Featured I'm Not Attacking The Bible...

I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that King James' translation teams had access or utilized any original language manuscripts. For clarification, by "ancient manuscripts" I think you are indicating 3rd through maybe 13th century documents that were written by scribes on parchment, papyrus, or similar material. My understanding is that the KJV men primarily used mechanically printed Hebrew and Greek critical editions (as would translators today). In addition to Hebrew and Greek, they secondarily also looked at printed editions in German, Latin, and other languages.

It takes an enormous amount of time to collate documents (even the relatively few discovered, much less readily available, in 1604 and shortly thereafter). Ancient documents which are often fragile, faded, with a wide variety of hand scripts are even more difficult to work with. The compilation of multiple manuscripts is usually the editorial work of [what we now call] 'textual critics'. Since all the ancient documents display differences (as one might expect of human effort) the textual editor must make decisions as to what will be placed in the final printed volume.

Do you have any documentary evidence that the 1611 Bible revisers actually translated from any "ancient manuscripts"? How many? Which ones?

 

What is your answer, Oldtimer? It is evident that you have posted in other BB forums daily since this question was posed.

 

wasn't the main Greek text used by KJV Erasmus greek edition though?

 

No, although some one might say that it was Erasmus' Greek indirectly. The sources used by the KJV cannot be dogmatically determined since virtually all official records they may have made have been lost. It is likely the kings' revisers utilized the latest Greek critical texts available which would have been a Beza edition, and/or perhaps a Stephanus edition. The 'latest' editions would have been used because the earlier Greek editions (notably Ermasmus' first edition) had many printer's errors. The later Greek editions collectively known as the textus receptus (TR) by the Elzevirs, Beza, and Stephanus (Robert Estienne) were very similar to Erasmus upon which they built.

 

Always thought that Ersamus greek text was the basis, the foundation for the TR...

Any main differences between 2 greek texts?

 

I am asking Oldtimer again to please answer my question.

 

maybe he is holding to the ole "Nasb/Niv watered down Diety of jesus" line?

 

It's interesting how many of my rebuttal questions you didn't answer. Especially, where your replies in some manner "made my point". Yet, you chose out of all of that conversation to direct your emphasis to one phrase. Especially since you repeated your request.

"as the doctrines of the Bible are watered down"

OK.....

Which has a more powerful impact on a reader of the Bible.

Christ was born of a virgin or Christ was born of a young woman?

People worshiped Jesus or people kneeled (bowed) before Him?

1 Tim 3:16
KJB: 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
or
HCSB: And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[a] was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. Footnotes:a.1 Timothy 3:16 Other mss read God

.... God transferred to a footnote.

Micah 5:2
KJB: 2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
or
NIV: 2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Christ has His origins in ancient times vs being the ETERNAL Son of God.

These are just a few examples, out of many, that diminish the diety of God the Father, God the Son, and/or God the Holy Ghost. Diminish = watered down.

How about taking just one, worshiped vs kneeled (bow), and explain how there's no difference in the impact of those two words on a simple layman trying to grow in his understanding of the word/Word.

 

From post #60 this thread. From the title page of the 1611 KJB.

 

OK, at least now I can understand why you may have thought they translated from manuscripts. But you have imposed onto their comment something they did not explicitly state nor suggest to imply.

Indeed, the kings' revisers DID translate from the original languages (Greek and Hebrew, with a little Aramaic also) which is simply the totality of their comment. It should be clearly evident that they did so from fully complete and uniformly edited books from 16th century European publishers, NOT 1000-year-old fragmentary and diverse parchments gathered from distant desert archives. The KJV men in no way were claiming here that they used ancient handwritten documents. Do you grasp that there is a significant difference between printed critical editions and manuscripts?

To state that the KJV had "work done with the available ancient manuscripts" and that "those [manuscripts] had to be translated in order to determine what content from prior English Bibles would be used" is absolutely false. After a reader has (rather easily) determined that those assertions are untrue the credibility of the writer has been greatly diminished.

 

Are we supposed to judge the quality of a translation by the "impact" it has on it's readers or by the fidelity of the translation to the manuscripts that we have?

Give me fidelity anytime.

 

I apologize for not being more clear in my use of the term "ancient manuscripts". As you said, all of their original sources have disappeared, so we don't know exactly what they were physically handling in addition to copies of the specifically named sources, such as the Bishop's Bible.

Therefore, how can you specifically state:

Neither of us knows the total extent of what they had available to them. Some of their resources may have, indeed, been 1000-year-old fragmentary and diverse parchments". Remember the crusades were from 1095 to 1291, so for example, we have no way of knowing what was brought back to Europe, that could have become part of what they used to read the "original" languages.

Thus, an assertion that claims a statement to be untrue without proof, also reduced the credibility of the author of the assertion. You cannot say with 100% certainty, backed up by proof, that one or more of the translators of the KJB did not have access to one or more "ancient manuscripts". To this day, we do not know what's stored in all the dusty old European university and church archives. Does anyone know the full extent of what the Catholic church as managed to lock away from view over just the last 1,000 years or so. How about the last 400 years?

Quote:
Do you grasp that there is a significant difference between printed critical editions and manuscripts?

Do you grasp that there is a significate difference between knowing for sure specifically what was used and speculation when charging someone with making false statements?

 

So, tell us what you meant if you can.

Again, you project your preconceptions upon what is actually written. I did NOT state that "original sources" (materials including lexicons, etc.) were lost; I said the "official records" had been lost (that is, minutes of their meetings, etc.).

Just because we cannot 'know' with absolute certainty what they did use does not mean we cannot deduce with reasonable certainty what they didn't use. And one thing they didn't use (and I am stating this with my highest possible level of confidence) were 1000-year-old manuscripts. Here are a few of my reasons --

First, to have two, nine, or even three dozen manuscripts would not have been enough; it would have required virtually ALL the discovered manuscripts at that time to properly do what you proposed. Limited 16th century logistics would not have accommodated the project within the period they actually worked (about 6 years). Second, it would have been an irrational redundant effort since [critcial] editors (such as Erasmus and others) had already accomplished as much as was possible. It is simply not a translator's job. Third, unofficial accounts of their activities reveal absolutely no indication they engaged in any collating of manuscripts.

Do you have proof that the KJV men used manuscripts, or not?

I stand behind what I wrote. It is available for all to read and comment. If I have been mistaken, I welcome genuine correction from anyone.

I asked you to give documentary evidence for your assertion of the use of manuscripts by the KJV translators and you failed on your first attempt apparently because you misunderstood the terminology in the AV preface.

 

I found where Augustine apparently believed the LXX was inerrant:

This is in his City of God, p. 884 in this PDF of Schaff's version, downloadable at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.html​

 

The Bible is inerrant for spiritual matters. Different people, in some cases widely different times and places, wrote various parts of the OT. It matters not whether Ahaziah was 22 or 42 when he began his reign. If Ahaziah makes a difference as to whether or not someone is saved by grace, you are in a curious spriritual realm.

 

except that the Bible was verbal plenary inspired from/by God, so that to each word of the original manuscripts was without error!

not just for spiritual matters, was to historical matters also!

 

Isn't God's word preserved down to "every jot and tittle"? Every dotted "i" and every squiggly tilde"~"? Wouldn't that make the difference how accurate the Bible must be to truly be God's word?

Just for disclaimers, I stand somewhere between KJVO#2 and KJVO#3....

 

That was for the originals from authors, as they were verbal inerrantly inspired down from God!

We are current hebrew/Greek texts VERY close to them, essential same, so the englsih translations can be seen and held as being infallible and authoritative!