To KJVOs, Does The Translator notes matter

[AntennaFarmer]

"What if?" means nothing. Give me facts.

Did I say it had to be a majority decision? If I did then perhaps I am wrong. So what? They arrived at a decision by whatever means. That decision is the text and not the notes.

A.F.

 

[Rippon]

"What if?" means nothing. Give me facts.

Did I say it had to be a majority decision? If I did then perhaps I am wrong. So what? They arrived at a decision by whatever means. That decision is the text and not the notes.

The decision to put a certain reading in the text was inspired of God -- or simply the decision of fallible men?

 

[Rippon]

"What if?" means nothing. Give me facts.

Did I say it had to be a majority decision? If I did then perhaps I am wrong. So what? They arrived at a decision by whatever means. That decision is the text and not the notes.

A.F.

I have a feeling that with many of the disputed texts where they listed alternate renderings -- if those marginal notes had been switched around KJVO folks would still be saying -- "Don't mess with the wording. If it made it to the actual text --that's all that counts." Hey,it was a human process -- the KJV didn't fall from the sky brand-spankin'-new.It wasn't a perfect production -- just as much as modern versions are not flawless.

Yet didn't the Paris and Blayney editions of 1762 and 1769 reverse some things?Didn't they at times put the text rendering in the margin and vice versa?Help me out here.My memory is foggy about this particular aspect.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Help me out here.My memory is foggy about this particular aspect.

It is your story. You tell it.

A.F.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The decision to put a certain reading in the text was inspired of God -- or simply the decision of fallible men?

About spewed. That IS the issue. Either it is God-breathed and perfect, or man-made and fallible. No middle ground!

Anybody who claims inspiration, perfection, God's errorless choice of a bunch of translators (any translators, any era - not just picking on baby-baptizing Anglicans) and a man-made document are dillusional and should be forced to live in Pensacola . . .

 

[Rippon]

About spewed. That IS the issue. Either it is God-breathed and perfect, or man-made and fallible. No middle ground!

Agreed.No middle ground is possible.

Anybody who claims inspiration, perfection, God's errorless choice of a bunch of translators (any translators, any era - not just picking on baby-baptizing Anglicans) and a man-made document are dillusional and should be forced to live in Pensacola . . .

"...and should be forced to live in Pensacola..." What a line. There is already an enclave there.Perhaps it needs more publicity.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

About spewed. That IS the issue. Either it is God-breathed and perfect, or man-made and fallible. No middle ground!

Anybody who claims inspiration, perfection, God's errorless choice of a bunch of translators (any translators, any era - not just picking on baby-baptizing Anglicans) and a man-made document are dillusional and should be forced to live in Pensacola . . .

Perhaps you may be presenting a false dilemma Dr. Bob.

As I see it you are arguing with Ruckman. I am not Ruckman. My opinions are my own. Why don't you try to have an actual discussion. If you check my posts you will see that what I actually said was quite limited.


...A.F...

 

[AntennaFarmer]

.......should be forced to live in Pensacola . . .

It is warmer in Pensacola than Casper I think.

...A.F...

 

[AntennaFarmer]

The decision to put a certain reading in the text was inspired of God -- or simply the decision of fallible men?

Please first answer me this: The decision to put certain words and thoughts in the text of the Holy Bible was inspired of God -- or simply the decision of fallible men? That is to say, how could God use fallible men (the Apostles and Prophets) to express his infallible Word?

And while you are at it: please explain how the perfect Son of God could be born into the imperfect form of a man.

(Feel free to use extra sheets as needed.)

A.F.

 

[Rippon]

Please first answer me this: The decision to put certain words and thoughts in the text of the Holy Bible was inspired of God -- or simply the decision of fallible men? That is to say, how could God use fallible men (the Apostles and Prophets) to express his infallible Word?

Of course the Lord used fallible men to pen His God-breathed Word.But only the originals were so inspired.The words chosen by the KJV team were not under the inspiration of God any more than Jerome's Vulgate was.Did the latter have any mistakes in the text?Of course.Do the KJVs have mistakes -- of course.The same principle applies.

When you try to insist that the KJV revisers were inspired in their task you are in big error yourself.The autographs alone were under the direct inspiration of God.

And I really don't believe in secondary inspiration or derivative inspiration.There are many God-honoring translations but not scripturally inspired ones.

Now the Lord did indeed bless the KJV.It was under His hand that it was brought about.But the Lord has blessed countless versions in many languages.There is nothing singular about the KJV in that respect.

 

[Logos1560]

"What if?" means nothing. Give me facts.

Did I say it had to be a majority decision? If I did then perhaps I am wrong. So what? They arrived at a decision by whatever means. That decision is the text and not the notes.

A.F.

