Too bad you weren't there to keep those poor translators from screwing up their title page, making it look like they used both original toungues, and former translations like any sincere committee would have done.
You failed to show or demonstrate that the KJV translators were the ones responsible for what was put on the title page of the 1611. Evidently, you are merely assuming what you claim.
J. R. Dore observed: “In fact, no dependence can be put on the titles of many Bibles and Testaments: often printers made inaccurate statements from ignorance; but in other cases the title page was composed in order to sell the book, without any regard to truth” (
Old Bibles, p. 56). Dore again commented: “Unfortunately the title pages of Bibles and Testaments can seldom be replied on to furnish truthful information” (p. 55). Dore asserted: “It appears as if
in many early printed books the publisher, and not the author drew up the title page, and put on them not a true description of the book, but what he thought most likely to cause the volume to be purchased” (p. 143).
Yes, the makers of the KJV used both: consulting both the original language texts and the pre-1611 English Bibles, but they did not do what the title page asserts. No one claimed that the makers of the KJV did not make use of original language texts. 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.
As already properly pointed out, 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.”
Sixty percent or more of the KJV is not "newly translated" since it had already been translated earlier that way in the pre-1611 English Bibles. Perhaps you 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."
The preface doesn't contradict the title page, you probably can't understand either.
Where does the preface to the 1611 assert that the KJV was "newly translated" [that it was more a new translation than a revision of the earlier English Bibles]?
