Question about KJV

Here's a site with some info on the AV translators. Bear in mind that this is a KJVO site containing mucho KJVO propaganda, if you read it beyond the pages that deal with those translators.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

As for your second question, I am very anti-KJVO, and as per your request, I shall withhold my answer.

 

All the translators of the KJV were members of the Church of England. Below is a list of their names compiled from the lists given by others such as Gustavus Paine, Olga Opfell, Geddes MacGregor, and Alexander McClure. .

Abbot, George (1562- 1633)
Aglionby, John (? - 1611)
Andrewes, Lancelot (1555- 1626)
Andrewes, Roger
Barlow, William ( ? - 1613)
Bedwell, William (1563 - 1632)
Bilson, Thomas (1546-7 - 1616) co-editor
Bing [or Byng], Andrew (1574 - 1652)
Bois [or Boys], John (1561- 1644)
Branthwaite, William (1563 -1620)
Brett, Richard (1560 - 1637)
Burleigh, Francis
Chaderton [or Chatterton], Laurence (1536-7 -1640)
Clarke [or Clerke], Richard ( ? - 1634
Dakins, William ( ?- 1607)
Dillingham, Francis ( ? - 1611)
Downes, Andrew (1549 - ? )
Duport, John ( ? - 1617)
Edes, Richard (1555 - 1604)
Featley [or Fairclough], Daniel (1582 - 1645) Fenton, Roger (1565 - 1616)
Harding, John
Harmer [or Harmar], John (1555?- 1613) Harrison, Thomas (1555 - 1631)
Holland, Thomas (1538? - 1612)
Hutchinson [or Huchenson], Ralph (1553? -1606)
Hutten, Leonard (1557? -1632)
Kilby, Richard (1561? - 1620)
King, Jeffrey [or Geoffry] ( ? -1630)
Lake, Arthur (1569 -1626) one of 6 or 12 revisers
Layfield, John (? - 1617)
Lively, Edward (1545?-1605)
Montagu [or Montague], James (1568? -1618) Overall, John (1560 - 1619)
Perin [or Perne], John (? -1615)
Rabbett, Michael
Radcliffe, Jeremy (? - 1612)
Rainolds [or Reynolds], John (1549 - 1607)
Ravens, Ralph (? - 1616)
Ravis, Thomas (1560? - 1609)
Richardson, John (1564? - 1625)
Sanderson, Thomas
Saravia, Hadrian (1531 - 1613)
Savile, Henry (1549 - 1622)
Smith, Miles ( ? - 1624) co-editor
Spalding, Robert
Sparke, Thomas (1548 - 1616)
Spenser, [or Spencer] John (1559 - 1614)
Thomson [or Thompson], Giles (? - 1612)
Thomson, Richard [or "Dutch"] (? - 1613)
Thorne, William (1568? - 1630)
Tigue [or Tighe or Teigh], Robert (? - 1620)
Ward, Robert [or William or John]
Ward, Samuel (? - 1643)

 

Well, the two non-KJBO piped up and gave you some info.
Their version [KJV]is not a version.
It is God's Holy Bible.It is God's work.It is God's work.
If you look at the tittle page,it does not say King James Version.That is because it was for many many years accepted as simply "The Holy Bible." After several years,it also got the name of Authorized Version.

This Holy Bible is to be held in higher reguard because of several factors.The main one being its own internal witness as "being the very word of God"The final authority.The absolute standard.
Because of the manual printing in those days there were several typo errors and a couple shortcuts that the type-setters made.But they soon got corrected to the propper intended wording as the exemplar would have it.

The Holy Bible is the only Bible that has proven itself to be the very words of God.There are no proven errors.[Bible attack sbipped]

God promised to preserve his pure,inspired word/Scripture.The Holy Bible is the only one to fit this bill.

The AV is also founded upon the accepted reformation texts,for they were received by all.
The AV agrees with 99% of these texts,as opposed to the minority Alexandrian 1% [snipped] texts that only number 45 and particularily 2.Aleph and B.But these two disagree with each other so much,that one is hard pressed to find any two verses in a row that agree.

The AV has 5,200 manuscripts that are basically the same throughout and throughout history.

Why would one abaondon these accepted texts foundation in favour of manuscripts [snipped]

Yet this is what has happened,and some have repented after they found out the truth of the thing.

Another reason the AV is to be held in high reguard,is that you can trust it at every word.You will never have to worry about any missing thing in it.
It simply stays the same.

