Textual History of the KJB

Quote taken from the web site's excerpt of the book.
__________________________________________________
The evidence we do have tells a lot about the work but not enough to clear up all mysteries about how the work was done: speculation and guesswork will be unavoidable as we try to establish just how the text was created.
__________________________________________________

Speculation and guesswork is not scholarly in my opinion. I will not be buying this book. It does not rouse my interest. It may for some, but not me.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Amen,AV1611Jim.
I'll second that!

 

Looking at the Table of Contents, I can understand why most KJVO wouldn't want the book.

Now the price, that's another issue altogether.

HankD

 

HankD;
False assumption. Did you even read my comments and reason for not being interested in this book? I didn't think so, else why on earth would you raise the tired spectre of KJVO?
Can't you guys just once make any replies to me without raising that stupid so-called disqualification of my input?

And why on earth is this in the versions debate forum in the first place? Could it be that this is just one more cow you guys want to sacrifice?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

OK let me put it another way:
Looking at the Table of Contents, I can understand why most KJVO wouldn't want the book For instance

See what I preceded this with

Because it has happened so many times to us the other way that we are shell-shock.


HankD

 

AVjim: "why on earth would you raise the tired spectre of KJVO?"

Apparently Norton himself raised this spectre regarding his book, as I quote from something posted on another discussion board:

(Euthymius): While I don't doubt the scholarship behind this project (and will not disagree with David Daniell), the item that makes me worry is this comment taken from the website blurb (since I know *who* will make *what* out of such a comment):

"...Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible for the new century that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation."

...Sounds like KJVO to me...

 

Ok Hank.
I apologize. You did NOT use my name. You DID use "most". What I did was a knee jerk reaction. Force of habit I suppose, considering the nature and direction of most threads in this forum. I am sorry brother.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim, the sad fact is; all translation is based on some guesswork and speculation. They are just being honest with the reader. There has not been a translation written to date that hasn't involved some guesswork and speculation as to "how is the best way to translate this phrase into English" or "Which manuscript do we use since there are many differing on this particular verse."

I can't say that being honest about how the translation process works would prevent me from using the Bible.

I also quote from the website:

"Using evidence as diverse as the manuscript work of the original translators, and the results of extensive computer collation of electronically held texts, Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible for the new century that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation. This book describes this fascinating background, explains Norton’s editorial principles and provides substantial lists and tables of variant readings. It will be indispensable to scholars of the English Bible, literature, and publishing history."

It sounds pretty scholarly to me.

 

AV1611Jim: why on earth would you raise the tired spectre of KJVO?

Because it's a false doctrine...PROVEN false, not just labeled false. Long as someone still defends it, people like me will be here to remind everyone it IS false. It's generally some KJVO who revives the KJVO myth.

 

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521771005

David Norton has recently re-edited the King James Bible
for Cambridge, and this book arises from his intensive work
on that project. Here he shows how the text of the most important
Bible in the English language was made, and how, for better
and for worse, it changed in the hands of printers
and editors until, in 1769, it became the text
we know today.

This confirms my previous statements on the matter.
A very English statement. IT does not mention that the
American UN-authorized vesions had a whole seperate history.
Remember 7 years after 1769 in 1776 the 13-Colonies in
America were in full rebellion aginst the AUTHORIZER of
the authorized version (AV). There is no way the Americans
would pay the royal tax on the King James Bible.
The Americans used their unauthorized versions.
As a side note: most American "editors" put the word
"Authorized" on their unauthorized rip-offs. I think they
though themselves that the version was authorized by a
good God and not an evil King.

 

av1611jim, thank you brother for your gracious post.

HankD

 

No prob. Bro.!


Many times, I am guilty of letting emotions get the best of me. Not just in this forum, but in everyday life. Though it sickens me, I keep doing it. Little by little I am getting victory. Thank you Lord.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

My only hopefully humble comment on this subject and "translation" work in general would be...why is it so hard for people who prescribe to modern textual criticism to concede that at some point in translation work the supposed wisdom of men ends...and the providence of a Holy God takes over to "protect and preserve" the resulting translation?I for one believe that that work of providence and protection is and was evident throughout the work of the KJV translators and every subsequent effort at updating IT(KJV)into the language of our day.JMO...fire away boys.

