I'm Not Attacking The Bible...

[franklinmonroe]

...What the heck does using typesetting for a printing press version of ancient manuscripts have to do with the validity of the AV? ...

... To simply say it's just a revision doesn't take into account the work done with the available ancient manuscripts. Those had to be translated in order to determine what content from prior English Bibles would be used, supplemented or rejected by the translation team. ...

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?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[franklinmonroe]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[Rippon]

What doctrines are being watered-down in the modern English versions such as the NASB,ESV,HCSB etc.?

I am asking Oldtimer again to please answer my question.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[Oldtimer]

I am asking Oldtimer again to please answer my question.

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.

 

[Oldtimer]

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

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

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

 

[franklinmonroe]

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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.

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.

 

[Oldtimer]

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.

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:

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.

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?

 

[franklinmonroe]

I apologize for not being more clear in my use of the term "ancient manuscripts". ...

So, tell us what you meant if you can.

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. ...

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.).

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. ...

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Augustine was indeed a partisan of the LXX; I'm not sure that inerrant would adequately describe his attitude toward it, but it is certain he held it in the highest esteem and did not see what good could come of consulting the Hebrew:



Besides, Jerome's translation would introduce confusion, especially between the Greek-speaking eastern churches and the Latin-speaking western churches, Augustine said.

I have excerpted what I could find from extant letters between Augustine and Jerome regarding the latter's translational work:

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=4b291d3898b6ba1d370de9204f2ef639&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baptistboard.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D1290829%26highlight%3Djerome%2Baugustine%23post1290829&v=1&libid=1340677313524&out=http%3A%2F%2Fpwp.att.net%2Fp%2Fs%2Fcommunity.dll%3Fep%3D87%26subpageid%3D324766%26ck%3D&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baptistboard.com%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearchid%3D1718651&title=Septuagint%20still%20perfect%3F%20-%20Page%209%20-%20BaptistBoard.com&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fpwp.att.net%2Fp%2Fs%2Fcommunity.dll%3Fep%3D16%26amp%3Bgroupid%3D388349%26amp%3Bck%3D%3Cbr%3E%0A&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13406782737755

I found where Augustine apparently believed the LXX was inerrant:

"It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing."​

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​

 

[rsr]

Thanks, John, for digging that up. I hesitated to use the word inerrant because I'm not sure that its modern connotations align with how the patristic writers would understand the term.

Nonetheless, it does seem that Augustine considered the original LXX to be inspired in the same sense that the Hebrew was inspired. Where they differ, it is the result of copyist error from the perfect LXX or the Holy Spirit had inspired the LXX translators to use different words.

Dealing with the differences in the ages of antediluvian patriarchs, Augustine says:

However, though any one who pleases has it in his power to correct this version, yet it is not unimportant to observe that no one has presumed to emend the Septuagint from the Hebrew text in the many places where they seem to disagree. For this difference has not been reckoned a falsification; and for my own part I am persuaded it ought not to be reckoned so. But where the difference is not a mere copyist's error, and where the sense is agreeable to truth and illustrative of truth, we must believe that the divine Spirit prompted them to give a varying version, not in their function of translators, but in the liberty of prophesying. (p. 812)

... if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that. Further, whatever is found in both editions, that one and the same Spirit willed to say through both, but so as that the former preceded in prophesying, and the latter followed in prophetically interpreting them; because, as the one Spirit of peace was in the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the selfsame one Spirit hath appeared in the latter, when, without mutual conference they yet interpreted all things as if with one mouth.(p. 1218)

Thus the LXX translation does not correct the Hebrew, but is itself a complementary revelation of equal stature.

 

[Matthew 7: 1-6]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[NDCompuGeek]

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....

 

[Yeshua1]

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!