The King James Translation

Logos1560 said:

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators themselves referred to Richard Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound."

Click to expand...

The preface line about being ‘much bound’ to Bancroft shows obligation, but it still doesn’t amount to a translator explicitly saying he was pressured to alter doctrine. My original question was for a clear statement from a translator himself to that effect.

Logos1560 said:

You did not provide primary sources for several of your own assertions so you do not practice what you preach.

Click to expand...

If you believe I’ve made assertions without primary sources, please quote the specific statements you’re referring to so we can look at them directly. Besides, I did include the sources with the article,

Anthony Pritchard said:

I don’t dispute that others contributed or that Beza’s text was used, I said as much in the article. My point was simply about the officially named translators and the structure of the companies, which is what the historical record actually lists. Also, if the commissioning letter is the basis for the goals you mentioned, could you quote the specific lines that state them?

Click to expand...

I have my notes, but am not going to hop on a plane to Europe or search the internet to give you exact quotes. These guidelines are fairly well known.

King James sought to create a Bible to mend the fracturing Church of England. The KJV was an outreach to the Calvinists (a group Boncroft himself despised).

To me it is not important. Every translation has issues. But God's Word transcends these issues. I do not believe you will find God's words using your methodology. So to me, this is not an important topic.

That said, to help you on your journey, start with the Hampton Court Conference and go forward. The letter was written in July 1604. You will find the letter if you persevere.

JonC said:

I have my notes, but am not going to hop on a plane to Europe or search the internet to give you exact quotes. These guidelines are fairly well known.

Click to expand...

Well, I’m not asking you to fly to Europe, just to quote the specific lines from the commissioning letter that support the goals you listed. Without the actual wording, the claims remain interpretive rather than documented.

Salty said:

So why do you not consider this KJO?

Click to expand...

I do not consider that KJO because I have never said the KJV is the only Bible God preserved. I said it is one that stands within the preserved stream. That is not an exclusive claim. My position is about the underlying texts and the translation method, not about elevating one English Bible above all others in every language. The preserved text was translated into several languages, and the early English Bibles stand within that same stream. That is why I speak of the KJV as one within it, not the only one.

William Tyndale had translated some 85 years before the KJV was printed and much of Tyndale's pioneering work went into the KJV. Without William Tyndale there is no KJV. The reason the KJV New Testament is so good is because of William Tyndale.

Nor is the KJV purely Byzantine. It has some mixture from Alexandrian and the Latin Vulgate/Rheims Bible. It is very good, but not perfectly preserved.

Conan said:

William Tyndale had translated some 85 years before the KJV was printed and much of Tyndale's pioneering work went into the KJV. Without William Tyndale there is no KJV. The reason the KJV New Testament is so good is because of William Tyndale.

Nor is the KJV purely Byzantine. It has some mixture from Alexandrian and the Latin Vulgate/Rheims Bible. It is very good, but not perfectly preserved.

Click to expand...

They pulled "Lucifer" from the Vulgate, and we see the confusion that came from that faux pas.

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text


From the website

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text​

Here I give in English all translatable differences between the Hodges-Farstad "Majority Text" and the editon of the Received text compiled by F.H.A. Scrivener (representing the readings followed in the King James version). For each item I also indicate which other editors have preferred the "Majority Text" reading over the Received Text. See this page for an explanation of the abbreviations. —M.D.M

Mat 3:8. Read "fruit" instead of "fruits". G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.

Mat 3:11. Omit "and [with] fire" after "Holy Ghost". HF.

Mat 4:10. Add "behind me" after "hence". G Lt W HF.

Mat 4:18. Omit "Jesus" and render 'he saw'. G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.

Mat 5:27. Omit "by them of old time" after "said". G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF

Anthony Pritchard said:

None of those citations are from the translators themselves. I’m asking for a primary source where a translator says he was pressured.

Click to expand...

Of course not! Don't be silly! These men were living in the 17th Century, not the 21st. They would have lost their jobs (of worse) if they had dared to say anything against the king.

Anthony Pritchard said:

I don’t dispute that others contributed or that Beza’s text was used, I said as much in the article. My point was simply about the officially named translators and the structure of the companies, which is what the historical record actually lists. Also, if the commissioning letter is the basis for the goals you mentioned, could you quote the specific lines that state them?

Click to expand...

May I remind you that when I asked you for an original quotation showing that Lollards were Credobaptists, you declined to give me one but fobbed me off with an impenitrable book dating hundreds of years later, in which I still haven't found the evidence that you asserted.

Martin Marprelate said:

May I remind you that when I asked you for an original quotation showing that Lollards were Credobaptists, you declined to give me one but fobbed me off with an impenitrable book dating hundreds of years later, in which I still haven't found the evidence that you asserted.

Click to expand...

Fobbed? Speak English, man, English!!! Oh, wait....