Those 1611 translators would have Never agreed with KJVO!
-
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!
KJV Preface
- Thread starter McCree79
- Start date
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Editorial opinion, so please take it in the spirit that it is intended...
As I see it, the translators of the Authorized Version wouldn't have agreed with the attitudes of the numerous publishing houses today that are all pushing their competing translations, either.
The "KJV" translators were seeking to make a better one...
Not to start or to continue a never-ending cycle that only seems to make certain entities rich off people who can't decide which one that they should use.
Question:
Are we there yet?
Do we have that Bible in English ( never mind other languages of which there are an estimated 6,500 to 7,000 of them in the world today ) that can stand to go for a while without being revised?
If not, then when will we be there?
After even more money is spent on an industry that is currently making approximately 400 million dollars a year, leading everyone to believe that "there's another, better translation just around the corner"?
Is there?
Of course there is...and many more right behind that, if I'm reading the signs correctly.
I've dug up a few links to articles around the internet about this very subject:
The Big Business Of Wycliffe Bible Translation And Why They Might Lose Money
The Good Book Business
How The Bible Industry Makes Its Fortune
THE GOSPEL OF PUBLISHING BEST SELLERS, ACCORDING TO BIBLE INDUSTRY
Nashville: Publishing Bibles Is Big Business
...and I have to ask you, friends...
What's really going on, and why all the attention on one old, much-maligned and much-blessed 400 year old English translation that everyone is seemingly opposed to in these last days?
If I were the person who likes to dig under the surface for answers ( and I want all of you reading this know that I am ), I would be asking harder questions than simply,
"What's with all the KJVO hype?".
Many of us ( who don't agree with men like Peter Ruckman ) are continually ridiculed for holding on to our Bibles, and have tried to explain that we wouldn't mind a revision of the "archaic" language that exists in the best-selling Bible translation in English that has ever been published;
But we don't understand why many are trying to "re-invent the wheel", when all that's needed is that afore-mentioned and simple revision.
To me, it's not that hard, brothers and sisters...
No "textual criticism" is needed;
Just one, excellent translation into the English from a source that was already trusted 400 years ago:
The Textus Receptus and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.
Barring that, we feel that we already have what we need.
As I see it, the translators of the Authorized Version wouldn't have agreed with the attitudes of the numerous publishing houses today that are all pushing their competing translations, either.
The "KJV" translators were seeking to make a better one...
Not to start or to continue a never-ending cycle that only seems to make certain entities rich off people who can't decide which one that they should use.
Question:
Are we there yet?
Do we have that Bible in English ( never mind other languages of which there are an estimated 6,500 to 7,000 of them in the world today ) that can stand to go for a while without being revised?
If not, then when will we be there?
After even more money is spent on an industry that is currently making approximately 400 million dollars a year, leading everyone to believe that "there's another, better translation just around the corner"?
Is there?
Of course there is...and many more right behind that, if I'm reading the signs correctly.
I've dug up a few links to articles around the internet about this very subject:
The Big Business Of Wycliffe Bible Translation And Why They Might Lose Money
The Good Book Business
How The Bible Industry Makes Its Fortune
THE GOSPEL OF PUBLISHING BEST SELLERS, ACCORDING TO BIBLE INDUSTRY
Nashville: Publishing Bibles Is Big Business
...and I have to ask you, friends...
What's really going on, and why all the attention on one old, much-maligned and much-blessed 400 year old English translation that everyone is seemingly opposed to in these last days?
If I were the person who likes to dig under the surface for answers ( and I want all of you reading this know that I am ), I would be asking harder questions than simply,
"What's with all the KJVO hype?".
Many of us ( who don't agree with men like Peter Ruckman ) are continually ridiculed for holding on to our Bibles, and have tried to explain that we wouldn't mind a revision of the "archaic" language that exists in the best-selling Bible translation in English that has ever been published;
But we don't understand why many are trying to "re-invent the wheel", when all that's needed is that afore-mentioned and simple revision.