There is documented evidence that KJV translators disagreed with some of those decisions and with the means by which they were made. As already mentioned, Miles Smith, a KJV translator who last when over the text with Thomas Bilson, is said to have reported that Archbishop Richard Bancroft made 14 changes that the KJV translators had not agreed upon.

Another KJV translator is also said to have maintained that changes were made. Charles Butterworth wrote: "Dr. Bret [Richard Brett, a KJV translator] reported that the Bps [bishops] altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 213). KJV-only author Laurence Vance affirmed: “A manuscript about the translators in the Lambeth Palace Library, apparently written about 1650, records that Richard Brett (1567-1637), a translator of the Oxford Old Testament company, reported that ‘the Bps. altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon: He had a note of the places’” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Opfell also confirmed that Brett "complained that the bishops had altered many places on which the members of the company had agreed" (KJB Translators, p. 62). Opfell maintained that “a man with whom [Miles] Smith often conferred was Richard Brett” (Ibid.). Brett and Smith had been part of the same Oxford group of O. T. translators. These statements said to be from Richard Brett distinguish between those considered translators which included some bishops and those considered only bishops but not translators.

 

[Logos1560]

Yet didn't the Paris and Blayney editions of 1762 and 1769 reverse some things?Didn't they at times put the text rendering in the margin and vice versa?

I am not aware that the 1762 and 1769 editions took any renderings out of the margin and put them in the text, but I have not checked that possibility. The later editors of KJV editions did change a number of renderings in the 1611 edition from the rendering that the KJV translators chose to follow in the Bishops' Bible to a rendering that was in the 1560 Geneva Bible in a number of places.

The 1762 and 1769 editions of the KJV did add a few textual marginal notes. The 1762 standard Cambridge edition of the KJV is said to have added 15 more textual marginal notes while the 1769 standard Oxford edition is said to have added at least one more.

John Eadie maintained that sometimes “the margin of the Bishops’ [Bible] [becomes] the text of the Authorized, as in Galatians 6:12, 2 Peter 1:20” (English Bible, II, p. 221). The marginal note in a 1595 edition of the Bishops’ at Galatians 6:12 for “carnally” in its text is “Or, in the flesh.” This same Bishops’ edition’s marginal note for “motion” in its text at 2 Peter 1:20 is “or, interpretation.” The 1560 Geneva Bible did have “in the flesh” in its text at Galatians 6:12 so that the 1611 KJV could have been following it. Ward Allen also referred to “words from the margin of the Bishops’ Bible which have influenced the king’s translators,” and he gave three examples (Coming, p. 45). The marginal note of the 1560 Geneva Bible at Deuteronomy 3:17 [“Or Ashdoth-Pisgah”] seems to have become the text of the 1611 KJV while the marginal note of the 1611 [“Or under the springs of Pisgah, or the hill”] seems to have come from the text of both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible.

 

[HankD]

No, not to me. It doesn't matter that they were Church of England either.

From the title: "To KJVOs, Does The Translator notes matter?" The notes matter. However, the translation is the text, not the notes.

A.F.

And it was the Church of England in 1613 which started an amending and correction process of the text (to their credit) which lasted for two centuries.

This destroys the KJVO argument that the 1611 archetype text was perfect as the CoE who created the text initiated this correction process.

One might say that the flaws were only spelling errors and/or insignificant changes (a few of which were not). However this is contrary to the fact that God was/is not capable of error and in fact did not allow even the smallest mistake to flow through the human authors into the inspired text of the original autographs.

Flaws were introduced by the translators. To their credit they began a correction process which IMO has given us the best translation of the Traditional (or Received) Text in English (howbeit in 17th century English).

The NKJV enhances the AV with modern English.

HankD

 

[Havensdad]

And it was the Church of England in 1613 which started an amending and correction process of the text (to their credit) which lasted for two centuries.

This destroys the KJVO argument that the 1611 archetype text was perfect as the CoE who created the text initiated this correction process.

One might say that the flaws were only spelling errors and/or insignificant changes (a few of which were not). However this is contrary to the fact that God was/is not capable of error and in fact did not allow even the smallest mistake to flow through the human authors into the inspired text of the original autographs.

Flaws were introduced by the translators. To their credit they began a correction process which IMO has given us the best translation of the Traditional (or Received) Text in English (howbeit in 17th century English).

The NKJV enhances the AV with modern English.

HankD

This is an excellent point. Jesus made it clear that not one "iota" would be changed. An "iota", as most here know, is a letter of the Greek alphabet (roughly equivalent to an English "I"). In other words, if there was so much as one spelling error, it could NOT be the "perfect" word of God: just a translation of God's word, which introduced errors in translation.

 

[Salamander]

Mocking and showing the error of people who hold to unbiblical ideas is part of the discussion here.

Your compassion and zeal for making sure the lost world knows your love for the brethren is, well, stupendous!:tongue3:

Making fun or denigrating ANY good translation of God's inspired Word is not appropriate.