Greg Sr.

 

By the way...that also assumes that there have been some efforts to update the KJB that have fallen short of that standard.I personally think the NKJV is one of those efforts.JMO...maybe well-meaning...but short of the mark.Again...JMO

Greg Sr. (I'll recede back into my corner now)

 

Mr. Perry...How can you prove God favors ONLY the KJV and no other English version? Guesswork at best?

 

Roby...prior to my dad's recent passing I had a conversation with him(he was lost)regarding the Bible.I didn't push the KJV thing at him.Just that the Bible was the Word of God.Sadly,he didn't believe that and I don't know that he changed his mind before he passed.I hope so..my pastor had opportunity to clearly give him the gospel but thereafter he passed into unconciousness and never came out of it before he died.Anyway...during the conversation I had with him I simply told him that I did believe the Bible was God's Word and that that was a matter I accepted by FAITH and faith alone.I also told him that the faith by which I believed that was given to me BY GOD in answer to a sincere desire I had to want to know the TRUTH.I also believe that God gave me that desire as well.To you I would say that I can't PROVE what I believe regarding the KJV...only that I accept what I believe by FAITH.Faith and guesswork are NOT synonymous with one another.I have said in here before that I believe the evidence I have seen and read before regarding this matter.I have also said that I do not believe the evidence/arguments that you and your fellow adherents prescribe to.It is that simple and yet that complex at the same time.I approach what I accept and believe from the veiwpoint of FAITH...nothing more...nothing less.I am certain the Book I have IS the Word of God.For that reason alone(faith)I do not feel I have to ever question it or how it reads.God Bless You.

Greg Sr.

 

First, my condolences for you & yours for your dad.

Next...There is FAITH, believing in the unseen by that which is seen, and there's BLIND faith, believing the unseen without any supporting evidence at all.

I don't think any Baptist believes the KJV is NOT a valid Bible, but there's simply NOTHING to support the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV.

If you're KJVO by PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine. That's the ONLY valid excuse for being KJVO. But if one is KJVO(or any other one-versionist) strictly by FAITH, then it's BLIND faith, and not a real reason.

 

Sounds like 'double inspiration' to me. What makes you think that God would 'preserve' the KJV in a manner worthy of a supernatural act? To make your point even more absurd than it is as you have stated it, where was the 'perfectly preserved' English Bible before 1605-1611?? Your silly little KJVOnly beliefs astound me, but I'm not the one boasting in false beliefs and error. God did NOT superintend or 'preserve' (or, whatever you define it) any English translation, nor any translation in any language. The burden of proof is on the KJVonlyist to 'prove' his assertions of 'providential preservation'.

 

Roby...Thanks for your condolences...I do appreciate that.
As to the subject at hand I don't believe that my confidence in the KJV is blind faith.The concepts(or more correctly doctrines)of Inspiration or textual Preservation that I have faith in are demonstratable for me by the translation of the bible I hold in my hand.For you they are demonstratable by the multiplicity of the different translations of the bible that YOU hold in YOUR hand.We both say we have the Word of God.We simply disagree on the evidence that leads each of us to the conclusions we hold too.Your conclusions hold to the belief that no one translation can possibly be perfect in its entirety and that we must depend on methods of textual criticism to determine the truth and that as long as the basic doctrines taught in scripture are left intact,the exact "words" are not critical to the end result.That is where we disagree....the school of thought I adhere to believes the very "words" of scripture are perfect and critical to the integrity of the entire bible...not just the thoughts.That is where my dependence on faith comes into the picture and also where I believe that God supernaturally protects and preserves His Word from any possible corruption.While I Know this probably won't change your position,I just want you to know that I wish you no malice and it is with no ill will that I simply say that I believe that mine is the far more spiritually tenable position to take in that it doesn't place me in the position of having to ever criticize the scriptures...I have but to merely believe them and obey...that in itself is enough for any man to do.God Bless You.

Greg Sr.