AV1611 Translator Sidenotes: Gospels

This is exactly right. They admitted as such:

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

All the above quotes are from the preface of the 1611 KJV.

 

does anyone think the 1611 translators themselves thought they were making a perfect translation?

 

No, the KJV translators did not think that their work was perfect, and it isn't.

 

then what's the point of this thread? there's nothing to debate.

 

Why does every post have to be a debate? Why can't some just be information?

 

i guess that's true enough. sorry

 

perhaps because it doesn't address any of the issues. is god capable of preserving his word without the active help of a bunch of anglican baby baptizing heretics? yes in fact, he can do it in spite of them.

 

I'm already defending the orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort, do you want me to defend the KJV translators as well? So they believed in baptism of babies. They were Anglican. Get over it.

What is up with labelling anyone from Church history who was not a Baptist (and even half the Baptists), "heretics"?? Is this some new policy and someone forgot to send me the memo?

 

No problem, I got your back. The next 1611 KJV marginal note in the Gospels is:

----------
S.Matthew I:23 (KJV1611):
Behold, a Virgin shall be with childe, and shall bring foorth a sonne, and ||they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with vs.)

Sidenote: || Or, his name shall be called.
----------

Interesing that the translators capitialized "Virgin", which has since been downgraded to "virgin" in more recent KJVs. They must have been a bunch of Mary-worshipping heretics.

 

What do you defend the orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort is that you defend their logic of unbelief.

 

What do you defend the orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort is that you defend their logic of unbelief. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]If true, that would make Brian very wise indeed... if he were defending the logic of their unbelief in KJVOnlyism, that is.

Which are you defending for the KJV translators? Their doctrine or their methods? Both were flawed.

 

If they didn't think so, why should anyone else? More specifically, if they claimed the translation choices for their own, affirmed that other choices were legitimate, and even acknowledged variants, who in their right mind would then assign perfection to their work?

 

Because that would be putting man's word above God's.

 

Scott J asked:

Who in their right mind would then assign perfection to their work?

Scott, you're just not thinking with the Logic Of Faith &lt;tm&gt;.

As long as the KJV translators stuck to the job of translating, they were supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit; they were geniuses; they were the best educated men of their time; they were so learned that they make today's scholarship look weak by comparison.

On the other hand, when they stopped translating to tell us about alternative translations, variant readings, or the why and how of their methodology, then they were morons.

O ye of little faith.

 

The logic of their unbelief In KJVOnlyism? Who?

 

Originally posted by Scott J:
If they didn't think so, why should anyone else?

because of how god has used their work. even paul, working under the inspiration of god, didn't always seem to realize it. not that i'm arguing for the reinspiration of the kjv, just that the opinion of writers/translators concerning their work doesn't really matter as much as you think.