Supreme irony here is that the Kjv 1611 translators were NOT Kjvo!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Fact that 1560 Geneva Bible is better than 1611 edition in some places
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
- Status
Translating a bible no more makes a man a Christian than walking into a garage makes him a car. You have a flawed philosophy, it seems to me.
The Kjv translators had no more "aid from God" then the ones on the Nkjv, or Nas teams!
Since when do the scriptures call themselves the word of the translators? My KJV calls itself the word of God. This is not a command for you to believe but a testimony of God that you may confidently believe and if you believe the words he says he again testifies that he will justify you because of it. It is the way I was justified and now you are telling me it ain't so? Notice this "IF" in the KJV.
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Last edited:
The KJV does not call itself the word of God in any different sense than the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God and than post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God.
The KJV is still a Bible translation in the same sense and way that other English Bibles are even if you try to avoid that fact. The KJV presents the textual criticism decisions, revision decisions, and translation decisions of its makers/translators. You are being inconsistent since you do not say that the Geneva Bible or the NKJV also calls itself the word of God.
The KJV does not actually claim to be inspired. You may be trying to read something into verses that they do not directly state since those verses actually make assertions or statements concerning the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles, not concerning the KJV. You may be forgetting that the KJV is a translation or else avoiding that fact.
Last edited:
Perhaps not as flawed as yours.
You have an inconsistent, flawed, modern KJV-only philosophy.
Does it trouble you that all these different bibles in English are calling themselves the word of God? You and I both are smart enough to know it cannot be true. It would be really interesting to know where you get your understanding of the biblical doctrine of translation because you speak as if you are speaking for God. There is an endless parade of English translations over the last hundred and fifty years. Who told you to make them and where?
Another consideration is that the doctrine of "tradition," in my opinion, is violated by the modern practice of continual translation of the same source text into the same language with the caveat that it does not have any real teeth. You say the KJV is a nice translation but it cannot be believed unless compared to the original language for authenticity. Remember I quoted Psalm 119 to show you that the whole revelation of the word of God has seven divisions. The traditions are the precepts. Paul admonished us to keep the traditions that were delivered to us.
So far, in this thread, I have touched on 1) commandments, 2) testimonies, and now with the traditions, 3) precepts.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Why should it trouble me? It did not trouble the Church of England makers of the KJV.
Along with being a new translation, the KJV itself is a revision of multiple varying or different English Bible translations that its makers identified as being the word of God. The 1611 KJV was more a revision than it was a new translation. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.
Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.” In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Bishop Thomas Bilson (1546-1616) also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ Thomas Bilson wrote: “That out of the original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue.”
Last edited:
Who are Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson and who cares what they say? Everyone should understand by now that prophets, apostles, scribes, and translators are not inspired and I am sure not claiming they are. The words are inspired and we are asked by God to believe his words and his record. The modern philosophy that you push here includes paraphrasing and condensing, which certainly is not translating. Your approval is confirmed by your being silent about those practices. People who applaud you here are generally those who love the critical text bibles and paraphrases and liberal politically correct bibles like the NIV.
In my view you do not glorify the word of the Lord by your philosophy.
Here is a judgement of the word of God, one of the seven categories of Psa 119, that proves the apostles are not inspired, but the words in the record are.
Matt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
They are two of the many people who translated your Bible JD731. Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson.
Miles Smith was one of the translators or makers of the KJV who wrote its preface to present the view of all the translators. Thomas Bilson who one of the two co-editors of the KJV along with Miles Smith. Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson made some of the last changes to the translation decisions of the KJV translators.
What Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson said about the KJV and Bible translations is first-hand evidence concerning its making and is more important than your opinions.
You repeatedly try to twist, distort, and misrepresent what I have stated. The scripturally-based view of Bible translations that I advocate is the same view as that of the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators so it is not "modern."
You keep closing your eyes or ignoring the fact that there was some "paraphrasing and condensing" involved in the making of the KJV. It was demonstrated that the KJV does not give an English rendering for many original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts, and it does not give a literal rendering for many other original-language words. You fail to apply the same exact standards/measures to the making of the KJV that you inconsistently and thus unjustly seek to apply to other English Bible translations.
You completely missed the point. Translators are not inspired. The words of God are inspired. Here is an example of a man who we both will probably agree wrote inspired words and was an apostle at the time of the following incident, thus proving my point.
Mt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
L1560 argues as if I believe the translators were inspired men. I don't.
I accused you of having nothing to say about the modern practice of paraphrasing. The only threads you post on are those about the KJV. It has occurred to me that you have too much to lose to address those threads.
But if you treat the KJV as perfect then you do. If the kJV were perfect then they would have to be inspired men, but you are right they were not.
You again jump to a wrong conclusion.
Perhaps you hope to divert away from the inconsistencies and problems that have been soundly pointed out concerning your KJV-only opinions. When your claims are soundly answered or refuted, you avoid correcting them.
You may completely miss the point. The process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God did involve the prophets and apostles [the holy men of God] (2 Pet. 1:21). It is not claimed that the prophets and apostles were receiving the Scriptures by inspiration all the time or every day of their lives so the fact that they were sometimes wrong does not mean that they were not part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God.
Later post-NT translators are not part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God. Later post-NT textual criticism decisions and translation decisions were not made by the process of inspiration of God. Thus, a group of Bible translators can translate more accurately at some places than another group of Bible translators and less accurately at other places. Thus, the 1560 Geneva Bible can be better and more accurate than the 1611edition of the KJV in at least some places without having to be better and more accurate in every word at every verse. That demonstrated fact is a major problem for inconsistent KJV-only claims.
Last edited:
You again jump to a wrong conclusion and attempt to divert away from the truth that you are consumed with one subject and have no interest in anything else, teaching that a belief in the words of scripture is something that God has called you to condemn.
In 1611 God did not give his scriptures, he translated them into English for a people who would believe them and preach them to an unsaved world that he claims in those same scriptures that he so loved that he gave his only begotten son. He did not need apostles and prophets for translation, he needed men who knew all the languages. Souls are at stake. There is a real devil who cannot destroy the word of God but he can pollute it and deny it. He has done it in the past. Remember Balaam.
Look at the present topics on this forum and the comments of the people who read and promote these various bibles. Do you think they have been helpful to them in promoting unity in doctrine and a love for Jesus Christ. I say no. Most of them do not believe what they believe because of anything their bibles actually says. They push their denominational views mostly.
It is my view that we have many new translations because the English speakers believe in Jehovah and this is where the money is. Other people do not have to worry so much about many translations of the Hebrew and Greek language bibles in their tongue.
- Status