To me, it's not that hard, brothers and sisters...
No "textual criticism" is needed;
Just one, excellent translation into the English from a source that was already trusted 400 years ago:
The Textus Receptus and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.
Barring that, we feel that we already have what we need.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
To my understanding,
Their work, as well as much of the prior translations' work, was built primarily off William Tyndale's work...
At least in the New Testament.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I'm well aware of the many spelling revisions, Salty, as well as the printing errors.
Thank you for the information.
Regardless, they quoted the Geneva in 1 Corinthians 14:11.
Hard to establish the KJVO movement when the translators chose to cite a verse different from what they wrote. They certainly didn't believe that the KJV was alone the word of God.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
which just goes to show that the 1611 was not a perfect version.
Not talking about spelling or printing. Talking about really, really bad theology that had to be changed in editions after 1611. Which version is correct?
I Cor 12:28 is a good example. How many gifts are listed in this verse - seven or eight?
Choice #1 says seven - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps in governments, diversities of tongues."
Choice #2 says eight - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."
(first is AV1611, second KJV 1850)
Or Gen 39:16 is it "her lord" or "his lord"
(first is AV1611, second KJV 1629)
Or even II Chron 33:19 is it "sin" or "sins"
(trick question - first is KJV1762 Cambridge revision in my wife's translation, second is KJV1769 Oxford revision in my Scofield Reference Bible translation that I use in the pulpit!)
There are more than 400 changes of whole words/sentences BEYOND mere spelling, punctuation or typesetting changes.
A careful reading of the preface of the AV 1611 shows those men didn't believe their work was the be-all, end-all English Bible translation. It was simply their best efforts to make the best English translation they were capable of making, & they admit that in many cases, other words or whole sentences were as accurate as those they used in the text.
Those translators would NOT have believed the KJVO . (snip) belief. * Remember also, that they called even poor translations "the word of God".
The KJVO (snip) belief has NO Scriptural support , even in the KJV itself, a fact which automatically renders that myth false.
* added by admin
Those translators would NOT have believed the KJVO . (snip) belief. * Remember also, that they called even poor translations "the word of God".
The KJVO (snip) belief has NO Scriptural support , even in the KJV itself, a fact which automatically renders that myth false.
* added by admin
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course the Church of England makers of the KJV would not agree with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion which their king and state church did not permit. The Bishop of London and the Archbishop had control over printers and had authority to license what was permitted to be printed and to keep many books from being printed.
That is one of the common variations in present KJV editions, but the rendering "sin" is not found in the 1762 Cambridge. The first editions of the KJV that I have found to have "sins" plural at 2 Chronicles 33:19 was the 1760 Cambridge edition and the 1762 Cambridge edition so that the 1769 Oxford's rendering "sins" likely came from one of those two Cambridge editions. Most Cambridge editions of the KJV through the 1800's still had "sins" with the exception of a few around 1817 and with the exception of the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener.
It may have been based on the 1873 Cambridge that post-1900 Cambridge editions adopted the rendering "sin" at 2 Chronicles 33:19.
The Scofield Study Bible, which has the additional copyright of 1996, follows a post-1900 Cambridge text so that it has "sin" at 2 Chronicles 33:19.
My old Scofield Reference Bible has a few unique renderings in its Oxford text that I have found in no other editions of the KJV so that they were likely unintentionally introduced by the typesetter or printer.
I would agree that it has not been proven that the 1611 edition's rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 was the fault of the printer. Historical evidence from the 1600's suggests that the 1611 rendering was a deliberate one in order to take away a rendering which had been used to advocate Presbyterian church government.
According to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon, one of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates to the text prepared by the KJV translators involved 1 Corinthians 12:28 (Six Sermons, p. 25). Since the 1611 edition’s rendering “helps in governments” is said to be introduced intentionally by a prelate or prelates, it cannot soundly be assumed to be the fault of the printer. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”
Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).