It also has its own built in Bible dictionary,to give you the definition of terms and words that you might not know.eg.scrip=a shepherd's bag

Just look at the first mention of a word,and it will give you the basic meaning of it.

It is easier to memorize because of the cadences.
It is easier to read inspite of the retoric against it.

It affords revival to any nation that upholds the Holy Bible.It promotes more missionaries in church history that all others combined.

Even the unsaved have more confidence in it as being the word of God than any of the new fangled productions.

Well,I could go on and on.
Psalm 12:6,7
Psalm 119:140

PeterAV

[ March 29, 2006, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

However, Peter has been completely incapable of defending the readings of Rev. 17:8 and 1 John 5:7-8.

If you wish to know the truth, I will PM you some quotes from Peter.

 

Proof please?

 

First, let me correct a minor issue or two with PeterAV's post.

First, the King James was called "Authorized Version" from the very beginning when the two authorized printers added this to the front of their 1611 printings to let other people know that their Bible printing was authorized by the King. It was a copyright mark, so to speak.

It is like buying Microsoft Software and seeing an "authorized" stamp on the front of the package; that tells you that it is not a copied or pirated version.

There were problems with printers, especially outside of England making illicit copies of the King James Version and the legal printers began to use "Authorized Version" to show nothing more that their printing was done under the authority of the king and was not a bootlegged copy.

Secondly, it is NOT easier to read, unless you grew up reading it. I grew up reading it and now I find my ESV is much easier to both read AND understand; and there are NO doctrinal differences.

By the way, The REAL King James contains the Apocrypha right between the Old and New Testaments and if it ain't got the Apocrypha, it ain't an early printing of the KJV.

Finally, I wish to say that the King James has definitely proven itself to be a GREAT translation of the Word of God. There is no doubt about this. Do NOT rush off and say that "Phillip doesn't like the KJV". It is one of my favorite translations, but not necessarily for intense study.

If "TIME" has something to do with a Bible being "proven", then the Vulgate wins, hands down, for being the longest running world-wide translation--it lasted so long, it even outlasted the language it was printed in. 1000 years plus....

It is so wonderful that we have the capabilities to have many versions to study today; some better than others. The KJV happens to be a great one, but it has one weakness and that is the fact that its language is also dying out like Latin. English is changing so much that in a few generations the KJV will be unreadable to those who are not taught to read and comprehend it (much like the Vulgate was by the Catholic Church for so many years).

Just a few facts to help clarify the murky water.

 

Thank you for the correction, Dr. Cassidy, you are right, as usual.

 

The Translators Revived. by Alexander McClure, 1858 ...

http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/translators/

 

I am not KJVO, only KJV preferred and I think the reasons for this are covered pretty well by Peter, though that is not an endorsement of everything in his post.

The fact is, from everything that I have read, that the overwhelming manuscript evidence seems to support the Textus Receptus (which is what KJV is based on), rather than the Alexandrian texts that most of the other modern translations are based on. To the more modern assemblers of the underlying text, older seems to mean preferred MSS for assembling their texts. However, older documents do not necessarily mean better documents IMHO. Also, I believe some of the Byzantine documents are at least as old as the oldest Alexandrian ones (which is what Nestle-Aland and Westcott-Horst rely on (I believe).

Older documents that have few copies indicate to me that they were not considered reliable at the time and therefore were not widely copied.

Does this mean that the translators of the KJV rendered a perfect translation? Not necessarily, and many will give a resounding no, but it does mean that the basis for the translation is more sound.

When I have a question, or cannot understand a passage as well as I would like to, I will look at how passages are rendered in other versions, but I hold the KJV in a higher regard than any of those for this reason.

 

Proof please? </font>[/QUOTE]Me! Circa 1972.

 

Do you have stats to back up those figures?

I am not sure how a version promotes missionaries.

 

You wish!

That is not true. No one has taught me to read and comprehend the KJB other than going to public school and the Holy Ghost.

It seems many would like to seprarate the Holy Ghost from understanding the Bible, seems yall like to forget about Him.

All you did is murky the water with your opinion.

As society digresses, the versions tout their "better understanding", but then that understanding would come from contradictory MSS.

We will always hold to the King James Bible, in total withstanding your opinions regarding the Bible.

As long as people think they can make others believe there is no English version perfect, but some of us just know better.

You think you know better, as if you're THE authority. You are not, the KJB is Authorized.

 

The problem with new versions is this: everytime I read them, it seems they become vague, not exactly as I understand the KJB.

