Featured Where is God's preserved word?

Actually it is very unlikely that the makers of the KJV were responsible for what was stated on the title page. The publishers or printers were usually responsible for what was claimed on the title page.

The title page claim that the KJV was "newly translated" conflicts with what the makers of the KJV themselves asserted in their preface that their Bible was not a new translation but was rather a revision of the early English Bibles. In their preface, the makers of the KJV asserted: "Truly (good Christian readers) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation."

The title page in effect asserts that the KJV was an original new translation of the original languages texts compared to the earlier English Bibles. It was actually the other way around. The KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles compared to the original language texts.

 

Right, so the title page is wrong. Got it. Glad you showed up, 400 years later to clear that up.

I'm supposed to take your word for that, why?

 

A quote from the link above

Steve Van Nattan: It is important to learn if your pastor or Bible teacher believes the King James Bible is as miraculously preserved in 1611 in English as it was inspired when the Holy Ghost gave it to the New Testament writers. Anyone who does not believe in miraculous preservation of the King James Bible is a hireling and should be avoided and marked as heretic.

And this is based on???

 

You are a pretentious little guy,aren't you?

As I said,the second phrase was correct --the first phrase was not. It was true that former translations were diligently compared and revised. A revision of earlier versions was undergone --not a brand new enterprise from scratch.

The preface by Myles (or Miles) Smith contradicts the publisher's blurb. Go with what Mr. Smith said. Have you even read the preface?

 

All Baptists believe GOD preserved His word, but not all Baptists are KJVO. So, your 'preservation' thingie falls flat on its snoot.

TRUTH IS is, you DARE NOT face the FACT that the KJVO myth has absolutely *NO* Scriptural support, is entirely MAN-MADE, and is derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by two dishonest authors, a set of FACTS that renders the KJVO myth stillborn. You've even quoted from one of them, Dr. D. O. Fuller's Which Bible? And your buddy "Prophet" tried to revive the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie", which comes straight outta 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Wilkinson's goof-filled book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the founding stone of the KJVO myth. Why should I, or anyone else here, believe a word either of you say when you quote from such dubious sources?

Yep, you liketa ASK questions, but come up three fries shorta a Happy Meal when it comesta ANSWERING questions.

 

"As I said"
"little guy"
"Have you EVEN read the preface?"

No condescension here, no sirree, bobby. Just Riponeveryone lining out one of the peons.

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.

The preface doesn't contradict the title page, you probably can't understand either. (How's that for attitude? Can i be an honorary Calvinist?, Ruckmanite, maybe?)

 

Your incessant ad hominem arguments say more about you than they do about anything else. While usually soft answers turn away wrath, harsh ones provoke it. And then there is something even worse, pejorative comments with the absence of any answers at all!

 

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."

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]?

 

"Ad hominem" has a meaning.