-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Original Is The KJV?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
The 1611 KJV could have been called the "New" Bishops' Bible, or the "New" Geneva Bible, or the "New" Tyndale's.
KJV-only author David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). KJV-only author Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). KJV defender Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). Paisley wrote: "The Authorized Version is not a new translation but rather a revision of a great number of English Bibles which went before" (Plea, p. 24). In an appendix in Waite's Defined KJB, S. H. Tow noted that "Tyndale's Bible became the foundation of other Protestant Bibles" (p. 1668).
KJV-only author David Cloud referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition of Tyndale" (Rome and the Bible, p. 106; Faith, p. 510; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 102). Cloud also referred to the KJV as “a revision of the Tyndale Bible” (Faith, p. 577). He also noted: "Our Authorized English Bible is a direct descendant of Tyndale's faithful Version" (O Timothy, Vol. 14, Issue 5, 1997, p. 10). KJV-only author Robert Sargent referred to the Geneva Bible as the "third revision of Tyndale's Bible" and to the Bishops' Bible as the "fourth revision of Tyndale's Bible" (English Bible, pp. 197, 198). KJV defender Edward F. Hills affirmed that the 1611 KJV "is mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible" (KJV Defended, p. 215). Paisley wrote: "The Authorized Version is not a new translation but rather a revision of a great number of English Bibles which went before" (Plea, p. 24). In an appendix in Waite's Defined KJB, S. H. Tow noted that "Tyndale's Bible became the foundation of other Protestant Bibles" (p. 1668).
The KJV was a revision and not a completely new translation. Concerning the KJV, P. W. Raidabaugh observed: “This great work was not strictly a translation, but a revision of all the English Bibles” (History of the English Bible, p 58). George Milligan affirmed that the AV is “a revision rather than a translation” (English Bible, p. 117). Condit agreed that the KJV “was a revision and not a new translation” (History, p. 339). R. Cunningham Didham asserted that the AV “is not properly a translation at all, but a revision of former translations” (New Translation of the Psalms, p. 6). In 1842 Samuel Aaron and David Bernard pointed out that from the rules given the KJV translators and from comparing the KJV to the earlier English Bibles that "nothing is more obvious" than the fact that the KJV is a revision of them (Faithful Translation, p. 8). David Cloud admitted: "The King James Bible is a revision of that line of Received Text English Bibles stretching back to Tyndale" (For Love of the Bible, p. 8). In an article about John Overall, The Dictionary of National Biography referred to the KJV as "the 1611 revision of the translation of the Bible" (p. 1270). In an article about Roger Fenton, this same reference work called the KJV "the revised version of the Bible" (p. 1191). On its title page and in its preface, the 1611 KJV acknowledged that it revised the former English translations. In their preface, the KJV translators indicated that they never thought that they should need to make a new translation but instead endeavored to make a better one out of several good English translations. Peter Levi wrote: "The Authorized Version was a conflation of existing translations" (English Bible: 1534-1859, p. 34). In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard observed: "The Bible of 1611, being only a revised edition, was not entered on the Stationers' Registers" (p. 32). David Norton also pointed out that “presumably because it was considered a revision rather than a new book, the first edition was not entered on the Stationers’ Registers” (Textual History, p. 3). Adam Nicolson also pointed out: “Being only a revision of earlier translations, and not a new work, there was no need for it to be entered in the Stationers’ Register, which recorded only new publications” (God’s Secretaries, p. 227).
Amazing....
It's now been two weeks and 30 posts ago on this thread since I offered a challenge to anyone to demonstrate in his/her own words just how people who died prior to 1611 were born again.
Either there was a "Word of God" in English prior to 1611, or there wasn't.
If there was a "Word of God" in English prior to 1611, what was this "Word of God" called?
If there was a "Word of God" in English prior to 1611, what compelling reason(s) did God have for creating a brand-new "Word of God" that was published in 1611?
That, in essence, was the challenge I submitted in Post #10 on 10/13/08.
That challenge was also cited in Post #21 on 10/13/08 and in Post #34 on 10/14/08.
We've now come as far as at least Post #64 on 10/28/08.
Why, oh why, have I not heard so much as a word from any of my dear BB friends who are seated in any of the KJVO-only pews in response to any of these questions that I've asked?
Amazing, isn't it?
Your silence on answering these questions is quite deafening.
It's now been two weeks and 30 posts ago on this thread since I offered a challenge to anyone to demonstrate in his/her own words just how people who died prior to 1611 were born again.
Either there was a "Word of God" in English prior to 1611, or there wasn't.
If there was a "Word of God" in English prior to 1611, what was this "Word of God" called?
If there was a "Word of God" in English prior to 1611, what compelling reason(s) did God have for creating a brand-new "Word of God" that was published in 1611?
That, in essence, was the challenge I submitted in Post #10 on 10/13/08.
That challenge was also cited in Post #21 on 10/13/08 and in Post #34 on 10/14/08.
We've now come as far as at least Post #64 on 10/28/08.
Why, oh why, have I not heard so much as a word from any of my dear BB friends who are seated in any of the KJVO-only pews in response to any of these questions that I've asked?
Amazing, isn't it?
Your silence on answering these questions is quite deafening.