Bible Translation Redux
Kairos makes some further points about the KJV in comment below. Here is an abbreviated response.
Anything can cause error and rift--similarly, anything can lead to truth if the person is seeking. I find no problem with KJV.
As to doctrinal errors--I would simply lean upon the spirit of the time and note that they were dealing with the sacred words and with the sure knowledge that there would literally be "hell to pay" for tampering with them. I sincerely doubt anything was introduced in the words--I suspect that error came in the interpretation thereof.
For further investigation of KJV, I highly recommend Mr.Core's Catholic Page which has a link to the KJV of 1611 (here).
Your point about the Hebrew is well taken. Many still disagree as to the translation of phrases today. Hebrew is a language of many subtleties. As to your most important point. I think you would be better served by reading the philosophy and ideas of the people who produced the TMB as well as appropriate reviews and endorsements and deciding for yourself. (Such can be found here.) I found them persuasive and I find the TMB to be wonderful; however, I have a high tolerance for all things protestant, having come from the stock--so any error potential is effectively limited or neutralized. After all, any error that creeps in is counteracted by Church teaching. Moreover, as I believe I intimated before, I read the Bible to become acquainted with Christ, not to argue doctrine.
Also, Dylan has an interesting exposition and point that may or may not support your original contention, I am uncertain, as I have combed through KJVs for the last 100 years or so and have not found any such passage, even looking at the particular passage sited by Dylan. He didn't indicate whether that translation wound up in the AV of 1611.
One last word. One reason I react as strongly as I do is that people of less integrity than those that visit my site, and certainly less than I have come to know Mr. Kairos as having, sometimes use this whole chain of reasoning in a reverse "Jack Chick" tactic. I am a strong adherent of Ut Unum Sint and tend to look first for those things that can and should unite us. I think the TMB (I can't speak to the NKJV as I find it atrocious in its own right) is an example of the way things can be done right.
I guess on the Bible, I am sort of like those who favor "old Church" architecture and vent so much spleen over the new Cathedral. Modern translations tend to stun the reader into a passivity and apathy from which it is difficult to recover. Beauty of language is important to me. However, not more important that the central truths exposed. If the NAB were all I had, I would read it faithfully and thankfully for the knowledge of our Lord and Savior. Fortunately, that is not the case, and a good many very fine translations are available. While we are stuck with the NAB for liturgy (I pray the Lord lift this burden soon). I would recommend nearly ANYTHING else for personal reading, reflection, and study. My Bible of choice is TMB--but that is not everyone's cup of tea, nor should it be.
Remember, after all, I am the founder and propagator of the Glorious Seventeenth Century Poets Society. What translation would you expect me to favor?
Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify and to make this last point: While I favor the KJV or its derivitives, I would recommend to each person that they do some careful investigation into the available translations. Most libraries have a number of Bibles on their shelves. Check them out and compare them before you decide which one will best serve you in your prayer life. (I would say however that I am highly suspicious of anything with "New" appended to an old translation--New RSV, or New Jerusalem, for example. Inclusivism to the point of lunacy seems to have crept into these translation attempts.)
