Featured NASB CO-Founder recants NASB.

Lol! Lol! Lol!

 

No, I doubt they "worried". I'm sure it mattered, since there was a King involved.

Probably did, yes. Who else would have?

 

Laugh at the "little people" that you despise.
If you were appointed by a King, in 17th century England, to do as monumental a task, as produce the official Kingdom's Bible...you wouldn't over look any detail.

Look at the art on the title page. Do you think that was some "put whatever ya want there, we don't care, it's only God's Word" job?

I trow not.

 

Ever published a book? The printer doesnt choose anything.

 

I did not claim that the KJV translators screwed up the title page.

I observed that it was unlikely that the KJV translators were responsible for what was on the title page based on what is known from publishing in those days. You were given a sound explanation for why the word "newly" in "newly translated" would not be accurate. You should to close your eyes to the facts.

Here is more evidence that indicates that it was the printer that was responsible for what was on the title page.

A 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible had the caption--"Authorized and appointed to be read in churches," but the 1611 KJV did not have the word "authorized" on its title page. Randall Davidson asserted: “The words ‘Appointed to be read in churches’ are absent from at least eight of the editions of the King James Version of the first few years, showing that the printer sometimes, but by no means invariably, added the words to the title-page of this version” (Protestant Episcopal Review, Vol. 6, p. 179). There are more than eight editions that omit those words. Some title pages of KJV editions printed by the king’s printers in London that do not have the words “Appointed to be read in churches” include ones in 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1627. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule maintained that “the words Appointed . . . are regularly omitted from both titles in the early octavo editions, down to 1630” (Historical Catalogue, p. 137). Darlow and Moule noted that “the line Appointed . . . is omitted from both titles” in the first small folio edition in 1616 (p. 148). If the king’s printer had been authorized and directly instructed by the bishop of London, the archbishop, the Privy Council, or the King to include these words on the title page in 1611, it would be very unlikely that he would have dared to omit them in any of the editions that he printed. The fact that those words were omitted in several early editions indicates that the printer himself likely added those words without any specific authorization, perhaps taking or borrowing them from the title page of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, since he knew that the KJV was intended to replace the Bishops‘. If the printer received any special authorization or order from the Privy Council or the King, why did he deliberately omit the word “authorized” found on that 1602 title page of the Bishops‘ Bible? Alfred Pollard asserted: “There is indeed negative evidence that there was no such order, for the word ‘Appointed,‘ is considerably weaker than the “Authorized and Appointed’ which it replaced” (Records, p. 60). In addition, since these words had been put on the title page of the Bishops’ Bible without any known royal authority, it should be obvious that the same could be true concerning the 1611 title page.

 

It was sound in your view.

 

It is sound according to the known facts.

The makers of the KJV consulted both the original language texts and the pre-1611 English Bibles, but they did not do what the title page asserts. What is stated on the title page suggested that the KJV is a new translation [newly translated out of the original languages] diligently compared to the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Sound evidence demonstrates that it was actually the other way around. The KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles compared to the original language texts. The preface to the 1611 and the rules given for the making of the KJV both confirm my point. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.” In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that they never thought to make a new translation. Instead the mark, goal, or aim of the makers of the KJV was to make out of the many good pre-1611 English Bibles "one principal good one." Since the makers of the KJV asserted that they did not make a new translation, how could the KJV be accurately claimed to be "newly translated"?

Sixty percent or more of the KJV is clearly not "newly translated" since it had already been translated earlier that way in the pre-1611 English Bibles. You should know that most of the KJV is not "newly translated" since you suggest that you have checked and read some of the earlier English Bibles. Perhaps you might could say that around 25% of the KJV was newly translated, but it would not be accurate to suggest that the entire KJV was "newly translated."

You have failed to make any sound case for your claim that what is stated on the title page had to be the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves.

 

'Publishing' a book in 1611 was entirely different than in 2011. In fact, those early printers/publishers did occasionally choose the engravings to be used that they had happened to have on hand.