Although I agree with your premise, this is not exactly true for everyone who promotes modern versions.

 

[Salamander]

I'd really like to agree with you on this point, sal, but I can't. "KJVO"ers may not say the exact words that "modern versions are completely devoid of the word of God", but I've heard plenty of teaching where a "KJVO"er says that since this verse or that verse in a MV isn't exactly like the KJV, it means that that particular MV isn't the word of God. Not exact words to be sure, but the meaning is the same. I daresay you'd never hear some of the "KJVO"ers I've listened to so much as vaguely hint that the Word of God is found in a MV. Frankly, I'm surprised that you suggested it.

"God is love" is found in many versions.

What is certainly true is when the words deviate to cause confusion which warrants the claim against a version, it is not a complete word of God.

The systematic approach should always to be sure to maintain the word of God, complete and intact. The KJB does just this.

The translators knew this and humbly expressed it.

 

[Salamander]

My impression from previous interaction with the quoted poster is that he believes that MV's contain the Word of God like manner as commentary does.

And the Bible is the Canon of Scripture, but deviations and departures from Scripture are what comprise a commentary.

What is condescending is your referral made out as if I am calling anything but the KJB a commentary. Gross error.

My messages expound upon the word of God as I make commentary. A "Commentary", however exhaustive is just a commentary, not a Bible.

Some versions are only commentaries according to a view, or views, of individuals, or a group of individuals.

The NWT translations does contain the words of God but limited to correct renderings, wouldn't you agree? But the deviations are what is objected to and I am CERTAIN you would agree there.

I can show a jw that Jehovah is "The Pierced One", they often agree. Then I show them that Jesus is the One they shall look upon whom they have pierced, they JUMP! Yet the word of God in that particular case is extant, yet other verses found in the NWT depart from truth, that portion then is a commentary.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

When I first joined the BB in 2001 there were what I and others called Radical KJVO adherents posting on the BB.

They did not believe the translators notes were inspired but they did not believe that the translators had introduced any flaws into the English text of the AV.

They believed that the 1611 English corrects the Greek and Hebrew.

They believed in a kind of "double-inspiration" and "advanced revelation" which only one of their leaders is/was able to discern.

They believed that the 1611 is a perfect English text without error.

They did not know that the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 First Edition of the AV or that the translators had Apocryphal readings in the list of "Daily Scripture Readings" and Scripture cross references (in the body of the text).

They did not know that the 1611 First Edition contained footnotes of alternative translations of various words and passages provided by the translators.

And many other things.

They had a battle cry "Whatever is different is not the same" until they found out about the several editions and revisions of the AV.

There were several other beliefs (most of which were shattered) and various war-cries.

Many were vulgar and venemous in their insults.
One individual posted page after page of eternal perdition upon our heads.

On the other hand, some of them responded positively to the corrections and challenges they were given and became more moderate in their views.


HankD

Moderate or just more sure?

I disagree with "their vulgar and venomous" behaviour. Trying to teach some one so directly opposed to the truth cannot be accomplished with such vitriole, it takes "kid's gloves".:smilewinkgrin:

I'll agree that anyone can read any version they wish, but with a comprehensive study it is shown the KJB is without equal. We're trying to lead others into a more pleasant and fruitful venture, NOT being subverted into apostacy and certain ruin.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

The KJV translators considered their marginal notes to be an important part of their work. In the General Preface to his commentary, Adam Clarke observed: "Our conscientious translators, not being able in several cases to determine which of two meanings borne by a word, or which of two words is found in different copies, should be admitted into the text, adopted the measure of receiving both, placing one in the margin and the other in the text, thus leaving the reader at liberty to adopt either, both of which in their
apprehension stood nearly in the same authority. On this very account the marginal readings are essential to our version, and I have found, on collating many of them with the originals, that those in the margin are to be preferred to those in the text in the proportion of at least eight to ten" (I, p. 21). Clarke indicated that those editions of the KJV that omitted the marginal notes of the KJV translators were leaving out an essential part of their work. Glenn Conjurske also pointed out that the marginal notes “formed an integral part of the King James Version of 1611” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1992, p. 227).

And the "integral part" was so their colleges wouldn't have too much complaint about the work, yet they did NOT include their notes in the text as another poster has said. Makes alot of difference.

My objection would lean more towards their notes being in the margin caused some harm, but not always.

 

[Salamander]

Dr Bob, I certainly meant no respect to the very fine translation of the KJV.
It is just that I have had some rather frustrating conversations recently with KJVO proponents where I have been told that a) it is KJB, and also that any place that the KJV has no support in the manuscript tradition that there must have been a manuscript at SOME point that matched the KJV.
To me this is ignoring the facts.

Which set of "facts"?