Kjv Corrupt?

[Keith M]

In another thread deacon jd made the following statement:

The English translations before the KJB were translated largely from the Latin Vulgate which was already corrupt from its beginning.

This statement must logically lead to the conclusion that the KJV is corrupt. The KJV was a revision of the earlier Bishops' Bible. According to deacon jd's reasoning, since the Bishops' Bible was translated largely from the corrupt Latin Vulgate, and since the KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, therefore the KJV is corrupt. This is an amazing thing for someone to say when they so staunchly claim to support the KJVO belief.

Deacon jd, either your quoted statement is false or else the KJV is corrupt. Which is it?

 

[EdSutton]

WHY?

Couldn't this "same old, same old" be given a rest for a few days?

How about giving as much effort to answering the question about which version is appropriate for a twelve year old, now halfway down page one?

Ed

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV is a revision of the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'), and it cannot be separated from them. The KJV is more of a revision than it is an original new translation from the original languages.

William Tyndale translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in his New Testament, and he translated from the Hebrew in those Old Testament books he translated. It would be incorrect to imply that Tyndale's was translated largely from the Latin Vulgate.

The 1560 Geneva Bible was also translated from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, and it was not translated largely from the Latin Vulgate. Thus, it would be incorrect to imply that the Geneva Bible was translated largely from the Latin Vulgate.

Along with his use of what Tyndale had translated from the original languages, Miles Coverdale did translate Joshua through the rest of the Old Testament from German Bibles and Latin Bibles [Luther's German Bible, the Swiss-German Version of Zwingli and Leo Juda, the Latin Version of Sanctes Pagninus, and the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate]. Thus, in his 1535 Coverdale's Bible and later in the 1539 Great Bible, Miles Coverdale was influenced by the Latin Vulgate and may have translated some from it. It may be debatable whether it would be accurate to claim Coverdale "translated largely from the Latin Vulgate" since he may have translated more from Luther's German Bible than the Vulgate.

After 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the Great Bible, the 1568 Bishops' Bible would likely be next in being influenced by the Latin Vulgate. That would especially be true of those later editions of the Bishops' Bible (from 1575 on) that had the book of Psalms as translated in the Great Bible instead of its own translation of the Psalms. The 1611 KJV was influenced indirectly by the Latin Vulgate thru means of the 1582 Rheims N. T. in many places where the 1568 Bishops' Bible was not. In those editions of the Bishops' Bible from 1568 to 1574, it might be possible that the Bishops' Bible would rank after the 1611 KJV in being influenced by the Latin Vulgate.

 

[LeBuick]

With all the latest technology, why can't the original languages be put into a computer program and have it spit out new bibles in any language from the original text?

 

[EdSutton]

With all the latest technology, why can't the original languages be put into a computer program and have it spit out new bibles in any language from the original text?

Who writes 'the program'? And which program are we using? Not to mention, which text?

Even this could not be made fool-proof, for fools are so ve-e-er-r-r-r-y talented!!

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Who writes 'the program'? And which program are we using? Not to mention, which text?

Even this could not be made fool-proof, for fools are so ve-e-er-r-r-r-y talented!!

Ed

In a way I was kind of joking, I thought all the original documents have yet to be found?

 

[franklinmonroe]

With all the latest technology, why can't the original languages be put into a computer program and have it spit out new bibles in any language from the original text?

I legitimate question that many folks probably ask themselves.

What it reveals is that the translation process is not 'mechanical'.

Translating is not like using a 'decoder ring' to dicover a 'secret message' (where every original letter represents a letter in English). Similarly, there is no such thing as truly a word-for-word translation (even interlinear; you cannot just start with a certain number of words and expect to get the same number of English words as a result).

Even if an original text can be agreed upon, translation cannot be automated. Decisions must be made; we call those decisions... 'interpretation' (gasp!).

I know a little Greek. Here are just two examples of words with more than one meaning; the appropriate useage is determined by the context:

gune (Strong's #746)= woman, or wife (an important distinction at I Tim. 2:12)
arche (Strong's #746) = beginning as at Jn 1:1 and other verses, or ruler as magistrates at Lk 12:11 KJV; 1Cr 15:24 etc

 

[franklinmonroe]

In a way I was kind of joking, I thought all the original documents have yet to be found?

Correct... none of the "original documents" (autographs) have been found; only copies (but many in the original languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic). Other valuable early copies found are in other languages.

 

[LeBuick]

Correct... none of the "original documents" (autographs) have been found; only copies (but many in the original languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic). Other valuable early copies found are in other languages.

I know the OT probably stayed in tact by the Jews but how do we know we found all the NT Epistiles?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry folks, not going to let this one run.

More of "Here we go 'round the mulberry bush."