What is the title of your book?

 

I have had books published.

Where is your sound evidence that publishers in the 1600's did not choose anything?

Are you asserting that the pagan or mythological scenes in some of the initial letters in the original 1611 edition of the KJV were chosen by the KJV translators instead of being put there by the printers?

It may be that some of the initial letters in the original 1611 KJV edition with mythological scenes may be from the same source as those used in this Bishops’ Bible edition. Darlow and Moule suggested that some of the ornamental initials in the 1611 resemble “those used in folio editions of the Bishops’ Bible” (Historical Catalogue, I, p. 135). In introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard pointed out: “In the New Testament two of the mythological ten-line set, the use of which in the Bishops’ Bible had justly been censured, reappear at the beginning of Matthew and Romans” (p. 45, footnote 2). John Eadie affirmed that the printers of the 1611 used some of “the same head pieces, woodcuts, and other embellishments, which had appeared in the Bishops’” (English Bible, II, p. 291).

In the initial letter for Matthew 1 and Revelation 1, the 1611 KJV has an illustration with the Roman god Neptune with sea horses. John Eadie noted that “the figure of Neptune with his trident and horses, which appears so often in the Bishops’, stands at the beginning of Matthew” (p. 291). H. W. Hoare noted that the figure “of Neptune with his trident and horses was borrowed from the Bishops’ Bible” (Evolution, pp. 274-275). William Loftie affirmed that “the figure of Neptune, which in the largests of the Bishops’ was made frequently available, now headed the gospel of St. Matthew” [in the 1611] (Century of Bibles, p. 6).

At Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3, the 1611’s initial letter has a figure of the Greek god Pan. At Romans 1, the 1611’s initial letter has a naked, sprouting nymph Daphne. These can be seen in the large 1611 digital reproduction by Greyden Press, in the 2010 reprint of the 1611 by Oxford University Press, and in the 2011 reprint by Zondervan, but the 1611 reprints in Roman type published by Thomas Nelson or Hendrickson Publishers do not have them. David Norton has a page of illustrations that includes the above three initials from the 1611 in his book, and he asserted that it is unlikely that the KJV translators approved of their use (Textual History, pp. 51-52). Gordon Campbell wrote: “The initials portraying Daphne and Neptune had been used in the Bishops’ Bible, and had attracted censure from some quarters, so their reuse must have been deliberate. In any case, there was no reason for the translators to disapprove” (Bible, p. 101). Donald Brake wrote: “While readers today might consider depictions of mythological images contrary to the biblical message, the translators likely did not view them as a threat to Christian belief” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 180).

Brake noted that the 1611’s initial letter at Hebrews 1 is a “demonic face with bat wings” (p. 178). Brake also pointed out that the 1611’s initial letter at 2 Corinthians 1, Galatians 1, Philippians 1, 2 Thessalonians 1, Philemon 1, and 1 Peter 1 is “two demons depicted with horns and pitchforks” (p. 179).

At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has “a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ‘vulning’ herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood” (Literary History, p. 205). Vance noted that “the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb” (King James, His Bible, p. 55). The 1611 KJV edition referred to the signs of the Zodiac in its calendar: “Sol in Aquario” (p. xvii), “Sol in Piscibus” (p. xviii), “Sol in Aries” (p. xix), “Sol in Tauro” (p. xx), “Sol in Gemini” (p. xxi), etc.

 

The idea is that things in the Kingdom weren't often left to chance.
They didn't become a world wide empire by sloughing details.
The printing was done the way it was set up, with a few errors, as one would expect from man.
The title page intro can be speculated about, hundreds of years later, but do we have any of the translators on record as saying that the title page was a direct contradiction to their actual process?

 

I'm sure naked baby angels, or sun bursts, didn't bother most of those Anglicans, since they were only a few years removed from Catholicism, and that separation being political, not doctrinal.

 

This thread has gone totally off topic.