge numbers of Christians (and the sole bible of English-speaking Christians worldwide for over 300 years), as well as the "go-to" Bible for unbelievers, then you need to wake up and ask yourself "Is God's hand over this translation?" You will not find a single conservative commentator before 1900 who had any reservations about the Authorized Version.
As to the so-called modern scholars and critics, they have all turned out to be hoaxers. They have ignored everything that was written against the most corrupt manuscripts, and steadfastly promoted a lie.
At the risk of opening up a can of worms I have not intention of cleaning up, and only for the sake of answering the previous question...
Translating from the manuscripts in extant into another language is a science not a hoax. Anyone can do it if they take the time to learn the languages. If not, then they rely on others that have.
The questions about the proper translation of a sentence from a manuscript into English, or one of the Chinese languages, or French, or Russian will always be determining which word in the new language communicates the same idea as the Greek or Hebrew that the author intended.
The KJV is a good translation. However, it is agreed by all honest translators that when they used the word candlestick instead of lamps or lampstands in Revelation it was not the best word. It communicated the wax candlesticks familiar to the reader of the medieval times but the wax candlestick was not used in the first century. John saw oil fed lamps and lampstands. Both of which we have in museums from that time and even older. For those of us who are fans of retaining the exact wording of the original including the details like oil fed lamps that might contribute to deeper meanings we are not happy about this use of a wax candlestick in the translation. Passing it off as not important is a bit hypocritical if wanting the most accurate translation is the motive of the KJV advocate.
If that does not matter to the KJV advocate, then he won't care if I use the word Flashlight will he? Of course he would. But he in his attempt to argue for the accuracy of candlestick he would run into a problem. And if honest have to admit that the KJV should have used lamps and lampstands knowing that it was the oil fed lamps of that day and not the wax candlesticks of the KJV scholars day that should have been translated into English.
This is just an example. I am not interested in a long debate on KJV. My point was that answers to the question of why a text is translated can be examined in an intelligent way rather than defaulting to a blind trust in a translation as being the best one without being able to explain why from the perspective of the science of translation concerning that verse?
But that takes work. If you don't want to do the work, then put the issue on the shelf until you can discover all the facts rather than just blindly devote yourself to the KJV or any other out of extremist belligerent zeal for a translation.
Repeating conspiracy theory rhetoric about KJV vs other translations is skipping the real science of examining the Greek of the verse in question and translating it. I have no time for that sort of thing.
1
