QUESTION: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to English. 
          A translation can't be as good as the originals, can it?

ANSWER: A translation cannot only be "as good" as the originals,
but better.

EXPLANATION: There are three "translations" spoken of in the
Bible. In all three cases, the translation referred to is better
than the original. Since we accept the Bible as our final
authority in all matters of faith and practice, ITS "practice"
will have more authority than any "mere human" opinion.

1. The first translation mentioned in scripture is found in II
Samuel 3:7-10:

7 "And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter
of Aiah: and Ish-bosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone
in unto my father's concubine?

8 Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ish-bosheth, and
said, Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do shew kindness
this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and
to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of
David, that thou chargest me to day with a fault concerning this
woman?

9 So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD hath
sworn to David, even so I do to him;

10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up
the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to
Beersheba."

After the death of King Saul in I Samuel 31, Abner, who had been
the captain of Saul's army, installed Ish-bosheth as King instead
of David (II Samuel 12:8,9).

Later Ish-bosheth and Abner had a falling out. Abner, in anger,
announces to Ish-bosheth that he is going to "translate" the
Kingdom of Israel from Ish-bosheth to David.

It is obvious by Abner's statement of II Samuel 3:9 that the LORD
wanted David to be king over all twelve tribes of Israel.
Therefore the "translation" of the kingdom of Israel to David was
BETTER than the "original" state which had a split kingdom with
David rightly ruling over one portion and Ish-bosheth wrongly
ruling over the other section. (Remember the law of first
mentions.)

2. The second translation spoken of in scripture is found in
Colossians 1:13.

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son."

Here the "translation" spoken of is the conversion of a lost
sinner to a new life in Jesus Christ. No one in their right mind
could even pretend that this translation is not a massive
improvement over the "original" condition.

3. The third translation found in the Bible is located in Hebrews
11:5.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and
was not found, because God had translated him: for before his
translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

The word "translate" only appears five times in scripture--once
in II Samuel, once in Colossians and the remaining three times
here in Hebrews 11:5.

A Christian with even a shallow knowledge of the Bible is
familiar with the story of Enoch from Genesis 5. Enoch walked
with God and is known to have pleased God. He was a prophet
(Judge 14) and a man of faith. God saw fit to physically take
Enoch to heaven so that he would not have to experience death.
This individual action is a miniature version of what Christians
call "The Rapture," mentioned in I Corinthians 15, I
Thessalonians 4, Titus 2 and various other places in the Bible.
Since the word "Rapture" appears nowhere in scripture a more
proper name for this future occurrence might be "The Blessed
Hope" (Titus) or "The Catching Up" (I Thessalonians) or "Our
Translation" (Hebrews).

It is obvious that Enoch's translation was an improvement over
his "original" condition.

Thus we see that every translation mentioned in our final
authority in all matters is an improvement over the original.

If you are a simple Bible believer you will have no trouble
accepting this. If you worship education or just hate to be wrong
you will reject this Bible fact as easily as you have rejected
every Bible fact that you couldn't agree with.

It should be noted here that the perplexed translators of both
the New American Standard Version and the New International
Version, when faced with this glaring contradiction of their own
personal prejudice, could not bring themselves to allow the word
"translation" in any of the above mentioned passages.

Which will you follow, the Bible or men?

../