In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 edition with Miles Smith, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Thomas Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Thomas Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bishop Thomas Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34).
Was this change deliberately and purposely introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government, making it a change with doctrinal implications? Did Bishop Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their positions of authority to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government?
What truth of the original demanded that this doctrinal change be introduced into the 1611 edition? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that George Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, George Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103). Could the 1611 edition’s reading/rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 be considered to contain a change purposefully inserted into the text for doctrinal reasons?
Was the underlying text of the 1611 for this deliberate reading and rendering [supposedly Chrysostom] at 1 Corinthians 12:28 in the 1611 edition kept unchanged in the 1629 Cambridge edition or was a textual change made to the 1611 edition in 1629?
The Kjv 1611 team would have fully supported the Nkjv!Editorial opinion, so please take it in the spirit that it is intended...
As I see it, the translators of the Authorized Version wouldn't have agreed with the attitudes of the numerous publishing houses today that are all pushing their competing translations, either.
The "KJV" translators were seeking to make a better one...
Not to start or to continue a never-ending cycle that only seems to make certain entities rich off people who can't decide which one that they should use.
Question:
Are we there yet?
Do we have that Bible in English ( never mind other languages of which there are an estimated 6,500 to 7,000 of them in the world today ) that can stand to go for a while without being revised?
If not, then when will we be there?
After even more money is spent on an industry that is currently making approximately 400 million dollars a year, leading everyone to believe that "there's another, better translation just around the corner"?
Is there?
Of course there is...and many more right behind that, if I'm reading the signs correctly.
I've dug up a few links to articles around the internet about this very subject:
The Big Business Of Wycliffe Bible Translation And Why They Might Lose Money
The Good Book Business
How The Bible Industry Makes Its Fortune
THE GOSPEL OF PUBLISHING BEST SELLERS, ACCORDING TO BIBLE INDUSTRY
Nashville: Publishing Bibles Is Big Business
...and I have to ask you, friends...
What's really going on, and why all the attention on one old, much-maligned and much-blessed 400 year old English translation that everyone is seemingly opposed to in these last days?
If I were the person who likes to dig under the surface for answers ( and I want all of you reading this know that I am ), I would be asking harder questions than simply,
"What's with all the KJVO hype?".
Many of us ( who don't agree with men like Peter Ruckman ) are continually ridiculed for holding on to our Bibles, and have tried to explain that we wouldn't mind a revision of the "archaic" language that exists in the best-selling Bible translation in English that has ever been published;
But we don't understand why many are trying to "re-invent the wheel", when all that's needed is that afore-mentioned and simple revision.
To me, it's not that hard, brothers and sisters...
No "textual criticism" is needed;
Just one, excellent translation into the English from a source that was already trusted 400 years ago:
The Textus Receptus and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew.
Barring that, we feel that we already have what we need.
There have been thousands of revisions and changes the in the kjv from 1611 to 1769 to 1873 !
And the outrights mistakes and errors!
They must have thought that God gave the perfect translation for that in the Geneva!
Is it really true then that the Kjv translators were under pressure by King James to make sure that the Kjv would reflect God setting up sovereign kings, unlike in the Geneva, and that the Calvinist notes were done away with as helps?
also, that many of them wanted to translate Immersed, but got overridden into Baptism?
Are you condemning the textual criticism involved in the making of the KJV as its Church of England makers made use of multiple, textually-varying texts?
Do you suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV were wrong to make textual changes to the pre-1611 English Bible?
Interesting how when the Kjv 1611 practice it is godly, when those om ,pdern versions use Textual criticism, its suddenly ungodly!
Before I joined this board many years ago, I never heard of a KJVO movement and I was never concerned with other translations, as you see, I didn't need to, as always in my church life of over 50 years, the KJV, has always moved me... And that brethren is the only movement I know... Brother Glen