I find that anything I believe in the KJB is backed up with other Scriptures; as Scripture defines Scripture, but that is not the case with new versions as they detract in context and though the doctrines are "still the same", much is omitted in key passages and then they are become less reliable.

If I had a ball of rubber bands and needed 6 red ones, I would go to the ball that had the most READ ones: the KJB. (not the one with a multitude of different color rubberbands/ MSS)

 

Must have something to do with the clarity of the call formed from the KJB!

 

And as of yet, no one has been able to provide any scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism. Just a lot of statements of preference and nonobjectivity.

It is clear that, while having a personal preference for a certain translation is perfectly permissible, it is abundantly clear that KJVOism is not scriptural doctrine. I fail to see why any discerning Christian would buy into it.

 

This thread was to discuss why the work of the KJV translators is held in higher regard.

A reason given is that it has promoted more missionaries than all of the other versions combined.

I am simply looked for documentation of this statement.

More missionaries were promoted by the KJV English Bible between 1611 and 2005 than all versions of all languages all over the world for almost 2000 years? I would sure like to see proof of this one.

 

If you go to bible1.Crosswalk.com and do a search on Wisdom 1:1 you will get a result.

I have in my possession 3 KJV bibles that were printed in 1611, 1639, and 1758. They all have the Apocryphas

Why were these books taken out of the Bible?

I understand they were taken out in the 1800s when the American Bible Society said they would produce low cost Bibles if they could remove these books. The powers that be said okay and it was done. Since then the ABS has put them back in some of their bibles. Is it true that Catholic dollars sit in the bank just a good as Protestant dollars?

I have heard the argument as well that the Jews did not recognize them as scripture either, but that was after the death of christ and in the same breath they claimed the New Testament contains zero inspired books and they added a curse to their daily prayers against anyone believeing in Christianity.

I also found this as well during a search:


Before we answer this question we need to make sure that we understand that the Old Testament existed long before the coming of Christ, and prior to their being a New Testament, the Old Testament was the Bible (that is why what we call the Old Testament the Jews call the Hebrew Bible, because according to them, there is no New Testament).

So the list of books that are contained in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) had to be put together in the same way that the Church had to put together the list of authoritative books that make up the New Testament.

Now, there exists 2 different canons of the Old Testament: the Palestinian Canon (the Protestant Old Testament) and the Alexandrian Canon (the Catholic Old Testament). The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) was written in Hebrew (imagine that) but as the Greek language became the more dominant language a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was created by 70 Jewish scholars between 250-125 B.C. (which is where we get the name Septuagint, Latin for 70).

People will often accuse the Catholic Church of adding books to the Bible...By the time that Christ was born, Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean world and so the Septuagint was very popular. Jesus would have been familiar with the Septuagint, along with the New Testament writers. In fact, the Septuagint was the Old Testament that the New Testament writers used as a reference when they wrote their individual books (any time they quoted the Old Testament it was the Septuagint that they were quoting from).

The Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) contains 46 books, but the Palestinian Canon only contains 39 books. The Palestinian Canon wasn’t put together until 100 A.D. Jewish rabbis rejected 7 of the books that were contained within the Alexandrian Canon (the Septuagint) because they could not find any Hebrew versions of these 7 books which were supposedly translated from Hebrew into Greek. The 7 books are: Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch (also parts of Daniel and Esther). And so, by the beginning of the 2nd century, there were 2 different canons of the Old Testament.

The Early Church used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. In fact, when the canon of the entire Bible (the Old and New Testaments) was established at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage 393-397 A.D. it was the 46 books of the Septuagint (the Alexandrian Canon) that was accepted as the authoritative list of Old Testament books, not the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon.

This canon of the Old Testament was accepted as the canon for 1500 years, until the Protestant Reformation. In 1529, Martin Luther (the leader of the Protestant Reformation) decided to use the Palestinian Canon (39 books) as his Old Testament canon on the same grounds as the Jewish rabbis in 100 A.D. (that they could find no Hebrew versions of the 7 books in question).

People will often accuse the Catholic Church of adding books to the Bible, but as you can see, it was a group of Jewish rabbis who removed books from the Bible in 100 A.D. and Martin Luther who accepted this removal of books and who in fact wanted to remove even more books from the Bible (the New Testament books of James and Revelation). And so, if your Bible contains the 46 books of the Septuagint as the Old Testament, then you are using the same Old Testament canon that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the Catholic Church has used for the past 2000 years.



This is frightening. Did we just take them to spite Catholics?